The Top 10 Cold-Case Christianity Videos from 2016

It’s that time of year again: the time for “Top Ten” lists of one kind or another. In my last post I listed the top ten Cold-Case Christianity articles of 2016. This time around I’m offering the ten most popular videos hosted here on our website (and on our YouTube page where you can join 3,822 weekly subscribers who have viewed our videos 350,310 times). I’ve listed the videos in reverse order (for dramatic effect):

Cold-Case Christianity Video #10:
Why Christians Need to Understand the Nature of Circumstantial Evidence
How are these two forms of evidence used in criminal trials, and what can we learn from their use to help us make the case for Christianity?

continue reading

The Top 10 Cold-Case Christianity Articles from 2016

Thanks to all of you for another great year at ColdCaseChristianity.com. Our readership continues to grow as we have increased our unique monthly visitors by over 30% since January. This year I also spoke at over 50 events nationally (giving well over 200 talks), we increased our viewership on NRBtv with 40 new episodes, and conducted nearly 50 radio and television interviews. In addition to this, I had a modest role in God’s Not Dead 2, and Susie and I finished Cold-Case Christianity for Kids (and the accompanying Academy). In 2017, we’ll publish the final book in our Christian Case Making trilogy (Forensic Faith), and God’s Crime Scene for Kids will publish in October. I’ll also be working on a project with Sean McDowell and expect to speak at another 50-60 events. I’m already exhausted and we’re still a week away form 2017! So, in the interim, here are the 10 most popular articles from 2016:

The 10th Most Popular Article of 2016:
Can We Trust the Gospels, Even If They Were Transmitted Orally?
How early were the Gospels written, and how was the material transmitted prior to being documented by the gospel eyewitnesses?

The 9th Most Popular Article of 2016:
Jesus Is A Myth, Just Like President Kennedy
If we’re prepared to say Jesus is a myth just because he shares a few characteristics, we better be ready to say president John F. Kennedy was also a myth.

The 8th Most Popular Article of 2016:
Investigating Bart Ehrman’s Top Ten Troublesome Bible Verses
A look at Bart Ehrman’s list of troublesome verses in an effort to examine how they impact the reliability of the New Testament text.

The 7th Most Popular Article of 2016:
The Case for Christianity According to a 7th Grader
Special guest post by Annie Olson, a 7th grader who wrote this as her final paper in a rhetoric class.

The 6th Most Popular Article of 2016:
The Apostles Wrote the Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts
A straightforward reading of the Book of Acts reveals the apostles saw themselves as eyewitnesses.

The 5th Most Popular Article of 2016:
The Verse the Culture Misquotes Most Regularly in an Effort to Quiet Christians
Does Jesus' command in Matthew 7:1 prevent Christians from judging others? What did Jesus mean when he said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged"?

The 4th Most Popular Article of 2016:
Six Ways Christians Can Respond to the Growing Police Dilemma
In this article, I’d like to outline six things each of us, as citizens and Christians, can do to respond to the growing dilemma.

The 3rd Most Popular Article of 2016:
Four Self-Refuting Statements Heard on College Campuses Across America
You might be surprised how often professors are prone to saying something self-refuting.

The 2nd Most Popular Article of 2016:
UPDATED: Are Young People Really Leaving Christianity?
Some deny the flight of young people altogether, but the growing statistics should alarm us enough as Church leaders to do something about the dilemma.

The Most Popular Article of 2016:
Six Things That May Change the Way You Think About Police Officers
Here are six important things everyone should keep in mind (and prayer) when assessing the actions of police officers in our country.

continue reading

Rapid Response: “The Gospels Are Unreliable”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone made the following claim: “Even if the events recorded in the Gospels came from eyewitness accounts, why should we trust what eyewitnesses tell us? Even modern-day witnesses are notoriously unreliable and are often wrong about what they claim to have seen. Why should we trust ancient eyewitness accounts?” How would you respond to such an objection? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

continue reading

Rapid Response: “You Can’t Be Certain About the Claims of Christianity”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone made the following statement: “No one can be absolutely certain about ancient historical claims, and the Bible can’t be proven beyond a possible doubt. The claims of Christianity are dramatic and critical. If you want me to believe these kinds of claims you’d have to be able to prove them beyond any doubt.” How would you respond to such a statement? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

continue reading

Rapid Response: “The Gospels Have Been Altered”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone made the following claim: “I can’t believe what the Gospels say because they were altered over the years.” How would you respond to such an objection? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

“I understand the objection, because that was one of my first doubts as a skeptic. I held two suspicions as a committed atheist (I didn’t examine the Gospels until I was in my thirties). First, I didn’t think the Gospels were written early in history, because they contained so many miraculous stories. I was a committed philosophical naturalist and I rejected miracles. So, I figured the Gospels must have been written late in history, after all the people who knew the truth about Jesus were already dead and gone. Secondly, even if the Gospels were written early, I suspected the supernatural elements were inserted later. I believed the earliest versions of the Gospel accounts were probably much less supernatural. Maybe, in the first versions of the story, Jesus was a simple guy who was a good teacher, but not a miracle worker. He didn't walk on water and didn't rise from the dead; all those elements, in my opinion, were inserted later.

continue reading

Why Making a Case for the Bible Is More Important Than Arguing About Politics

We’ve just experienced an unprecedentedly contentious and polarizing political season. Throughout this time, I’ve been tempted to enter the fray, especially on social media, where I’ve observed several heated exchanges between my friends and family members. I refrained from commenting or arguing about politics, however, and a few of my followers have asked why I’ve been so silent on the issues that seem to divide our nation. It’s not that I don’t have a view I would like to share, and it’s not that I feel incompetent to express my views. I simply understand the real battle: If everyone held an accurately informed Christian worldview, the number (and degree) of disputes over the issues facing our country would be dramatically reduced. In other words, if people took the Bible as seriously as they took their political positions, we’d probably agree on almost everything.

If you’re in disagreement with an unbelieving friend or family member, you shouldn’t be surprised. They probably reject the Bible (and what it teaches) altogether. If you’re in disagreement with a believing friend or family member, you also shouldn’t be surprised. They may not take their Bible any more seriously than an unbeliever. They may not be reading it, or might not be reading it seriously enough to develop an accurately informed Christian worldview. In either case, our disagreements are rooted in our view of the Bible; if we disagree, it’s because we either don’t understand or don’t accept what the Bible teaches.

That’s why I spend more time making the case for the reliability of the Bible to unbelievers, and the correct interpretation of the Bible to believers, than I do arguing about our respective social. Moral or political views. If my goal is agreement, it’s more important to address the cause of our disagreement than the disagreement itself. It all comes down to helping people understand why it’s important to take the Bible seriously:

continue reading

Rapid Response: “Evil Disproves the Existence of God”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone said, “If God is both all-loving and all-powerful, why does He allow evil things to happen? Doesn’t the mere presence of evil disprove the existence of God?” How would you respond to such a claim? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

“In criminal trials, evidence can either inculpate or exculpate a suspect. Inculpating evidence points toward a suspect’s involvement. Exculpating evidence, on the other hand, points away from the suspect’s involvement. So, the real question here is this: Does the presence of evil, either natural or moral evil, exculpate God as the best suspect for the creation of the universe? After all, if there's an all-powerful, all-loving God, why could He allow evil to exist? Either He's not all-powerful (so He can't stop it), or He's not all-loving (He doesn’t want to stop it), or presence of evil demonstrates that He doesn't exist at all.

continue reading

Rapid Response: “We Don’t Need God to Explain the Beginning of the Universe”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone said, “Christians claim God created the universe, but modern science explains the origin of the universe. God is not needed to order to explain how the universe came into existence.” How would you respond to such a claim? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

“As a detective, I have a goal at every crime scene. It’s my job to explain how each piece of evidence appeared in the scene. Can I explain it from inside the room, or do I have to go outside the room for an explanation? Just as importantly, I must ask the question: ‘Why did the crime occur here in the first place?’ If we examine the universe like a crime scene, we have a similar responsibility. Can we explain the evidence in the cosmos by staying ‘inside the room’ of the natural universe, or must we go ‘outside the room’ for a better explanation? And just as importantly, we must ask a similar question about the ‘crime scene’ itself: ‘How did the universe come into being, and why is the evidence here in the first place?’

continue reading

Rapid Response: “We Don’t Need God to Explain the Existence of Free Agency”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone said, “Christians describe God as a Divine Mind who creates humans in his own image with consciousness and free will. But you don’t need God to account for the kind of free agency Christian describe. Free will can be explained from an atheistic perspective.” How would you respond to such a claim? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

continue reading

Rapid Response: “The Appearance of Design in Biology Does Not Require an Intelligent Designer”

In our Rapid Response series, we tackle common concerns about (and objections to) the Christian worldview by providing short, conversational responses. These posts are designed to model what our answers might look like in a one-on-one setting, while talking to a friend or family member. Imagine if someone said, “Believers sometimes point to the appearance of design in biology as evidence of an Intelligent Designer, but natural forces can account for what we see in biology without the involvement of any intelligent Creator.” How would you respond to such a claim? Here is a conversational example of how I recently replied:

“You know, even adamant atheists like evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, candidly admit that the science of biology is an effort to explain the ‘appearance of design,’ even though they still reject the existence of a Divine Designer. Non-believers like Dawkins stipulate (a term we use in criminal trials) to the appearance of design, yet fail to provide an adequate cause for this appearance. It’s reasonable for us to infer intelligent design if we see the attributes of design that can only be explained by the involvement of an intelligent designer, and I think there are eight attributes we can identify in any intelligently designed object. When (1) an object cannot be explained by chance events, (2) resembles other objects we know were intelligently designed, (3) displays high levels of sophistication and complexity, (4) requires information in order to come into existence, (5) displays evidence of goal direction, (6) cannot be explained as the result of natural law alone, (7) demonstrates a level of irreducible complexity and (8) displays evidence of decision making, it’s fair and reasonable to infer an intelligent designer was involved in its creation.

I know that’s a mouthful, but when we examine this cumulative case related to any object we see in our environment (including biological organisms), we can properly conclude that the object or organism was created by an intelligent creator. You don’t even need all eight attributes to be present to infer a designer. Think about a bird’s nest, for example. You might only identify six of the eight attributes present in the nest (you may not find evidence of informational dependency or irreducible complexity), but when presented with the nest, you’d be foolish to argue against the existence of intelligent birds, because the other six attributes point to the involvement of an intelligent creator.

Now let’s consider the ‘icon’ of the Intelligent Design movement, the biological micro-machine described by bio-chemist, Michael Behe, known as the bacterial flagellum. There are tons of similar examples in biology, but this little rotary motor is still an excellent example of deign in biology. All eight attributes of design are present in this motor, and even if two or three of these attributes were disputable, there would still be more than enough (just like the bird’s nest) to infer the existence of an Intelligent Designer. While atheist scientists continue to try to provide an evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum, they’ve been unable to explain these attributes (especially the necessity of information in the genome that guides the process of assembly). The information in DNA requires an intelligent source, because we can’t find a single example in the history of science (or the history of the universe) in which information comes from anything other than intelligence.

For many unbelievers, the existence of an Intelligent Designer is problematic. If there is an Intelligent Creator, this Creator would likely be interested in us as His creations, and He may even have expectations of us. I think a lot of us reject the ‘appearance of a design’ because we don't like the idea that this Designer might want to be involved in (and have authority over) our own lives. But the existence of an Intelligent Designer is obvious in biology, not just because naturalism fails to explain the existence of design attributes, but because the cumulative evidence points most reasonably to an Intelligent Creator.  It’s up to us how we respond to this evidence and the existence of the Designer who accounts for it.”

continue reading
Syndicate content
»  Become a Fan or Friend of this Blogger
About
J. Warner Wallace is a cold-case homicide detective, Christian case maker and author of Cold-Case Christianity and God's Crime Scene


Media