This is probably the best classical apologetic book I have read. It is interesting and informative. What sets it apart from other books on apologetics is it is written from the prospective of a homicide detective. It is like CSI meets R.C. Sproul. That is my kind of book!I truly enjoyed this book. Each chapter consists of true crime solving stories and how the same techniques can be used to prove both the Bible and Christianity are true. He moves from the Historical Jesus to how the scriptures were preserved. He also spends time showing how the Gospels were written earlier than the Liberal would admit. He uses logic to discredit the Liberal at every turn.
Many people today see Christianity as naive and silly, but the historical faith is more than a fairy tale - it it true. There is hard evidence for it.
Some of the criticism against Christianity is our own fault. For years I have heard many well-meaning preachers say not to use your mind, it will only lead you astray. Now why would God give us a brain if we were not supposed to use it. God created logic. He never contradicts logic. When the bible say the wisdom of God is foolishness, it is saying that God is so much smarter than man that they think He is foolish because they can not understand.
Wallace truly uses his mind in this book and his writing is so good, it feels like I am watching an episode of Castle or CSI.
This book was a great read and I highly recommend it to both new and seasoned Christians alike.
I give it 5 out of 5 stars.
*I received this book, free of charge, from David C Cook and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Mr. Wallace writes an interesting book comparing murder mysteries with the alleged resurrection of Jesus, but his arguments fall flat.
ReplyDeleteMr. Wallace in chapter two: More recently, some skeptics have offered the theory that one or two of the disciples had a vision of the risen Christ and then convinced the others that these spiritual sighting were legitimate. They argue that additional sightings simply came as a response to the intense influence of the first visions.
Skeptic: Now we are getting somewhere! This is what I believe and what many skeptical scholars believe probably gave rise to the early Christian Resurrection belief.
Mr. Wallace: This fails to explain the empty tomb and offers an explanation of the resurrection observations that is inconsistent with the biblical record.
Skeptic: Maybe there was no empty tomb; a significant number of scholars doubt its historicity; and, Mr. Wallace is assuming that the detailed appearance stories in the Gospels are accurate historical facts…the very issue that is in question!
Mr. Wallace: It is unusual to have a persuasive witness influence the beliefs of other eyewitnesses. I’ve investigated a number of murders in which one emphatic witness has persuaded others that something occurred, even though the other witnesses weren’t even present to see the event for themselves. But these persuaded witnesses were easily distinguished from the one who persuaded them once I began to ask for their account of what happened.
Skeptic: Wow! Mr. Wallace has just stated that this naturalistic explanation is not only plausible but he has given evidence that he has experienced this very phenomenon himself when dealing with witnesses in his police investigations! It is possible to influence the testimony of others that they have seen something…even if they weren’t even present at the scene!!!
Mr. Wallace has just proven the skeptic's case: When people are involved in emotionally-charged situations, such as a murder or the sudden, unexpected, violent death of a friend, their perceptions and memories can be greatly affected. If the apostle Peter, for instance, had a vivid dream (or trance) in which he believed that Jesus had appeared to him in the flesh, talked to him, and even touched him, the very persuasive Peter may well have been able to convince his emotionally exhausted, despondent fellow disciples into believing that their beloved leader and friend was alive again…just as Mr. Wallace’s “emphatic” witness was able to persuade “persuadable” witnesses to see something that they had never seen!!!
easily distinguished from the one who persuaded them once I began to ask for their account of what happened.
ReplyDelete