Are there contradictions between the gospel accounts? If so, how can we trust the central tenet of Christianity--the Resurrection of Jesus? J. Warner Wallace returns to share how he used his skill set as a detective to investigate the claims of the New Testament gospels and compares his findings to those of atheist/agnostic New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman.Together, Frank and Jim answer questions like:What's necessary to prove an event occurred in the past?Why weren't first-century historians bothered by textual differences found in the Gospels?Why is it better to have four different gospel accounts vs. one harmonization?Why would God allow these textual differences?What surprised Jim the most the first time he read the Gospels as an atheist?Why do detectives separate eyewitnesses?When doing detective work, why does Jim prefer it when the stories are "messy"?Does the evidence always determine the verdict? In other words, why do Jim and Bart come to different conclusions when it comes to the Resurrection of Jesus?Why is bias against the supernatural a double-standard for materialist atheists?What's the best way to test an eyewitness?If the Gospels are contradictory and can’t be trusted, why do critics like Erhman conclude that much of the New Testament is true and that the disciples really believed they saw the resurrected Jesus?How are atheists disagreeing with themselves and agreeing with Christians when it comes to alternative explanations for the resurrection?And so much more! If you normally listen to podcasts on 2x speed you may need to slow it down for this one and take some notes!Resources mentioned during the episode:Jim's website - https://coldcasechristianity.com/Cold Case Christianity - https://a.co/d/dABS4uACase Files: Murder & Meaning - https://casefilesgraphicnovel.com/

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related