J. Warner Wallace DOES NOT understand Jesus’ Apostles. You NEED the whole story.

Summary

The script critiques Detective Jay Warner Wallace’s argument in his book *Cold Case Christianity* that the apostles of Jesus had nothing to gain by preaching the gospel. The author challenges Wallace’s claims, highlighting that the apostles benefited from their role in spreading Jesus’s resurrection story, both in terms of power and financial gain. Using New Testament references, the script underscores how the apostles went from being humble servants to church administrators. The author also accuses Wallace of omitting key facts to mislead his Christian audience, specifically regarding the apostles’ reliance on church funds. The overall argument emphasizes the apostles' personal motivations behind their actions and questions Wallace’s credibility.

Takeaways

• 😀 Detective Jay Warner Wallace argues that the apostles had nothing to gain from preaching the resurrection of Jesus, but the script challenges this notion.
• 😀 The apostles’ motivations, particularly around power and status, are highlighted as key factors in their actions and claims.
• 😀 The apostles’ financial dependence on the church, as evidenced in Paul's letters, contradicts Wallace’s claim that they had no reason to exaggerate or lie.
• 😀 There is evidence that the apostles benefited from their ministry, including social status and financial support, contrary to Wallace’s portrayal.
• 😀 The apostles were often depicted as arguing about power, with significant episodes like the dispute over who would be greatest, suggesting ambitions for influence.
• 😀 The script critiques Wallace’s selective use of the New Testament, accusing him of hiding key verses that contradict his arguments about the apostles’ motivations.
• 😀 The apostles' transformation from humble servants to church leaders is seen as an example of their increasing power and influence.
• 😀 The story of Ananias and Sapphira is used to illustrate the power dynamics in the early church and the apostles’ role in controlling wealth.
• 😀 Paul’s letters indicate that the apostles were supported financially by the church, raising questions about their motives and whether financial gain was involved in their claims.
• 😀 Detective Wallace’s conduct is critiqued for not addressing the full scope of evidence, especially in terms of the financial benefits the apostles might have had.
• 😀 The script emphasizes that motivations for lying, such as financial greed, power, and lust, are central to understanding why the apostles might have exaggerated their experiences.

Q & A

What is the main argument that detective Jay Warner Wallace makes regarding the apostles' motivations?

Detective Wallace argues that the apostles had nothing to gain by preaching the gospel and making claims about the resurrection of Jesus. He claims that their actions were not motivated by financial gain, sexual desire, or the pursuit of power.

How does the script challenge Wallace’s argument about the apostles’ motivations?

The script challenges Wallace's argument by suggesting that the apostles did in fact benefit from the crucifixion and resurrection stories, both financially and in terms of power and prestige, which could have influenced their actions and decisions.

What evidence is presented in the script to suggest that the apostles might have gained power after Jesus' death?

The script cites the apostles' transition from humble servants to church administrators, as seen in Acts 6:2-4, where they delegate responsibilities to others, indicating a shift in their roles from lowly servants to figures of authority within the church.

How does the script critique the portrayal of the apostles in the New Testament?

The script critiques the portrayal of the apostles as self-sacrificial and humble by highlighting moments where they argue about power and prestige, such as at the Last Supper, and instances where they show reluctance to serve others, like in the feeding of the 5,000.

What is the significance of the story of Ananias and Sapphira in the script?

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is used to highlight the apostles' potential for hypocrisy and power-seeking behavior. The couple's attempt to withhold money from the church is punished severely, emphasizing the apostles' control over financial matters and the fear they instilled in the community.

How does the script interpret the apostle Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 9?

The script argues that Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 9 suggest that the apostles were financially supported by the church, which could have made them dependent on tithes and thus motivated to exaggerate or lie to grow the church and secure their livelihood.

What is meant by the phrase 'hiding the ball' in relation to Detective Wallace's arguments?

'Hiding the ball' refers to the practice of deliberately withholding information that could undermine a case. The script accuses Wallace of omitting key verses from 1 Corinthians 9 that show the apostles' financial dependence on the church, which could influence their motivations.

Why does the script consider the apostles' financial dependence a motive for exaggeration or lying?

The script suggests that because the apostles relied on church tithes for their livelihood, they might have been motivated to exaggerate or embellish stories, such as the resurrection, to grow the church and increase tithing, thus ensuring their financial stability.

What is the overall conclusion the script reaches about the apostles' motivations?

The script concludes that the apostles may have been motivated by a combination of financial gain, relational motivations, and the pursuit of power, which challenges the notion that they had no personal incentive to lie about Jesus’ resurrection.

How does the script differentiate between detectives and Christian apologists like Wallace?

The script compares Wallace to a 'desk cop' who avoids public debates and only engages with supporters in safe environments, unlike street cops who confront real challenges. This is used to criticize Wallace for not engaging in public debates about his claims.