To say that I’m not a fan of J. Warner Wallace would be an understatement. As far as I’m concerned, he and I are equally qualified to talk about the Bible and history. That is to say, not at all. (So, why are you still reading?!?) So any time I see someone competently dunk on Wallace, I become quite giddy. Back in mid-July, Paulogia did just that with regard to Wallace’s objections to natural explanations for the resurrection of Jesus.
One of the things that Paulogia points to is that Wallace, while taking exception to alternative explanations for the resurrection, doesn’t take exception for alternative explanations for something mundane as the death of a person. Was it murder? Suicide? Natural causes? An accident? Wallace is fine with holding those options as possibilities barring further evidence that leads him to concluding it is one of those things. But as Paulogia points out, Wallace makes an exception with the resurrection itself. For him, the only explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead and the existence of alternative means to explain it are little more than handwaving. However, this is just good methodology, one that a person might employ if they were, say, a cold-case detective. Jumping to a conclusion that coheres with our presuppositions is great but it might not be right.
Another strong point that Paulogia makes is that when positing a cause of death, Wallace surely doesn’t resort to supernatural explanations. A woman was stabbed to death: did ghosts do it? A body is found in a field: did aliens put it there? And so on. Wallace wouldn’t resort to supernatural explanations when a natural one could explain it and, more to the point, even if there was not enough evidence to determine exactly how a body came to be where it was found. Ditto for the resurrection.
In any event, Paulogia always produces great content and though I don’t always get to watch it I do enjoy what I stumble upon from time to time.