Cold Case Christianity: Did the Disciples Hallucinate the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus?

This is my reply to a video by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Did the Disciples Hallucinate the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus? (Video)

Posted: 19 Sep 2017 01:47 AM PDT

 First, the notion that the resurrected Jesus appeared only by vision to the disciples is at least perfectly consistent with the fact that God in the bible routinely uses visions to communicate with humans:

 Gen. 15:1  After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great."

 Num. 12:6  He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream.

 Num. 24:4  The oracle of him who hears the words of God, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered,

 Num. 24:16  The oracle of him who hears the words of God, And knows the knowledge of the Most High, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered.

 1 Sam. 3:15  So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the LORD. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli.

 2 Sam. 7:17  In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

 1 Chr. 17:15  According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

 2 Chr. 26:5  He continued to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding through the vision of God; and as long as he sought the LORD, God prospered him.

 2 Chr. 32:32  Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and his deeds of devotion, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.

 Job 20:8  "He flies away like a dream, and they cannot find him; Even like a vision of the night he is chased away.

 Job 33:15  "In a dream, a vision of the night, When sound sleep falls on men, While they slumber in their beds,

 Ps. 89:19  Once You spoke in vision to Your godly ones, And said, "I have given help to one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people.

 Prov. 29:18  Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.

 Isa. 1:1  The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz concerning Judah and Jerusalem, which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

 Isa. 21:2  A harsh vision has been shown to me; The treacherous one still deals treacherously, and the destroyer still destroys. Go up, Elam, lay siege, Media; I have made an end of all the groaning she has caused.

 Isa. 22:1  The oracle concerning the valley of vision. What is the matter with you now, that you have all gone up to the housetops?

 Isa. 22:5  For the Lord GOD of hosts has a day of panic, subjugation and confusion In the valley of vision, A breaking down of walls And a crying to the mountain.

 Isa. 29:7  And the multitude of all the nations who wage war against Ariel, Even all who wage war against her and her stronghold, and who distress her, Will be like a dream, a vision of the night.

 Isa. 29:11  The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, "Please read this," he will say, "I cannot, for it is sealed."

 Jer. 14:14  Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.

 Jer. 23:16  Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD.

 Lam. 2:9  Her gates have sunk into the ground, He has destroyed and broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the nations; The law is no more. Also, her prophets find No vision from the LORD.

 Ezek. 7:13  'Indeed, the seller will not regain what he sold as long as they both live; for the vision regarding all their multitude will not be averted, nor will any of them maintain his life by his iniquity.

 Ezek. 7:26  'Disaster will come upon disaster and rumor will be added to rumor; then they will seek a vision from a prophet, but the law will be lost from the priest and counsel from the elders.

 Ezek. 11:24  And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God to the exiles in Chaldea. So the vision that I had seen left me.

 Ezek. 12:22  "Son of man, what is this proverb you people have concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The days are long and every vision fails '?

 Ezek. 12:23  "Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will make this proverb cease so that they will no longer use it as a proverb in Israel." But tell them, "The days draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision.

 Ezek. 12:24  "For there will no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel.

 Ezek. 12:27  "Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, 'The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off.'

 Ezek. 13:7  "Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, 'The LORD declares,' but it is not I who have spoken?"'"

 Ezek. 43:3  And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city. And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face.

 Dan. 2:19  Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven;

 Dan. 7:2  Daniel said, "I was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea.

 Dan. 8:1  In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one which appeared to me previously.

 Dan. 8:2  I looked in the vision, and while I was looking I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I looked in the vision and I myself was beside the Ulai Canal.

 Dan. 8:13  Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, "How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?"

 Dan. 8:15  When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man.

 Dan. 8:16  And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision."

 Dan. 8:17  So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, "Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end."

 Dan. 8:26  "The vision of the evenings and mornings Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days in the future."

 Dan. 8:27  Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up again and carried on the king's business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was none to explain it.

 Dan. 9:21  while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering.

 Dan. 9:23  "At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision.

 Dan. 9:24  "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

 Dan. 10:1  In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar; and the message was true and one of great conflict, but he understood the message and had an understanding of the vision.

 Dan. 10:7  Now I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great dread fell on them, and they ran away to hide themselves.

 Dan. 10:8  So I was left alone and saw this great vision; yet no strength was left in me, for my natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I retained no strength.

 Dan. 10:14  "Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future."

 Dan. 10:16  And behold, one who resembled a human being was touching my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, "O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength.

 Dan. 11:14  "Now in those times many will rise up against the king of the South; the violent ones among your people will also lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they will fall down.

 Obad. 1:1  The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom-- We have heard a report from the LORD, And an envoy has been sent among the nations saying, "Arise and let us go against her for battle "--

 Mic. 3:6  Therefore it will be night for you-- without vision, And darkness for you-- without divination. The sun will go down on the prophets, And the day will become dark over them.

 Nah. 1:1  The oracle of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.

 Hab. 2:2  Then the LORD answered me and said, "Record the vision And inscribe it on tablets, That the one who reads it may run.

 Hab. 2:3  "For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward the goal and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay.

 Zech. 13:4  "Also it will come about in that day that the prophets will each be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies, and they will not put on a hairy robe in order to deceive;

 Matt. 17:9  As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead."

 Lk. 1:22  But when he came out, he was unable to speak to them; and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple; and he kept making signs to them, and remained mute.

 Lk. 24:23  and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive.

 Acts 9:10  Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."

 Acts 9:12  and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight."

 Acts 10:3  About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, "Cornelius!"

 Acts 10:17  Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;

 Acts 10:19  While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.

 Acts 11:5  "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to me,

 Acts 12:9  And he went out and continued to follow, and he did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision.

 Acts 16:9  A vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."

 Acts 16:10  When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

 Acts 18:9  And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent;

 Acts 26:19  "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision,

 Rev. 9:17  And this is how I saw in the vision the horses and those who sat on them: the riders had breastplates the color of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone; and the heads of the horses are like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone.

 Second, Wallace neglects to mention that visions of Jesus are alleged in the NT.  Paul's experience on the road to Damascus is called "vision" (Greek: optasia) in Acts 26:19, the same Greek word Paul uses to describe an absurd "caught up to the third heaven" state that left him guessing, even 14 years after the fact, whether it occurred in his body or out of his body, 2nd Corinthians 12:1-4.

  13 at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me.
 14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
 15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
 16 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;
 17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you,
 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
 19 "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision,
 20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. (Acts 26:13-20 NAU)

 NAU  2 Corinthians 12:1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
 3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
 5 On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses.   (2 Cor. 12:1-5 NAU)

 Since optasia is rare in the NT, it is safe to say that if Paul uses it in two different contexts, then unless there is good evidence otherwise, he probably intends the word to carry the same meaning.  Indeed, why is Paul characterizing his Damascus road experience as a vision anyway, if the Jesus that appeared to him, did so in the typical way that could be sensed by normal physical seeing?

Apparently, Paul believed his experience of Christ on the road to Damascus was just as puzzling in nature to him as was his absurd trip to heaven from 2nd Cor. 12, that he still cannot determine the exact nature of.   There's no other reason for him to choose to use the same rare Greek word to characterize both experiences.

Third, Revelation doesn't specifically say John got that stuff by way of "vision" (except perhaps 9:17, supra), but the words it uses to describe how god communicated, leave no other option except that he got this stuff by "vision":

 9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,
 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Rev. 1:9-11 NAU)

2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. (Rev. 4:2 NAU)

 3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. (Rev. 17:3 NAU)

10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, (Rev. 21:10 NAU)

Will any fool argue that these were physical realities external to John and he was merely enabled to see real things that unspiritual eyes normally can't see?  No, John's source for his infamous Revelation was nothing more than "vision", hence, in Revelation 1, the resurrected Jesus appears by vision.

I do not say this vision proves the resurrection of Jesus was never more than vision.  I am simply beating down the fundamentalists who get too cocky and pretend that experiencing a resurrected Jesus solely by vision is an absurd thing.  Only if God's typical way of communicating throughout the bible is absurd, and only if Paul's experience of the risen Christ is absurd, and only if John's experience of the risen Christ in Revelation is absurd, can you say that the vision-hypothesis is absurd.

Fourth, Matthew 28:17 curiously says that among the 11 apostles who saw the risen Christ, "some doubted":

 16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:16-18 NAU)

The Greek word for "doubtful" is distazo, and the only other time this is used in the NT is, again in Matthew, when Jesus is reproaching Peter for not having sufficient faith:

 28 Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
 29 And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Matt. 14:28-31 NAU)

That Peter's "doubt" was a negative thing and not mere exuberant hesitation in the sight of a dramatic divine being, is seen from the fact that Jesus himself characterizes Peter has having had "little" faith and then re-characterizing this as "doubt".

Therefore, it is a strong likelihood that Matthew's unique choice to characterize some of the resurrection witnesses as "doubting" in 28:17, with a Greek word nobody else uses except Matthew again in 14:31 to indicate insufficient faith, is Matthew's way of telling the reader that some of the 11 apostles, upon seeing the risen Christ, did not have sufficient faith that they were really seeing a risen Christ.

Yes, other parts of the NT indicate all 11 apostles are convinced Jesus rose from the dead, but we have no idea how it is that some of the doubters in Matthew 28:17 overcame their doubts (and those who cite to doubting Thomas in John 20 open the door to the possibility that his expressions of skepticism here were taking place after the scene in Matthew 28:17, i.e., Thomas had seen the risen Christ earlier in Matthew 28:17, but still did not believe, raising the additional question of how the apostles could fail to believe their own eyes, suggesting what they are alleged to have "seen", they were not "seeing" with their physical eyes).  

Then we have to contend with the fact that even evangelical inerrantists agree not everything John presents as history, was actual history (such as Mike Licona), so apologists cannot easily get rid of the possibility that if doubting Thomas existed, the story of Jesus appearing to him is nothing but pious fiction...so that we also have reasonable justification to say any stories about doubting apostles changing their mind do nothing to fix the problem of doubting apostles in Matthew 28:17.

And I don't believe in biblical inerrancy, so I see no problem in saying some of those doubting apostles continued to doubt and the other NT writers who declare otherwise are just lying.  John unbelievably admits that after Jesus started teaching cannibalism, some of his disciples stopping following him (John 6:66), and since it is unlikely that eyewitnesses of a real Jesus doing genuinely supernatural miracles that could not admit of any naturalistic explanation, could this easily fall away, one reasonable explanation is that they easily fell away because Jesus hadn't shown them any genuinely supernatural miracles, and he didn't because he couldn't.  They were like followers of Benny Hinn who eventually discover it's a bunch of hoopla with little to zero substance.

All scholars agree James the brother of Jesus didn't become a believer until after Jesus died (John 7:5), and this opens to the door to the possibility that there were reasons other than experiencing a risen Christ, that one overcomes their initial doubt and chooses to start going along with the other apostles.  James could have felt that this group will create followers and tithers, and so he could secure his own financial stability by taking advantage of his biological relation to Jesus and joining the group with an eye toward becoming a leader.

Fifth, I agree with Christian scholars Daniel Wallace and Craig Blomberg that Mark intended to end his gospel at the place we now designate 16:8, which means the gospel most which scholars say is the earliest, is the one lacking any stories about Jesus appearing to anybody, a significant problem since if Jesus really did appear to the disciples after dying, Peter would likely have agreed with the other gospel writers that such a thing was a powerful supporting proof that he rose from the dead, so that Mark, Peter's companion, would likely have felt any resurrection-appearance preaching by Peter was important to include in his written version of Peter's preaching.

If that scholarly position is true, then one reason it is only the later gospels that specify resurrection appearances is because they were either later embellishments, or were based on something less concrete such as "visions".

Wallace at time-code  0:45 speaks about Saul's experience on the road to Damascus and tries to make it historically trustworthy by pointing out that at this time, Saul was very angry with the church and was persecuting Christians, and therefore, exceptionally unlikely to have a vision of Jesus.  But Wallace is, again, doing nothing but drawing upon his audience's pre-existing trust that Acts is telling the truth.  At 1:00 he says "then why is he seeing this?", as if the report in Acts is truthful beyond reasonable doubt. Wallace clearly has no intention in this video of engaging real skeptics, but only of impressing his Christian audience with his eye popping discovery that if you start out believing everything in the bible is historically reliable, it is a piece of cake to refute skeptical explanations of the biblical data.

I say the author of Acts is simply lying, or merely passing along false traditions.  His desire to spin the historical truth to favor Paul can be seen from Acts 15, where the apostles curiously never appeal to the ultimate authority of something Jesus said, to refute the Judaizers.  If Jesus never required Gentile men to be circumcised to be saved, this silence of Jesus would more authoritatively refute the Judaizers.  But no, the apostles here curiously use nothing more to refute the Judaizers except their own ministry successes and their questionable and Paul-like understanding of select OT texts to prove their theological points.  Sorry, but Luke is a dishonest author who prioritizes his agenda above fair and balanced reporting.  And any dishonest author knows that lies are more convincing the more you can cloak them in truth.  That's why Luke gets all the names of people and places correct.  He is aware that you'll say "accurate in what can be checked, equals accurate in what cannot be checked!"

 Well gee, if I said "I can levitate my body without any physical objects, and Sacramento is the capital of California" would you trust as true the part that can't be checked, because I was accurate in the part that can be checked?  Of course not.

Wallace at time-code  1:30 ff argues that we cannot know each other's dreams, so that if we ever do know the content of somebody else's dream without the dreamer's previous help, surely God did it.  Again, all Wallace is doing is blindly presuming that the book of Acts is historically trustworthy when it reports miracles.

Wallace at time-code  1:45 ff com mitts the same blunder, blindly presuming that the stories of the disciples seeing Jesus on the road to Emmaus and Mary seeing Jesus were historically reliable, then asking "how is this happening".  How many things in the book of Mormon could be argued as historically true, if one starts out presuming the book of Mormon is historically reliable?  Wallace is to apologetics what Sesame Street is to rocket science.

Wallace at time-code  2:30 artificially builds momentum and pretends that as we keep going through the bible, the number of witnesses ends up being as high as "11 !" and more, and then pretending that surely these people cannot be experiencing group hallucination.  But Wallace's error is in assuming that this biblical data is historically reliable.  It isn't, so it hardly needs to be 'explained', except as legendary embellishment.

And Wallace in doing this forgets, or intentionally avoids, the fact established above, that Mark is the earliest gospel, and was intentionally ended at 16:8, and therefore, the reason only the later gospels have resurrection appearance stories is because said stories are simply legends.  We need to "explain" the resurrection appearances about as much as we need to "explain" how the three bears can talk to each other in the story of Goldilocks.

Wallace at time-code  2:50 absurdly talks about the ascension of Jesus (Acts 1) and bets that if you the skeptic needed to see a miracle to believe, you'd surely become a believer after watching Jesus rise ascend into the sky (!?).   Is Wallace attempting to do apologetics (i.e., refute skeptical theories of the resurrection), or is he preaching to the choir?  If Wallace is sure we'd believe upon seeing Jesus ascend.well, is Wallace speaking by the Holy Spirit here, yes or no?  If he is (as is likely under Christian assumptions given he is trying to prove the resurrection of Jesus and edify the faith of existing believers) then the Holy Spirit also knows we'd become believers by seeing such miracles, and since he was willing for first-century people to begin faith by seeing that miracle, nobody can argue that maybe God doesn't want modern skeptics to be quite as wowed with such miracles today, leaving God with zero excuse for refusing to do for us today, all that he did for those of the 1st century to demolish skepticism.

Wallace at time-code  4:05 ff says going back to the empty tomb is the way to show that all these alleged appearances of Jesus are false, because "the tomb was empty".  But a) Acts 1 says the disciples intentionally waited for 40 days before publicly proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead, which would have the beneficial effect of causing Jesus' body to undergo so much decay that Christians could plausibly deny it was Jesus if the corpse was produced to refute their resurrection claims, b) the number 40 is obviously round and has religious significance, and therefore opens the possibility that their delay in preaching could have been as long as 60 or 70 days in actual history, c) the whole idea that Jesus, executed as a common insurrectionist criminal, should be allowed by the Romans to be buried in a rich man's tomb is not consistent with the Roman policy of requiring the corpse to stay on the cross several days as deterrent to others, d) Jesus and his disciples likely made clear before he died that he would rise from the dead, so the Jews who knew of his teachings and successfully sued for his death, would have strongly objected to any request to the Romans that his friends remove his body from the chain of custody, and e) there basis for the resurrection in the earliest published gospel was not eyewitnesses seeing a risen Christ, but women hearing from either a man or an angel at the tomb that Jesus rose, Mark 16:6, and f) Wallace and others ceaselessly assume that the original Christian resurrection preaching really was something that the Jews gave two shits about, when in fact it is unlikely to be the case, we don't know a) how early the post-resurrection preaching really was or b) exactly what was claimed, so as to tell whether they were making falsifiable claims, or esoteric claims which by nature can never be fully refuted, and therefore, the Jews would no more get Jesus' corpse to shut them up, than we would pay to have the Loch Ness dragged to the satisfaction of whatever idiot made known his gullible belief that this monster lives there.

To sum up, 

----Wallace in this video was not interested in refuting the skeptical theory of the risen Jesus being a mere vision or hallucination, because Wallace blindly presumes with his Christian audience that everything the NT says about Jesus and the resurrection testimonies is historically true.

----Some NT evidence gives rise to a possibility which apologists refuse to allow, that the "seeing" of a resurrected Christ was some type of special event that allowed room for doubt (Matthew 28:17).

----Visions are the typical way God in the bible communicates truths to human beings, so a vision-based resurrection claim is biblical even if not preferred by modern day apologists.

----Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus gives every appearance of being wholly fabricated, or is a story about him having some type of blinding seizure, that has been embellished with fictional Jesus elements.

Now YOU need to answer this question:  did Wallace say anything in this video that should cause informed bible skeptics to start quaking in their boots?  I'm guessing "no".

J. Warner Wallace, more interested in marketing gimmicks than truth

I recently did a search for videos about J. Warner Wallace, and found that most of them as hosted by Christian Youtubers, have comments disabled, such as

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P0DnySDwVU, hosted by "one minute apologist"

the same is true for the following video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aVWrZfcPAc 
post by "Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace"

Wallace routinely bans atheists from his websites if they offer significantly strong rebuttals.  I did not violate any rules of conduct when I countered Wallace at his Facebook page months ago, nevertheless, he quietly banned me.  He was dishonest in this because he knew if he tried to talk with me privately, he would have been reminded that I hadn't violated any of his rules of conduct, leaving him no defensible reason to ban or explain.  Apparently he banned me quietly because he knew he couldn't morally justify it if he tried to explain himself.

This is no surprise, anybody who googles J. Warner Wallace will find out immediately that he thinks God's hands were tied behind his back for 2,000 years until Wallace created his "Forensic Faith" gimmicks.

Christians who think Wallace is some great defender of Christianity need to keep in mind that Wallace is far less open to interacting in real-time with informed skeptics/atheists who know how to counter his arguments.  Wallace is not here to debate.  He is here to do what Josh McDowell did....help Christians feel better about what they already trust, and avoid debates with atheist scholars like the plague.

You tend to make less money with your books if people have seen you demolished in a debate.  So by avoiding debate, Wallace helps increase sales of his gimmicks.

Why can't Wallace simply preach the truth, that those who truly believe in Christ and walk in the light and pray sincerely, will be guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth?

Because...if he said such a thing, it would be clear that one can be all the "equipped" Christian defender God wants them to be without purchasing any apologetics books, materials, or dvds.  The bible alone will be quite sufficient to the task.

Wallace is not here to help Christians be more accurate.

He's here to make money assuring them they need his materials so that "God" can help them be more accurate.  For this reason, Wallace is the Cal Worthington of Christian apologetics.  Minus the dog "spot", of course.

Cold Case Christianity: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”?

  J. Warner Wallace, author of "Cold Case Christianity", banned me from his Facebook page despite the fact that I did not engage in any rule violations, and so it would appear that he simply got fed up with the fact that informed bible critics like myself find it rather easy to point out the flaws in the arguments he expects his followers to be amazed at.    

I also emailed Warner, twice, with an offer to engage in a written debate with him about any apologetics topic he wished.  He never answered.

In light of this, and in light of his relentless promotion of his books, I am forced to conclude that Mr. Wallace is dishonest in the sense that he will stifle criticism of his views, where possible, if he feels that criticism is likely to reduce sales of his books.  
My answer to J. Warner Wallace's Article entitled

 Cold Case Christianity: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “HumanFlourishing”?   Posted: 24 May 2017 01:02AM PDT 

 When it comes to moral truth, where do we get our notions of right and wrong?

 Answer: Since the bible says you should raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and everybody agrees you can warp a child’s mind and morals by raising them wrong, its perfectly reasonable to conclude that we get our notions of right and wrong from the environment we were raised in.  And because all mothers will insist their babies showed unique personality characteristics as far back as birth, it would appear that some of the way we determine morals comes from our genetic predispositions.

Can we generate binding, obligatory concepts without grounding them in the nature of a Holy God?

No, what we do is talk to each other, find out who agrees with our morals, organize ourselves into cities and nations, elect leaders to pass laws consistent with the morality in our group, then tell everybody that you either conform, or face civil and criminal penalties.  On the other hand, it is the belief that obligatory moral absolutes come from God, that is precisely why fundamentalists can never resolve their disagreements with each other.  Calvinists have no problem believing it is consistent with God's love and justice for some people who die in infancy to end up in hell, while most other Christians are instinctively repelled by it.   This would provide a rational basis for dismissing the biblical view of God and thus dismissing the concept of absolute morals.  Worse, the God of the bible manifests conflicting morals within himself.  His first moral inclination is to go down the mountain and kill the disobedient Israelites, but he changes his mind after Moses talks some sense into His head:

 9 The LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.

 10 "Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."

 11 Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

 12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth '? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

 13 "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"

 14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

 (Exod. 32:9-14 NAU)

  

As an atheist, I thought so for many years. Like Sam Harris (author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values), I argued that we can establish the moral value of any particular action by simply evaluating its impact on human well-being (something Harris typically refers to as “human flourishing”). Harris, a committed and vocal atheist, accepts the existence of objective moral truths but likens the establishment of such truths to a game of chess.

I am an atheist and I do not believe in objective morality, that is, that any morals are absolute.  I don’t know why you would ask me whether I think torturing babies for fun should is immoral.  Yes, I believe it is, but I am a human being, and a human being’s opinion does not an absolute moral make. 

In any particular game, each player must decide how to move based on the resulting effect. If you are trying to win the game, some moves are “good” and some moves are “bad”; some will lead you to victory and some will lead you to defeat. “Good” and “bad” then, are evaluated based on whether or not they accomplish the goal of winning the game. Harris redefines “good” (in the context of human beings) as whatever supports or encourages the well-being of conscious creatures; if an action increases human well-being (human “flourishing”) it is “good”, if it decreases well-being, it is “bad”.

An excellent reason to say Harris is wrong and that objective morality doesn’t exist, since obviously, what’s “good” to one person is “bad” to another, and if humans are the highest standard possible (as atheism would require), then the fact that human beings disagree on what’s good and bad is proof positive that there are no objective morals.  But lets not forget that even if we allow that Christianity is true, the god of the bible manifests conflicting morals.  In the NT, sex itself, not “illicit” sex, is still considered to be defiling and less than God’s highest good, when in fact sex is believed by most Christians to be a gift from a perfect god:

4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. (Rev. 14:4 NAU)

They didn’t remain undefiled from prostitutes, but undefiled from “women”, i.e., the sex act itself, regardless of whether it takes place inside or outside the marital bond, is still considered by this biblical author to be something that “defiles” a man to a certain extent, a view totally opposed to most modern Christians who think sex within a Christian marriage is a blessing from God, and therefore hardly "defiling".  Here the Revelation-author seems to be contradicting the forthright statement in Hebrews 13:4 that marital sex does not defile.

 What, however, do we mean when we talk about “flourishing”? It’s one thing to evaluate a behavior in terms of its impact on survival, and if we are honest with one another, this is really what drives Natural Selection. But Harris recognizes survival, as a singular goal, can lead to all kinds of morally condemnable misbehavior. History is replete with examples of actions that secured the survival of one group at the immoral expense of another. Harris suggests the goal is something more; the goal is “flourishing”. Human well-being involves more than simply living, it involves living a particular way. Human flourishing comprises a particular quality of life; one in which we honor the rights of others and seek a certain kind of character in order to become a particular kind of human group that has maximized its potential. See the problem here?  Harris has already imported moral values into his model, even as he seeks to explain where these values come from in the first place. One can hardly define the “maximization” of human wellbeing without asserting a number of moral values. What, beyond mere survival, achieves our “maximization” as humans?

I agree with you that Harris is wrong to believe in objective moral values, given that atheism would logically preclude objective morals.  But I deny that the last question above is legitimate.  The whole idea that we should strive for “maximization” stems from a greedy capitalist predisposition, which has manifested its true fruits clearly for the last 100 years.  It is enough to live life where we find ourselves and solve problems in our personal circumstances (i.e., paying debts, resolving family issues).  The drive of most people to “maximize” is precisely what has turned America into the ridiculous cesspool of hedonism it is.  I say chop wood, carry water, and put down that fucking cell phone.

 What does this even mean? The minute we move from mere survival to a particular kind of “worthy” survival, we have to employ moral principles and ideas. Concepts of sacrifice, nobility and honor must be assumed foundationally, but these are not morally neutral notions. Human “flourishing” assumes a number of virtues and priorities (depending on who is defining it), and these values and characteristics precede the enterprise Harris seeks to describe. Harris cannot articulate the formation of moral truths without first assuming some of these truths to establish his definition of “flourishing”. He’s borrowing pre-existent, objective moral notions about worth, value and purpose, while holding a worldview that argues against any pre-existing moral notions.  If, as a police officer, if I was watching Harris’ chess game and observed one of the players make a “bad” move, could I arrest the player? No. the definitions of “good” and “bad” Harris offers here are morally neutral. On the other hand, if one of the players was able to successfully cheat (without detection) and managed to win the game in this manner, could we call this behavior bad? He did, after all accomplish the goal of winning the game. We can only call this behavior “bad” if we begin with a notion about winning that identifies undetected cheating as a prohibited act; a moral truth that pre-exists the “chess game” and ought to govern its moves. Even though there are times when cheating can help us win (or survive) without any physical or emotional consequence, we theists recognize we’ve done something that “damages our soul” and offends the Holy nature of God (even if our behavior goes undetected by our peers).

Again, I disagree with my fellow atheists who think objective moral values exist.  Harris is just as wrong as Barker. 

When the atheist recognizes human flourishing as something more than mere physical or emotional survival, he too acknowledges the spiritual and moral nature of our existence, as he borrows from our theistic view to construct his own.

That is perfect nonsense.  Human “flourishing” is a very subjective thing, with greedy prosperity preachers saying you aren’t really flourishing unless you are rich, and the other Christians who contend that flourishing does not involve ease and comfort in this world.  My suggestion is that it is unreasonable for Christians to think spiritually blind atheists are obligated to figure out which of the spiritually alive people got the bible wrong.  Let God's likeminded one's get their act together, THEN they can have a hope of morally obligating non-Christians to see things their way.