The Case For Christ - A defence of Lee Strobel's 1998 apologetic book

[Lion IRC]

In another thread where this author and his book were mentioned, folks were tossing around abusive ad homs and No True Scotsman pejoratives because the guy states that he used to be an atheist.

Perhaps some 'real' atheists here can muster the energy to put up a substantive counter-apologetic that takes on Strobel's arguments and his perspectives as a former atheist, without resorting to name-calling.

If you think he is a lying scumbag who was never a proper atheist - walk on.
If you can't relate to the type of former self atheism he critiques, don't go on a rant about sock puppet ventriloquism and straw men - just walk on. If you think that only dementia or palliative care medication cause atheists to reconvert- walk on. If your militant presuppositional atheism prohibits you from civil discussion of hypothetical arguendo - topics just walk on.

This thread is for intellectual defence or criticism of Strobel's stated positions, not the alternative words and motives you want to impute. Hopefully this is clear enough to provide an off topic / on topic parameter.

Chapter 1 - Eye witness evidence, trustworthiness (historicity) of biographical accounts of Jesus, extra biblical corroboration, archeology/science, disparity between the secular historical Jesus and the (Christological) Jesus of Faith.

Chapter 2 - Analyzing Jesus' self-identity. Did Jesus believe about Himself, what Nicene Creed Christians believe about His identity? Psychological analysis of Jesus (Liar, Lunatic or Lord) Did Jesus sufficiently meet the biblical Messianic criteria? Why did Jews convert to Christianity?

Chapter 3 - Researching the Resurrection. Medical analysis. Swoon theory. Body double theory. Was Jesus' body really lost/stolen? Hoax theories. Post Resurrection appearances. Circumstantial evidence and/or conclusive evidence. Accepted historical facts, appeals to the "best explanation". Probability of miracles if God does not exist.

 

[Ford]

If you think he is a lying scumbag who was never a proper atheist - walk on.
If you can't relate to the type of former self atheism he critiques, don't go on a rant about sock puppet ventriloquism and straw men - just walk on. If you think that only dementia or palliative care medication cause atheists to reconvert- walk on. If your militant presuppositional atheism prohibits you from civil discussion of hypothetical arguendo - topics just walk on.

Can I pick all of them?

 

[Lion IRC]

Sure, as long as you don't pretend those are logical arguments for or against the Resurrection

 

[Ford]

Sure, as long as you don't pretend those are logical arguments for or against the Resurrection

Okay, great.

So I'm gonna go with the argument that people who have been dead for more than 48 hours don't come back to life. Ever.

 

[Lion IRC]

48 hours is pretty specific.

Anyway, Strobel argues that such brute fact claims are based on the presumption that God doesn't exist. If that background information (that God doesn't exist) were true, then Strobel would agree, miracles and life after death could be seen as even less likely.

 

[James Brown]

The Rest of the Story, by Jeffrey Jay Lowder.

Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.

 

[Lion IRC]

Exactly.
If Strobel has omitted a defence against harder criticisms then he and I and others are more than happy to invite discussion of those claims.

But if your complaint is that he should have universally addressed every counter-apologetic under the sun, that's unfair.

Here's a thread for you to put those on the table.

Human memory is fallable?
Shall we apply that same criticism to people who didn't remember things Jesus actually did do?

 

[Ford]

Anyway, Strobel argues that such brute fact claims are based on the presumption that God doesn't exist.

Not really.

Someone who died a violent death on Friday is simply not going to pop up alive and healthy on Sunday, god's existence notwithstanding.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure, as long as you don't pretend those are logical arguments for or against the Resurrection

Okay, great.

i wonder where anyone has ever argued that Christ didn't exist, or wasn't raised, based on Stobel's failures as an apologist?

Kind of ironic, if Lion's using strawmen to defend Strobel's various volumes of strawmen.


ETA: Oh! I get it! It's being IRONIC!

Good one. I lol'ed.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Rest of the Story, by Jeffrey Jay Lowder.

Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.

The claim that "non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus" is weird.

Firstly, secular history ought not make opinionated claims such as "Jesus was the Son of God". Who better than a journalist like Strobel to point out that the whilst the facts might support or give rise to Christological doctrines, we should stick to history.

If Jesus did what was claimed, would this hypothetically meet the previously written biblical Messianic criteria? This can be debated in purely secular terms without atheists having to concede Jesus' divinity. Yes, of course Lee Strobel wants you to agree that Jesus is unique and divine. But he himself didn't form that view without first investigating secular historical facts. Strobel knows that, for Jesus myther atheists, a missing body and reported sightings 3 days later don't prove a Resurrection happened. They simply coincide with, and provide an explanation for, the phenomenon of a growing belief that a miracle had occurred.

 

[Lion IRC]

I wonder where anyone has ever argued that Christ didn't exist, or wasn't raised, based on Stobel's failures as an apologist?

They haven't. I haven't ever claimed they did.
They aren't even engaging with Strobel's apologetics.
They are too busy shit bagging him as a person.

Now, what were you saying about straw argument irony?

How about you piss off if you don't want to discuss his actual arguments and have nothing better to say than calling him a failure.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder where anyone has ever argued that Christ didn't exist, or wasn't raised, based on Stobel's failures as an apologist?

They haven't. I haven't ever claimed they did.

ah. So you just preemptively attacked a strawman. Kay

They aren't even engaging with Strobel's apologetics.

i have said his apologetics are custom pablum for his target demographic.
If you find something convincing in them, i suspect it is because you value his conclusions.

I kean, really, if you thought his books were worth a shit, you would not need to defend them.. you would use them to defend you beliefs.

No, you want to defend HIM in a reverse ad hominem, and limit the field like Trump investigating a SCOTUS candidate.

I thought masturbation was a sin for you people?

 

[Ford]

The claim that "non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus" is weird.

Not really.

A man who had been crucified suddenly popping up alive after a weekend being dead should have been newsworthy even in Roman times.

That's a singular event in all of human history. What's weird is that there's so few accounts of this happening outside of the people who were selling it.

It's like the Moon landing conspiracy theories. If Neil and Buzz didn't actually land on the Moon, the Russians would have been all over it, as they were in a race with the US to make it happen. The Soviets were pissed, but they basically said "okay USA, you got us. Good on you."

If the resurrection of Jesus were real history, it follows that the Romans would have said "wow...didn't think that could happen, but good on you Jesus for coming back to life."

Yet there's no contemporary record of this happening.

What's more, there's no record of it happening outside of the Roman Empire. If such an event were true, then one might expect reports from outside to say "holy shit did you hear about that guy from Nazareth who was crucified and then was taken up to heaven a few days later?"

Silence.

Strobel and his alleged former atheism aside, there's just no record to back up the claim.

 

[Lion IRC]

…A man who had been crucified suddenly popping up alive after a weekend being dead should have been newsworthy even in Roman times.

Pretty sure its no coincidence that Rome eventually went on to become the global center of Christendom.

 

[James Brown]

But Jerusalem--the epicenter of the supposed events--did not. Not until long after the eyewitnesses were off the stage.

There's a reason that Mecca, and not London, for example, is a global center of Islam.

 

[Ford]

…A man who had been crucified suddenly popping up alive after a weekend being dead should have been newsworthy even in Roman times.

Pretty sure its no coincidence that Rome eventually went on to become the global center of Christendom.

I have to believe that you've got at least an inkling of how that happened.

If not, there's a trove of history books that cover the events in question.

 

[Lion IRC]

You said newsworthy.
I don't think a non-newsworthy event gets up the necessary head of steam, critical mass to result in the explosion we call Christianity.
You can label the news fake if you like but you can't claim nobody ever heard of the moon landing or 9/11 or the event which we use as a year marker that was claimed to have happened 2019 years ago.

Best explanation?
Never happened?

 

[Ford]

You said newsworthy.
I don't think a non-newsworthy event gets up the necessary head of steam, critical mass to result in the explosion we call Christianity.
You can label the news fake if you like but you can't claim nobody ever heard of the moon landing or 9/11 or the event which we use as a year marker that was claimed to have happened 2019 years ago.

Best explanation?
Never happened?

As a species, we're keen to write things down that happened. From cave art depictions of hunts to murals in central America, cuneiform tablets in the middle east and carefully transcribed fables that turn into religions, we're mad for history.

The fact that nobody wrote down this alleged resurrection when it supposedly happened is telling. The "explosion" of what we call Christianity didn't happen until centuries after the alleged event, and it only happened because the head of an empire had an epiphany and declared it his own personal official religion.

 

[Rhea]

You said newsworthy.
I don't think a non-newsworthy event gets up the necessary head of steam, critical mass to result in the explosion we call Christianity.

If that was such an explosive event, why did it take 60 years for anyone to even write it down?
Why did it take 300 years and a proclamation from an emperor to give it a “head of steam?

Best explanation?
Never happened?

Indeed.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, of course Lee Strobel wants you to agree that Jesus is unique and divine. But he himself didn't form that view without first investigating secular historical facts.

Now, to be truthful, Strobel says, himself, that this is not true:

But that’s all I had ever really given the evidence [for atheism]: a cursory look. I had read just enough philosophy and history to find support for my skepticism – a fact here, a scientific theory there, a pithy quote, a clever argument. Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.

So, since you brought up Strobel’s supposed rigor, it is correct to let you know that he explicity said the opposite is true. You should not repeat your false claim any more as part of your argument for his “case”. He claims he is not an authority, so you should not claim his authority does anything for his argument.

Strobel knows that, for Jesus myther atheists, a missing body and reported sightings 3 days later don't prove a Resurrection happened. They simply coincide with, and provide an explanation for, the phenomenon of a growing belief that a miracle had occurred.

But here’s the thing - there was no phenomenon of this “growing belief” for at least scores of years. So the events of the supposed JESUS did not trigger them. Something else did. The stories written decades later, by humans, are a better accounting of the trigger than anything devine that was seen by the people converted.