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

[Rhea]

Bear in mind that this supposed “event” was accomanied by Darkened Skies! Earthquakes! Zombies Rising Out of Their Graves! as well as the supposed Resurrection, seen by (how many eye witnesses, again? 14?) at least one person!

And with all of this, no one who wrote down stuff that year had any inkling to write down EARTHQUAKES AND STORMING ZOMBIES!?

It beggars belief to think that such a thing occurred and not one contemporary source thought, “well that was interesting enough to write down!”

 

[Rhea]

Let’s look at Chapter 2 and the Psychological analysis of Jesus (Liar, Lunatic or Lord).

I have always found this to be incredible hollow and cheesy. Trying to sell the audience on the idea that these are the only three choices for what we see as evidence remaining today.

While it is easy as pie to discover people who fit the “liar” model in religion today (Jim Bakker, Swaggart, Osteen, that whole send me your money for god crew), we can also easily find a model that doesn’t even rely on Jesus being one of those.

The easiest, and most likely, scenario that is none of Stobel’s clumsy three, is “The unwitting legend and the passionate and deluded followers”

Here’s the example: After the Columbine massacre, someone wrote a book, “She Said Yes.” This incredibly moving testimonial for the power of Jesus... was a lie. She was not asked if she believed in Jesus, she was simply shot and killed after hearing, “peekaboo!”. Her friend was asked, the friend said yes, the friend was not shot.

So, does this make her Liar, Lunatic or Lord? It makes her none of these. She didn’t write the story. Yet the story was not true. It was an amalgam of two sepparate stories tied together to make a powerful religious story... that was completely false. It makes the writer of the story the liar. (And, IMHO, a calculating or deluded person for using a lie about her death)

So was Jesus a liar? He didn’t have to be. He could have been as sincere (and as human) as the Dalai Lama, but 60 years later someone embellishes the story with multiple crowds and events, and adds supernatural lies to the history of this person. He could, in fact, have been two people, as in the Columbine story, melded together as one by the later (untruthful) story writer. This doesn’t Jesus a Liar, or a Lunatic or a Lord, yet the stories would be written as we see them.

Indeed, the later story writer could even have thought they were telling the truth - Donald Trump believes with certainty that Muslims were celebrating in the streets in NJ after 9/11. He’s completely wrong about this, but his mental condition makes it a fairly true statement that he’s not even lying, he’s deluded himself and changed his reality and he is sure it’s true. And he’s not the only one. They even have categories in the DSM for this.

So this whole “liar, lunatic, lord” puzzle is just a shallow rhetorical trick to mask the existence of other, more plausible scenarrios and convince his readers that it must be one of these. And even with this sort of cheap insistence, to be honest, Liar is infinitely more plausible than “Lord.”

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To be fair, Hercules had been through the area a month before to slay an ice monster riding a zombie dragon and that got people’s attention too. Paper was expensive back then, so you couldn’t write about everything.

 

[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.

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.

60 years?
That's a blink of an eye in terms of the palaeography of ancient manuscripts.
There's better extant documentation (more manuscripts and closer in time) for Jesus than there is for Tacitus' Annals.
The Gospel of John - AD 98
Tacitus' Annals - AD 850
Tacitus may have written the originals in his lifetime circa AD 116 but we don't have anything earlier than AD 850 meaning we have to presume they are accurate copies of something which may or may not have been his work. How much might have been changed over the intervening years long after those with recent anecdotal memories had expired.

Remember - it wasn't called "THE Bible" when written, so it's invalid to ask for extra biblical documentation as if the New Testament documents weren't intended as a historical account of what people said and did.

Lee Strobel cites Bruce Metzger's work pointing out that if we dismiss the New Testament documents on account of their age, what should we do with Flavius Josephus whose only extant manuscript copies date to the 11th and 12th century.

The next closest contender after The New Testament, in terms of date proximity of event and number of oldest surviving manuscript copies relating to that event is Homer's Iliad.

The New Testament - over 5,000 manuscripts dating to within 300 years
The Iliad - barely 650 manuscripts dating more than 900 years after the events they record.

You can disbelieve what was written in the New Testament but to claim nobody adequately wrote it down (compared to other ancient documents) is simply false and an intellectually dishonest double standard.

I emphasise again - the New Testament documents don't compel you to believe that a miracle took place. You can view them thru secular eyes and conclude that, historically speaking, yes, Saul of Tarsus did experience certain (natural) events which might be explicable in numerous other non-supernatural ways.

What you can't do is assert that "it" never happened because "it" was reported 60 years too late to be taken as historically reliable. Or that "it" was many many years later included in a book called The Bible therefore the authors were lying.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here's a chapter by chapter take down of The Case Fro Christ by Steve Shives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60-eK5sfwk&list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

ETA: I should mention that it is 16 videos long, each 30-45 minutes long. It was also the first book in the series "An Atheist Reads". Nevertheless, I think his responses are done well.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

WUT?
You do realise the book is subtitled "A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus"

I don't claim him as an authority on anything other than his personal journey from atheist to devout Christian.

And you completely overlook the fact that his wilful ignorance of the implausibility of atheism were a part of his wishful thinking that God did not exist. The quote you cited was him stating that he had never seriously questioned the tenets of atheism/atheology.

Have you read the book? He most certainly did not reject atheism and embrace Christianity without first investigating the claims and counter-claims in a dispassionate, secular manner - exactly the way a professional journalist would.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here's a chapter by chapter take down of The Case Fro Christ by Steve Shives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60-eK5sfwk&list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

ETA: I should mention that it is 16 videos long, each 30-45 minutes long. It was also the first book in the series "An Atheist Reads". Nevertheless, I think his responses are done well.

Thanks.
Once I'm finished here I'll sit down and watch them all and write back to you explaining where each video gets it all wrong.

 

[Learner]

Bear in mind that this supposed “event” was accomanied by Darkened Skies! Earthquakes! Zombies Rising Out of Their Graves! as well as the supposed Resurrection, seen by (how many eye witnesses, again? 14?) at least one person!

And with all of this, no one who wrote down stuff that year had any inkling to write down EARTHQUAKES AND STORMING ZOMBIES!?

It beggars belief to think that such a thing occurred and not one contemporary source thought, “well that was interesting enough to write down!”

Hmm, sounds like you're a bit of a Dawn of the Dead or world war Z fan.

 

[Learner]

Thanks.
Once I'm finished here I'll sit down and watch them all and write back to you explaining where each video gets it all wrong.

Watching the first one now.

(Thanks BTW Tinker Grey for link. I know of Strobel but not enough about him as many here do, to discuss in depth at the moment)

 

[Lion IRC]

His videos were 'inspired' by another YouTuber named Beka from Faith Fights Back.
An 18 year old girl who had just publically declared her atheism, but then mysteriously shuts down her channel and disappears. Maybe she did a Lee Strobel and reconverted after having examined The Case for Christ.

 

[Lion IRC]

Thanks.
Once I'm finished here I'll sit down and watch them all and write back to you explaining where each video gets it all wrong.

Watching the first one now.

(Thanks BTW Tinker Grey for link. I know of Strobel but not enough about him as many here do, to discuss in depth at the moment)

Gee - this guy critiques the intro

His first counter-argument against the intro to the book?
Lee Strobel's "grating" style of writing.

Sheesh. The argument from tonality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

His videos were 'inspired' by another YouTuber named Beka from Faith Fights Back.
An 18 year old girl who had just publically declared her atheism, but then mysteriously shuts down her channel and disappears. Maybe she did a Lee Strobel and reconverted after having examined The Case for Christ.

Didn’t you start your OP bitching against ad homs on the writer?

 

[blastula]

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.

The book is a joke, a bunch of self-evidently vapid arguments, even worse than the McDowell book, and unconvincing to anybody but the converted.

The Scathing Atheist podcast has been having fun going through it chapter by chapter.

 

[Learner]

Gee - this guy critiques the intro

His first counter-argument against the intro to the book?
Lee Strobel's "grating" style of writing.

Sheesh. The argument from tonality.

Interestingly he (the atheist) also mentions in the introduction, that Strobel had written his book , aimed for people who already believe. This may have some significance in relation to how he (intended to) portrays the case with believers in mind. Sort of encourage believers,and not to so much convince atheists maybe.

Since published 1998 (and knowing of its existence for at least 10 years) I may have to find a copy after all.

 

[Rhea]

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?

60 years?
That's a blink of an eye in terms of the palaeography of ancient manuscripts.
There's better extant documentation (more manuscripts and closer in time) for Jesus than there is for Tacitus' Annals.

60 years is a long time to wait to write something about supernatural events regarding the salvation of mankind, direct interaction with deities and earthquakes, bodies rising from graves and a resurrection.

And while I have never needed to care if the Annals of Tacitus are true, a quick google tells me there is much more than passing evidence that they were not “written in 850.” Nevertheless, the Annals do not claim supernatural events that no one else noticed. And they do not contain information that people are trying to claim as justification to force their fellow citizens to obey.

It is not believable to say that something that was EARTH SHATTERINGLY DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE can be justified as true despite no one at the time caring, based on a comparison to someone else’s notes about the current events of the day also being republished late.

In short, the existence of the Annals does nothing to allay the problems with the late writings of the alleged events of the resurrection.

 

[Lion IRC]

His videos were 'inspired' by another YouTuber named Beka from Faith Fights Back.
An 18 year old girl who had just publically declared her atheism, but then mysteriously shuts down her channel and disappears. Maybe she did a Lee Strobel and reconverted after having examined The Case for Christ.

Didn’t you start your OP bitching against ad homs on the writer?

Yep.
Why do you ask?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

His videos were 'inspired' by another YouTuber named Beka from Faith Fights Back.
An 18 year old girl who had just publically declared her atheism, but then mysteriously shuts down her channel and disappears. Maybe she did a Lee Strobel and reconverted after having examined The Case for Christ.

Didn’t you start your OP bitching against ad homs on the writer?

Yep.
Why do you ask?

I just found it to be amusing that you started the thread with a complaint about ad homs against writers in your first sentence and then when someone linked to another author with s countering view, you went immediately to ad homs against the writers.

It was simply a comment on a funny moment.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

Ok.

Chapter 1 - Eye witness evidence

We have none.

trustworthiness (historicity) of biographical accounts of Jesus

Written by biased sources.

extra biblical corroboration

At best it corroborates that a guy named Jesus existed. There were many people named Jesus that have existed. It tells us nothing of any divine or supernatural claims about such a person.

archeology/science

In regard to what? Archeology only confirms places existed, not the divinity/supernatural claims about a particular person. Iow, that would apply to a Stephen King novel just as much as it would to the NT accounts.

disparity between the secular historical Jesus and the (Christological) Jesus of Faith.

Again, I doubt anyone cares whether or not somebody named Jesus existed. The only claims that need to be evidenced/tested are those of divinity/supernatural abilities, etc.

Chapter 2 - Analyzing Jesus' self-identity.

Irrelevant and no direct evidence exists to even attempt such a thing. We would literally need Jesus' own diary to even begin to undertake such a question.

Why did Jews convert to Christianity?

By and large, they didn't, unless you're talking about more modern day "Jews for Jesus" nonsense.

That should speak the loudest.

Chapter 3 - Researching the Resurrection. Medical analysis. Swoon theory. Body double theory. Was Jesus' body really lost/stolen? Hoax theories.

All good, so long as one assumes certain things, but the biggest problem is that GMark (the creator of the passion narrative that later writers simply embellished) does not actually have Jesus resurrecting.

Post Resurrection appearances.

Immediately dismissed unless one raises it as evidence that the man never actually died.

Circumstantial evidence and/or conclusive evidence.

We have none. We only have, at best, third person anecdotes. Which are not "evidence" of anything other than someone telling someone else something they thought happened. Iow, non-verifiable and therefore useless in regard to any attempt to verify claims of divinity/supernatural abilities.

Accepted historical facts

If they do not pertain to divinity/supernatural abilities, irrelevant.

appeals to the "best explanation"

For? A cult? People believing in gods?

Probability of miracles if God does not exist.

We'd have to define what constitutes a "miracle" first and foremost.

Your turn.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Chapter 3 - Researching the Resurrection. Medical analysis. Swoon theory. Body double theory. Was Jesus' body really lost/stolen? Hoax theories.

All good, so long as one assumes certain things, but the biggest problem is that GMark (the creator of the passion narrative that later writers simply embellished) does not actually have Jesus resurrecting.

Probability of miracles if God does not exist.

We'd have to define what constitutes a "miracle" first and foremost.

Your turn.

For these two items, I've taken to responding thus: Unless you can demonstrate to me, here and now, that there is a spirit world or a supernatural world, any explanation is preferred to the one that the event actually happened.

 

[Lion IRC]

...you went immediately to ad homs against the writers.

Nope. I challenged his argument from tonality and I speculated (just like he also did) upon what may have happened to the missing 18 year old atheist girl who 'inspired' him.