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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If religion is so wonderful, why does it do such useless things? In the christian version a man comes back to life and then flies away into the sky. What am I missing? Or a man sees an angel and reads golden tablets. Again, what am I missing? Why can't religion instead pin its authenticity and worth on things that have value? Why didn't the fabled gospel protagonist give us antibiotics and teach us germ theory? Why didn't this character actually do something important and of lasting value?

Lets pretend that an image of this Jesus person is pasted on the sky everyday all the time for everyone to see. So what? Who will really give a fuck after a while? People still have to work and their kids still get sick. War is still waged. Am I supposed to look at the sky and say "ooooooo aaaaaaahhh!" I don't get it when it comes to religion.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

Hi

Chapter 1 - Eye witness evidence

We have none.

Yes we do. Matthew Levi was an eye witness. Saul of Tarsus was an eye witness.

trustworthiness (historicity) of biographical accounts of Jesus

Written by biased sources.

You can't even assert bias as a motive, let alone prove it, when you yourself claim not to know who wrote the Gospels.

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.

Yes, maybe we have all our multiple Jesus' all jumbled up. One doing a miracle here, another preaching to large crowds elsewhere, and a third Jesus looking perplexed when folks ask if he is the real Jesus of Nazareth.
But I don't think historians were stupid enough to think that.
Now, I've already stated that the events reported can be viewed in purely secular terms. You are not obligated to attribute them to divine/supernatural causes. But in terms of historicity, you should at least admit that people were sincerely reporting their experience of an event which THEY interpreted as miraculous.

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.

That's right. And archeology could easily disprove allegedly fabricated NT accounts. But it doesn't.
Lee Strobel doesn't claim that there's a link between archeological evidence and Christology.
He doesn't assert that the size and shape of a tomb is logically connected to whether Jesus is the Son of God. No, the archeological record is used to debunk Jesus mythers and history deniers.

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

Again, I doubt anyone cares whether or not somebody named Jesus existed.

Speak for yourself.

The only claims that need to be evidenced/tested are those of divinity/supernatural abilities, etc.

Fine, if that's what you're primarily interested in then Lee Strobel would call that progress, because it would mean you accept (arguendo) that yes, in purely secular terms perhaps the Gospel events happened but that there is a non-supernatural explanation which accounts for someone thinking they saw "xyz".

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.

Don't you think it's important to rule out the possibility that people mistook Jesus' statements and misunderstood His motives.
I would have thought this was fertile ground for counter-apologetics (and Monty Python movie scripts.)

Why did Jews convert to Christianity?

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

By and large Jesus' disciples were, like Jesus Himself, Jewish. Saul of Tarsus was Jewish.
I don't know how you can claim otherwise.

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.

There is not one single source for the Passion accounts. If there were, bible errancy fanatics wouldn't quibble about whether Jesus' robe was purple or scarlet. (Two different witnesses)
Mark certainly has Jesus' Resurrection in detail.

Post Resurrection appearances.

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

You are not qualified to reject another person's claim about what they thought they saw.
You can have an opinion, but you don't own their eyeballs.
People said that they saw what they thought was a living person who they took to be Jesus.

Circumstantial evidence and/or conclusive evidence.
We have none.

You seem intent on a fairly lazy, minimalist form of gainsaying. (And speaking in the 1st person plural, on behalf of some unidentified group.)
We have evidence. Evidence of what can be debated. But don't just squawk "there's no evidence" when you're referring to material presented entirely as historical evidence of certain events.

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.

All evidence shared with others is anecdotal. Scientists tell others what they saw happening in the Antarctic. I don't dismiss their evidence just because I heard it second hand from a news outlet.
Nor do I say that melting ice caps don't necessarily prove anthropogenic global warming.

When you say claim "xyz" doesn't (in and of itself) prove Christianity true and that Jesus is the Son of God, you're right.
But, just like melting ice caps, you have to either admit or deny they really are melting (rather than asserting a conspiracy theory about scientists lying or hallucinating.)
And if they are melting, you must reasonably consider the best explanation for that fact.

Accepted historical facts

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

Since when are facts irrelevant?

appeals to the "best explanation"

For? A cult? People believing in gods?

Yes, Strobel argues that we should seek the best explanation for the apparent or claimed facts.

Is the claim itself more plausible than its negation?
If you assert that Jesus faked His own death or somehow survived Crucifixion, is that MORE plausible than the apparent facts that He was forcefully arrested and tortured and executed by the Roman military.
There are some completely wacky theories about the motives of the Gospel writers.

Is it more plausible that the Romans themselves would fabricate and circulate the Gospels as a ploy? Why? Similarly, did the US govt blow up the world trade towers? Why?

You assert the absence of evidence, but isn't the biggest, most conspicuous missing evidence the total lack of counter-Gospel claims?
Shouldn't we expect to see a concerted effort by the Romans and the Hellenistic Jewish power elite to debunk the emerging claims about Jesus and what He did. Where's all the propaganda refuting that Jesus seemingly performed miracles?
How is it that the might of Rome couldn't suppress the tide of belief that a Higher Power was at work and that..."there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Matthew Levi was an eye witness.

So it has been alleged, but we don't have his testimony. We have someone else allegedly re-telling his version of events, perhaps, but we know that GMatthew can't possibly be an eye-witness account because of the elements that no one other than Jesus could have witnessed, such as the so-called "temptation" in the desert. At best, that would have been a story Jesus told to Matthew, but there is no evidence that this is the case. Matthew 4 just states the events as if he witnessed them; not, "And then Jesus told me about...."

So, at best, we have an unknown number of anonymous authors/copyists over the centuries that have re-told someone else's alleged recollections.

Saul of Tarsus was an eye witness.

Not to any aspect of Jesus' life or even public teachings. He never met the man. He claims to have had a "vision," but that does not constitute an "eye-witness" to any of the "miracles" Jesus is alleged to have actually done.

So, once again, no, there are no eye-witness accounts.

trustworthiness (historicity) of biographical accounts of Jesus

Written by biased sources.

You can't even assert bias as a motive

Of course we can.

let alone prove it, when you yourself claim not to know who wrote the Gospels.

The bias is evidenced in the books of the NT. Hell, Paul as much as declares that lying is permissible if it means a possible conversion.

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.

Yes, maybe we have all our multiple Jesus' all jumbled up.

Considering the confusion over Chrestus and Christus and Chresto and the fact that his name was actually Yeshua, when it comes to extra biblical corroboration we clearly see scholarly confusion over who is being written about.

Now, I've already stated that the events reported can be viewed in purely secular terms. You are not obligated to attribute them to divine/supernatural causes.

I agree. So then there is no point in discussing anything further, if Jesus was just some guy.

But in terms of historicity, you should at least admit that people were sincerely reporting their experience of an event which THEY interpreted as miraculous.

Except that, once again, we don't have anyone we can say definitively was reporting their experience and that includes Paul.

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.

That's right. And archeology could easily disprove allegedly fabricated NT accounts. But it doesn't.

No, it can't. It can't serve any purpose at all except to confirm whether or not a city claimed to have existed in a particular region existed. Again, every city ever mentioned in a Stephen King novel actually exists. So what? That tells us nothing about whether or not there is a supernatural clown that lives in sewers.

Lee Strobel doesn't claim that there's a link between archeological evidence and Christology.

Great, then we can dispense with it entirely as being utterly irrelevant.

the archeological record is used to debunk Jesus mythers and history deniers.

Which it can't, so, again, strike it off the list along with eye-witness 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.

Speak for yourself.

There is not a single atheist on the planet who would doubt that people have been named Yeshua throughout the millennia. There were likely dozens if not hundreds so named in the area at the same time as the NT version is alleged to exist.

The only thing that matters is whether or not there existed a particular one with the divinity/supernatural abilities claimed in the NT myths.

The only claims that need to be evidenced/tested are those of divinity/supernatural abilities, etc.

Fine, if that's what you're primarily interested in then Lee Strobel would call that progress

Doubtful, unless he's a congenital idiot as that is the entire question and always has been.

because it would mean you accept (arguendo) that yes, in purely secular terms perhaps the Gospel events happened

I'm sure they did, just not in the manner presented.

but that there is a non-supernatural explanation

Yep.

which accounts for someone thinking they saw "xyz".

We can't access what anyone thought and we have no record of what anyone thought. We only have a record of what other people were told other people thought, with the noted exception of Paul (but even his writings are in question; i.e., we are not sure exactly which are authentic).

So, again, scratch eye-witness and archeology and anything that doesn't have strictly to do with the only relevant question: the alleged divinity/supernatural abilities of a particular individual.

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.

Don't you think it's important to rule out the possibility that people mistook Jesus' statements and misunderstood His motives.

Not in regard to the only issue that matters (his alleged divinity/supernatural abilities).

Why did Jews convert to Christianity?

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

By and large Jesus' disciples were, like Jesus Himself, Jewish.

And none of them "converted to Christianity." There was no such thing as "Christianity" at the time of the disciples.

I don't know how you can claim otherwise.

Now you do.

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.

There is not one single source for the Passion accounts.

Yes, there is. GMark.

Mark certainly has Jesus' Resurrection in detail.

No, it certainly does not. It ends with a group of women arriving at an open cave where a "young man" is sitting inside evidently waiting for them to show up so that he can tell them that Jesus "is risen" (which is not the same thing as saying he resurrected from the dead) and is down in the town.

Post Resurrection appearances.

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

You are not qualified to reject another person's claim about what they thought they saw.

Of course I am. As are you. We know from literally billions of case studies that no one resurrects from the dead. Similarly, we know from thousands of case studies, that people thought to be dead, but actually were not was a common enough experience in the days before more precise measures were known that a regular feature on coffins was a goddamned bell that could be wrung from the inside, precisely because it was so often an occurrence.

You can have an opinion, but you don't own their eyeballs.

Irrelevant. Anecdote is not evidence of anything beyond what the person thought they saw. It does not prove that what they thought they saw actually occurred.

People said that they saw what they thought was a living person who they took to be Jesus.

No, someone else claimed that other people saw such a thing. That's even worse. That's known as hearsay.

Circumstantial evidence and/or conclusive evidence.

We have none.

You seem intent on a fairly lazy, minimalist form of gainsaying.

Far from it. I have conclusively demonstrated precisely why we have no eye-witness accounts (well, possibly one, but it's not reliable for the various reasons given; i.e., liar and/or inauthenticity); why "archaeology" isn't applicable in any way to the question of someone's divinity/supernatural abilities; the inherent problem with anecdotal accounts, even if we could establish that they were not merely hearsay; etc.

We have evidence.

No, we don't, as has been clearly demonstrated twice now. Third hand claims of what other people saw is not evidence. Do NOT try to argue that anecdote is evidence as it can ONLY be evidence of what someone thinks they say, and NOT evidence that what they think they saw actually exists.

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.

All evidence shared with others is anecdotal.

No, it isn't.

Scientists tell others what they saw happening in the Antarctic.

No, they don't. They bring back core drill samples and let other scientists corroborate what they discovered in their own examinations of the samples. What you're referring to, of course, is when they write up their findings in peer-review journals and the like.

When you say claim "xyz" doesn't (in and of itself) prove Christianity true and that Jesus is the Son of God, you're right.

Good, then we're done.

But, just like melting ice caps, you have to either admit or deny they really are melting

I need do no such thing as it's not a matter of belief. I can test the readily available data myself, if I were so inclined. What do you think scientists do? Sit around and tell each other fantastical stories and then everyone just agrees and publishes their stories and that's the extent of it?

Accepted historical facts

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

Since when are facts irrelevant?

If they do not pertain to divinity/supernatural abilities, which is the only relevant question here.

appeals to the "best explanation"

For? A cult? People believing in gods?

Yes, Strobel argues that we should seek the best explanation for the apparent or claimed facts.

It is unquestionable, then, that the "best explanation" cannot possibly be "magic" as that has no explanatory power whatsoever. Indeed, far from explaining anything, it only makes the question even more problematic.

Is it more plausible that the Romans themselves would fabricate and circulate the Gospels as a ploy?

More plausible than an omni-capable invisible magical being that blinked the universe into existence would require of himself to incarnate in flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself to protect his own creation from his wrath?

It is infinitely more plausible that Romans--well known for their near invention of such "espionage" tricks--to have done such a thing, especially right at a time when the alleged followers of the insurrectionist/seditionist movement they would be writing about were in open rebellion.

Hell, WE do the exact same thing to this day every time we invade a country. We constantly spread pro-American propaganda that takes the form of local lore about their own leaders and flips it to make them out to be the bad guy and us out to be the heroic saviors.

You assert the absence of evidence

Not "assert"; established as an undeniable fact that there is nothing that would be considered objective evidence of the existence of an omni-capable magical being incarnating into flesh...etc., etc., etc. Iow, no reliable or compelling evidence of divinity/supernatural abilities.

but isn't the biggest, most conspicuous missing evidence the total lack of counter-Gospel claims?

What?

Shouldn't we expect to see a concerted effort by the Romans and the Hellenistic Jewish power elite to debunk the emerging claims about Jesus and what He did.

We arguably do. Hence GMark, which, btw, is often claimed to contain a storyline that was deliberately tampered with in regard to Pilate's actions precisely because it was meant to fool or appease Romans who might hear whatever the "real" story was and think it was anti-Roman, remember? Which begs the question that no apologist can ever answer, what is the REAL story and why didn't it get re-established in the canon after the alleged threat of Roman reprisal ended?

Where's all the propaganda refuting that Jesus seemingly performed miracles?

All of Judaism? The fact that people back then were gullible morons who believed anything anyone told them and that, evidently what we call "miracles" were stories that people just swallowed whole or something and therefore not a big deal? The victors write the history? I don't know, nor do I see why anyone would need to refute something that never was to begin with.

How is it that the might of Rome couldn't suppress the tide of belief that a Higher Power was at work and that.

Considering they were likely the ones who came up with it in the first place--and forced it under threat of death over the centuries--and that it was designed to keep idiots docile and sheep slaves and was in fact PRO ROMAN (there's where that bit above comes in about Pilate, remember?), why would they suppress it? It's perfectly in line with everything Rome would want; do what Rome says; pay Roman taxes; be meek; don't do anything that would get you jailed; thank God you are poor and worthless; rejoice in your suffering; offer a Roman your ass to do with what he pleases any time he wants it; etc.

If they didn't write it, it is as if they did, so why suppress it?

But that's ancillary to Strobel and this thread. We have conclusively reduced EVERYTHING you listed to this simple fact: there is no reliable or compelling evidence that anyone depicted in the NT mythologies was divine or had supernatural powers.

If you have such evidence, please present it. But don't just continue to repeat established nonsense like "anecdotes are evidence" because the ONLY thing that an anecdote can evidence is that someone thought they saw something. That cannot tell us whether or not that something actually happened; it can ONLY tell us that the person thought it actually happened. And what we have in the NT myths is countless unknown copyists/others making claims about what other people claimed they saw. So we don't even have first hand anecdotal/eye-witness accounts; we have anonymous hearsay in all cases but Paul's and even then we don't know for sure which of his letters are authentic or complete.

Not to mention the most obvious fact, which is that we know people who have had "visions" like the one he alleged had typically mean they are suffering from some form of brain disorder and NOT that they have actually been visited by a magical being, which only makes anything Paul wrote further suspect (if not, once again, an outright lie just to get himself ingratiated into the "movement").

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

So ALL of this merry-go-round comes down to ONE thing: what evidence do you have that a guy named Jesus was divine and/or had supernatural powers? Because if you say, "somebody told me he did" you have no evidence.

ETA: Let me reiterate. I don't mean "you have no evidence that I would personally accept." You have no evidence PERIOD.

To make it unmistakably clear to you, anecdote (especially hearsay anecdote) is not evidence of the object; it is ONLY evidence of that someone had an experience they couldn't readily explain.

And we don't even have that. We have other unknown people claiming that some other person saw something they could not readily explain. That is not evidence that the something they saw actually existed. Full stop.

 

[steve_bank]

There are no eyewitnesses that coorborate the gospel stories. The gospels were wriiten well after alleged events after years of heasr say paaage ond expansion of the tales.

There were no objective reporting. In Greek and Roman culture those who wrote on history and events freely embellished and filled in faces.

I believe it was likely there was a flesh and blood person on whom the story was spun, or the character is a composite of several people or a movement. That would explain the incongruences in the gospels.

Today we would call the gospels a docu-drama. A fictionalized account of events loosely based on facts and people. Invention as needed to enhance the story.

 

[Lion IRC]

Koyaanisqatsi
I'm confused by your responses.
You seem to be saying that;

- the evidence doesn't prove anything supernatural took place
- There's no evidence

- We have testimony
- We don't know whose testimony it is

- The sources are biased
- We have no sources

- Saul of Tarsus was an eye witness
- Saul of Tarsus didn't witness anything

- Chrestus, Christus, Chresto therefore no Christ

- Archeology can prove stuff
- Archeology cannot disprove stuff

- No Jews converted to Christianity
- The Jews who converted didn't call themselves Christians

- the Gospel events happened "I'm sure they did"
- "just not in the manner presented."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay:

• Jesus born to a virgin.
• Lots of time (most of Jesus's life) passes with nothing of note.
• Jesus finally gets out there and says things for around a year.
• Jesus is crucified.
• Jesus resurrects, no body left... though the details are fuzzy as to whether the cave was blocked off... or not, which would provide a significantly much lesser explanation for a missing body.
• Jesus is seen by some people.
• Absolutely nothing else happens!

It seems quite odd that the guy who is the keystone of a religion seems to have had almost no influence at all in anything in the religion. There are 26 books in the New Testament, and 1 fan fiction (Revelations). The 26 books include 4 gospels about Jesus's life... each of which are pretty darn short and very repetitive of each other, seeing that Jesus is the keystone.

The resurrection is impressive until you actually think about it, he allegedly appears to people... and accomplishes absolutely nothing, but the parlor trick of standing around. For a person's who's death was immediately followed by earth shaking drama... you'd think his short-term revival would have led to ... I don't know... anything at all. Instead, we are treated to 22 books of filler and a fan fic.

 

[steve_bank]

There are many ancient eye witness accounts of many things. Strange creatures. mermaids. Loch Ness monster.

There is a place in Mexico where UFO sightings are or have been common. Nobody seems to get a picture.

People believe in the paranormal but it has not been demonstrated. One explanation it 'does not work that way'.

Back in the 70s I was reading Lord Of The Rings and fell asleep. I had a vivid dream of the characters calling out to me to join them. Another time I was reading HP Lovecraft afyer smoking pot. I sted really visualing the demons in his stories.

Human imagination and the power of self deception is strong in us humans. We can become lost in a self created reality.

Corporation of a gospel tale would be a letter from one Roman to another.' 'Hey Tiberius you have to come and see this guy, I saw him walk on water'.

 

[Learner]

So it has been alleged, but we don't have his testimony. We have someone else allegedly re-telling his version of events, perhaps, but we know that GMatthew can't possibly be an eye-witness account because of the elements that no one other than Jesus could have witnessed, such as the so-called "temptation" in the desert. At best, that would have been a story Jesus told to Matthew, but there is no evidence that this is the case.

This would be the best logical explanation in regards to the temptation in the desert. Consider ... a testimony, if you will, which is the nature of the teachings of Christ eg. "to tell" of the experience (or teach) His desciples about Satan his ways and all those enticing things that go with temptation. Why keep it secret to his followers,especially for them to not know what they could expect ...be unprepared?

Matthew 4 just states the events as if he witnessed them; not, "And then Jesus told me about...."

So, at best, we have an unknown number of anonymous authors/copyists over the centuries that have re-told someone else's alleged recollections.

Not to any aspect of Jesus' life or even public teachings. He never met the man. He claims to have had a "vision," but that does not constitute an "eye-witness" to any of the "miracles" Jesus is alleged to have actually done.

So, once again, no, there are no eye-witness accounts.

Witnessing and testimonies is a big thing to the gospels , Christian faith. Even If one isn't going to accept direct eye witnesses (not myself of course) it certainly can't be simply ignored from the biographical POV , the more the writers (being consistent) the better .

 

[Learner]

The bias is evidenced in the books of the NT. Hell, Paul as much as declares that lying is permissible if it means a possible conversion.

There are quite a few Christians who do not totally agree with Paul , and would point out that it was up to each individual if they should choose e.g. those who are "willing" to hear, however... Paul has been VERY instrumental and useful ( useful in God's eyes from the theistic pov) in spreading Christianity (then they can complain about Paul later, should they feel a need to).

Considering the confusion over Chrestus and Christus and Chresto and the fact that his name was actually Yeshua, when it comes to extra biblical corroboration we clearly see scholarly confusion over who is being written about.

Is it so problematic? All three names you mentioned are latin names (possible latinizations), whereas Christos you forgot to mention is Greek. Which means "annointed one".

 

[James Brown]

It's curious that so many of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances involve a case of mistaken identity. That would be a strike against the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

 

[Learner]

It's curious that so many of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances involve a case of mistaken identity. That would be a strike against the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

I think the "realization" hits them afterwards, not at all to be expecting such a miracle in the first place. Its understandable with ordinary everyday folk .

 

[Learner]

=Lion: Where's all the propaganda refuting that Jesus seemingly performed miracles?

All of Judaism? The fact that people back then were gullible morons who believed anything anyone told them and that, evidently what we call "miracles" were stories that people just swallowed whole or something and therefore not a big deal? The victors write the history? I don't know, nor do I see why anyone would need to refute something that never was to begin with.

Maybe, the less its mentioned (in the texts), the less popular it becomes? Why would the Jews ( Pharisees) mention miracles of Jesus ,the risk of taking away their high status to become so less important or be an "embarrassment" to the masses (especially and not forgetting; Jesus "calling them out", calling them seeds of satan etc.)?

Considering they were likely the ones who came up with it in the first place--and forced it under threat of death over the centuries--and that it was designed to keep idiots docile and sheep slaves and was in fact PRO ROMAN (there's where that bit above comes in about Pilate, remember?), why would they suppress it? It's perfectly in line with everything Rome would want; do what Rome says; pay Roman taxes; be meek; don't do anything that would get you jailed; thank God you are poor and worthless; rejoice in your suffering; offer a Roman your ass to do with what he pleases any time he wants it; etc.

If they didn't write it, it is as if they did, so why suppress it?

The same for the Romans. Why invent such a flawed idea,so obvious to self destroy the Roman way of life? A Jesus that represents everything about being anti-pagan-roman-gods, an idea that there is a man who is far above Caesar? I've seen and heard of various versions e.g. "Romans invented Jesus ...to disrupt the Jews etc.. really doesn't make logical sense at all, to be in their favour.

 

[Lion IRC]

Okay:

• Jesus born to a virgin.
• Lots of time (most of Jesus's life) passes with nothing of note.
• Jesus finally gets out there and says things for around a year.
• Jesus is crucified.
• Jesus resurrects, no body left... though the details are fuzzy as to whether the cave was blocked off... or not, which would provide a significantly much lesser explanation for a missing body.
• Jesus is seen by some people.
• Absolutely nothing else happens!

It seems quite odd that the guy who is the keystone of a religion seems to have had almost no influence at all in anything in the religion. There are 26 books in the New Testament, and 1 fan fiction (Revelations). The 26 books include 4 gospels about Jesus's life... each of which are pretty darn short and very repetitive of each other, seeing that Jesus is the keystone.

The resurrection is impressive until you actually think about it, he allegedly appears to people... and accomplishes absolutely nothing, but the parlor trick of standing around. For a person's who's death was immediately followed by earth shaking drama... you'd think his short-term revival would have led to ... I don't know... anything at all. Instead, we are treated to 22 books of filler and a fan fic.

So is yours basically an argument from silence?

Your slogan "Nothing happened" makes me wonder how much bigger Christianity would be today if there had been more of the "Something" which did happen.

Jesus regularly asked people not to tell anyone what happened.
Observe what He told many who kept on asking for more and more signs.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koyaanisqatsi. I'm confused by your responses.

How disingenuous of you.

You seem to be saying

Yes, by all means, don't address what I am actually saying. Turn it into straw instead.

Rather than play your transparent games, Lion, I'll make it painfully easy for you: we have no reliable or compelling evidence that a man named Jesus was either divine or had supernatural abilities. None.

What we do have--at best--is a two thousand year old story about a Jewish Rabbi with magical powers that, supposedly, someone told someone else about, who in turn told someone else about, who in turn told someone else about, who in turn told someone else about, etc., etc., etc., until at some point decades later someone wrote their version (allegedly) of the story they (allegedly) heard, down. That's basically it.

Iow, at best, hearsay. Which, as you and Strobel know very well, is useless, which is why cult members always turn to these pathetic attempts to convince themselves that there is a mountain of other kinds of "evidence"--that does not in any way corroborate a claim of magical powers--for what is ultimately a matter of faith and therefore requires no evidence at all.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up or try to spin it or how you try to obfuscate, the simple fact is that we have NO reliable or compelling evidence that a man named Jesus was either divine or had supernatural abilities. Which, of course, is the ONLY issue that matters.

Which raises the question: why do you feel such an urgent need to convince yourselves by ginning up all of this obvious nonsense?

Who are you trying to convince? It certainly isn't atheists.

ETA: Since I know that you won't answer those questions, I'll make it even easier for you. Make your argument for why anyone should accept two thousand year old hearsay as evidence that a man named Jesus was divine and/or had supernatural powers. Please don't insult your own intelligence by trying to dodge with "That's what Strobel's book does" or "Archeology!"

You have one chance to get this right for all mankind: why should anyone accept two thousand year old hearsay as evidence that a man named Jesus was divine and/or had supernatural powers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay:

• Jesus born to a virgin.
• Lots of time (most of Jesus's life) passes with nothing of note.
• Jesus finally gets out there and says things for around a year.
• Jesus is crucified.
• Jesus resurrects, no body left... though the details are fuzzy as to whether the cave was blocked off... or not, which would provide a significantly much lesser explanation for a missing body.
• Jesus is seen by some people.
• Absolutely nothing else happens!

It seems quite odd that the guy who is the keystone of a religion seems to have had almost no influence at all in anything in the religion. There are 26 books in the New Testament, and 1 fan fiction (Revelations). The 26 books include 4 gospels about Jesus's life... each of which are pretty darn short and very repetitive of each other, seeing that Jesus is the keystone.

The resurrection is impressive until you actually think about it, he allegedly appears to people... and accomplishes absolutely nothing, but the parlor trick of standing around. For a person's who's death was immediately followed by earth shaking drama... you'd think his short-term revival would have led to ... I don't know... anything at all. Instead, we are treated to 22 books of filler and a fan fic.

So is yours basically an argument from silence?

Not silence, relevance. Lived nearly an entirely anonymous life, goes on the talk show circuit for a year, and died, reappears, curtain call. And among all of this, nothing significant happens other than the resurrection trick. Seems quite lacking in the inspiration category.

Your slogan "Nothing happened" makes me wonder how much bigger Christianity would be today if there had been more of the "Something" which did happen.

But there really was no "something".

Jesus regularly asked people not to tell anyone what happened.

And yet we have 4, count them, 4 gospels.

Observe what He told many who kept on asking for more and more signs.

Yes, he did the spoon in a glass of water trick. Great. Where do we sign up?

Yes, of course he is the son of God, but he didn't really show it because he didn't want to umm....

 

[funinspace]

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



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.

I haven't looked deeply into what is out there on Strobel's life, but it does seem that he has promoted a bit of fan fiction making his past more dramatic...maybe you can find a source where he clarifies what his real history is...cuz I don't see it out there after a short search. Though this really shouldn't be important, other than for intellectual honesty...

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2014/07/edward-babinski-on-conversions-of-cs.html

But Strobel started looking into Christianity about four years later than most, at age 25, and converted at 27. He was not well read in religion, philosophy or biblical studies but apparently began reading books suggested by his wife and/or her pastor since she converted and began attending church before him, and it was her new found happiness that inspired him to look into Christianity. Unfortunately, Lee won't say which books he read during those two years. All he says is that after "almost two years" studying Christianity, he became a Christian. That was in 1981. 6 years later, in 1987, he became a teacher pastor. Then 6 years after being a teaching pastor (in 1993) he published his first apologetic book, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary: How to Reach Friends and Family Who Avoid God and the Church. Then 5 more years latter, or nearly 17 years after he had already converted and 12 years after having been a teacher pastor in his church, Strobel wrote The Case for Christ. So it was a book composed by "pastor Strobel." That work and his subsequent books are filled with conservative Christian arguments he read during the 16 years after he had already converted. I doubt we'll ever know what he read prior to converting, how many or few books, what their titles were. But since he apparently had little knowledge of religion and philosophy to being with I bet he swallowed some howlers in the beginning.

And a good point made about Strobel's 'investigation':

Also who can be impressed by The Case for Christ, his first book, composed by an investigative journalist who only interviews conservative Christians? Some investigation.

 

[funinspace]

As I haven't read the book, I found this an interesting reason to consider it to be just another preaching to the choir effort.

Spinning history is not a good route...
https://celsus.blog/2013/08/24/anot...shonesty-in-lee-strobels-the-case-for-christ/

And so, in the first interview, I found Blomberg making a rather egregious comparison. Apparently we have earlier and more reliable historical evidence for Jesus than even the famous Macedonian general Alexander the Great. After all, Blomberg (pp. 41-42) points out the following fact about the dating of the Gospels: “The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, [and] John in the 90s” of the 1st century. That’s roughly 40-60 years after the death of Jesus.

But what is the time gap for our earliest biographies of Alexander the Great? Here is where Blomberg makes an egregious error, stating (pg. 41):

“The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.”

Really? You mean that in the literate Hellenistic world nobody bothered to write a biography of the Greeks’ greatest general, who conquered most of the known world, until four hundred years after his death? They even constructed a great library at Alexandria, and yet nobody thought to write a biography of the city’s founder? Wait a second…

Sounds like another version of the silly 'more of Jesus, than of Caesar' meme...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why would the Jews ( Pharisees) mention miracles of Jesus

Where do any such Jews mention any such miracles?

,the risk of taking away their high status to become so less important or be an "embarrassment" to the masses

Ahh, yes, the idiotic power-mad theory implicit in GMark. So, let's get this straight. You are arguing that the High Priests (the holiest of holies and anointed ones) knew that Jesus was their Messiah--the one their religion teaches them will one day come from Jehovah to kill all of the enemies of the Jews and those who are not holy/anointed in preparation for their God's arrival in Israel to forever rule the Universe from His throne amongst His chosen people--and so they conspired with their enemies to kill this divine being (a feat they would know could not be possible, because, you know, it's a divine being) because his presence on Earth would mean that their own status would somehow be in jeopardy, and NOT that it would mean their liberation was at hand and they would all soon be exalted in their God's presence.

They all just knew that they were evil in Jehovah's eyes and thought they could fool their God by murdering their own messiah, whose presence, once again, would have meant to each and every one of them--the High Priests and therefore the holiest of holies and anointed ones of the already "chosen people"--that their personal status would be raised to divine heights.

That's the insipid argument implicit in GMark and that's what you're doubling down on? For fear of God's reprisal, they would ensure God's reprisal by trying to murder his divine messenger; a warrior that can't be killed by mortals. Does that make any sense to you? Seriously.

Considering they were likely the ones who came up with it in the first place--and forced it under threat of death over the centuries--and that it was designed to keep idiots docile and sheep slaves and was in fact PRO ROMAN (there's where that bit above comes in about Pilate, remember?), why would they suppress it? It's perfectly in line with everything Rome would want; do what Rome says; pay Roman taxes; be meek; don't do anything that would get you jailed; thank God you are poor and worthless; rejoice in your suffering; offer a Roman your ass to do with what he pleases any time he wants it; etc.

If they didn't write it, it is as if they did, so why suppress it?

The same for the Romans. Why invent such a flawed idea,so obvious to self destroy the Roman way of life?

In no way would it destroy the "Roman way of life." It is filled with nothing other than instructions on being the perfect Roman. Do nothing; say nothing; pay your taxes; love the Romans; be obedient; etc., etc., etc.

A Jesus that represents everything about being anti-pagan-roman-gods

And yet mirrors Mithras in a striking manner and would, to a pagan culture merely be one more god added to the list at best.

, an idea that there is a man who is far above Caesar?

Who allegedly instructed his followers to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, etc.

I've seen and heard of various versions e.g. "Romans invented Jesus ...to disrupt the Jews etc.. really doesn't make logical sense at all, to be in their favour.

I obviously disagree, but that's for a different thread and something I've argued at length already and don't need to get into again here.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So it has been alleged, but we don't have his testimony. We have someone else allegedly re-telling his version of events, perhaps, but we know that GMatthew can't possibly be an eye-witness account because of the elements that no one other than Jesus could have witnessed, such as the so-called "temptation" in the desert. At best, that would have been a story Jesus told to Matthew, but there is no evidence that this is the case.

This would be the best logical explanation in regards to the temptation in the desert.

I disagree, but regardless, it would still merely be--at best--someone telling someone else what Jesus told them and then that someone writing it down. And what we actually have with GMatthew is--at best--Jesus telling Matthew, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, who tells someone else...etc., etc., etc....who then rights it down.

It's hearsay layered on top of hearsay layered on top of hearsay, etc. Ever play the game of "telephone" as a kid? Every single time--every single time--a group of people tell someone else what they just heard, it gets fundamentally altered in just three or four transmissions. And that's right there in the same room.

And we see exactly this kind of disparity between fundamental and important details in the retelling of the passion narrative from Mark, to Matthew to Luke, so we already know just from these three versions that don't agree with each other that we have no single, coherent pn that accounts for all of the disparities.

Iow, and once again, all we have is millenia old hearsay that we already know does not coincide.

Consider ... a testimony, if you will, which is the nature of the teachings of Christ eg. "to tell" of the experience (or teach) His desciples about Satan his ways and all those enticing things that go with temptation. Why keep it secret to his followers,especially for them to not know what they could expect ...be unprepared?

Then the better question would be, why not make it clear "This is what Jesus told me happened..." instead of deliberately giving the false impression that they were eyewitnesses to events they could not possibly have eyewitnessed? Were they, perhaps, attempting to deceive or convince? Or just incredibly sloppy writers?

Matthew 4 just states the events as if he witnessed them; not, "And then Jesus told me about...."

So, at best, we have an unknown number of anonymous authors/copyists over the centuries that have re-told someone else's alleged recollections.

Not to any aspect of Jesus' life or even public teachings. He never met the man. He claims to have had a "vision," but that does not constitute an "eye-witness" to any of the "miracles" Jesus is alleged to have actually done.

So, once again, no, there are no eye-witness accounts.

Witnessing and testimonies is a big thing to the gospels , Christian faith. Even If one isn't going to accept direct eye witnesses (not myself of course) it certainly can't be simply ignored from the biographical POV , the more the writers (being consistent) the better .

Except that, again, we do not see consistency between the authors who are telling the same story. A story that, if true, would arguably be the most important story ever written by mankind. And yet, they can't get it straight themselves in spite of allegedly being part of the same movement and allegedly within one or two generations.

And we have just barely touched on the fact that the story plot points themselves could not possibly have happened in real life (e.g., Pilate allowing a crowd of Jews pick which murderer/seditionist to set free, while at the same time publicly declaring Jesus innocent and then immediately after that ordering his execution to appease the same crowd of Jews who supposedly loved Jesus so much that the San Hedrin had to collude with Pilate in the first place, because they feared that the crowd would kill them of they did anything to Jesus).

So, again, all we have is hearsay; an inconsistent story that is decidedly and suspiciously pro-Roman relating events that could not possibly have happened (and I don't just mean the supernatural nonsense)--retold twice and then those versions retold and embellished countless times--from two thousand years ago.

How could that possibly be considered evidence of any kind in regard to whether or not a man named Jesus was either divine or had supernatural powers?

 

[ideologyhunter]

I've got to be in the mood to read Strobel-level polemics. I own his Christ book but haven't read it yet. From some of the posts above, it follows the pattern of his Case for Faith, which I did read: "let's engage in a free-wheeling investigation of the basic Christian claims, putting them to the true test. Our panel will be conservative Christians. Period." This is mulishly stupid; it's meant to bring in the less demanding fence-sitters and to reassure those already grazing with the flock. Read Strobel's Faith book for his treatment of Biblical genocide; it's atrociously reasoned and smug beyond belief.