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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

it's meant to bring in the less demanding fence-sitters and to reassure those already grazing with the flock.

Exactly, which is itself incredibly revealing. It means he--and they--have no faith and instead need to gin up a whole shitload of smoke and mirrors to deal with their cognitive dissonance. In short, it fools only themselves.

 

[sdelsolray]

I read Strobel's book.

I also read The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert M. Price.

Price eviscerates Stobel's claims and arguments. It's that simple.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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!”

A married man dies. His property is distributed to his heirs and his wife remarries. He then a few years later, is resurrected and arises out of his grave. Who is his wife married to?. What is the legal situation with his property he had at the time of his death?

If this zombies rising from their graves happened as per the gospels, the legal situation would have tested the notoriously legalistic Jews whose legal experts would have wrangled over this at length. The final legal judgments would have been reflected in Jewish jurisprudence and at length. There is though, nothing at all like that found in the Talmud that had lengthy discussions on Jewish law in light of the Laws of Moses and how these laws were to be interpreted.

There was no need for such discussions by Jewish legal experts because it never happened.

The case of the dog that didn't bark in the night.

 

[Lion IRC]

Koyaanisqatsi
I assume you've put everything on the table that you've got because you're restating the same points all over again - for effect?
But here's a reply to anything in your post with a question mark attached.

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

There's no urgency.
I'm not doing it to convince myself,
It's not nonsense.

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

I'm addressing folks who are interested in hearing Strobel's arguments rather than abusive ad homs about Strobel.
I don't believe atheists are a closed-minded as you imply. Best you don't try to speak for all atheists.

Since I know that you won't answer those questions,

Youre wrong about that too.

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?

It's not hearsay evidence and history doesn't stop being historical after 2000 years. And as I said, the facts can be viewed thru a secular lens. You can pick any number of possible explanations - good, better, best - for why people thought they were witnessing miracles.

 

[Lion IRC]

I read Strobel's book.

I also read The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert M. Price.

Price eviscerates Stobel's claims and arguments. It's that simple.

I'll believe it when I see it.
Can you give one example?
Just one. Pick the one counter-argument you found most 'eviscerating'

 

[ruby sparks]

Does the book presume Jesus existed? Just checking.

 

[Lion IRC]

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...

How is this not just more Strobel bashing?
I don't find his back story "dramatic".
Why not just address his arguments?

...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.

His "real" history?
See that's the type of slur which folks use when they are too lazy to debate his ideas.

Though this really shouldn't be important, other than for intellectual honesty...

Since when is attacking his character "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.

WUT???
He most certainly DOES quote and cite bible skeptics and atheist counter-arguments.
He acts as devils advocate when interviewing his subjects.
I've got dozens of chapter/pages I can cite if you don't believe me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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?

It's not hearsay evidence

It is undeniably hearsay and nothing but hearsay. The only possible source we could claim with any confidence at all to be first hand would be Paul's letters, but we do not know which of them are actually authentic or what we do have constitutes any kind of complete or even remotely definitive set of such writings. For all we know, he wrote thousands more that completely contradict everything he said in the letters we do attribute to him and those letters were either destroyed by their recipients or later cult members or just never survived the ravages of time.

And as I said, the facts can be viewed thru a secular lens.

Then, as I said, we're done as no one is questioning whether or not there have ever been people named Yeshua at any point on the planet. The ONLY issue that is relevant is whether or not a particular Yeshua was divine or had supernatural powers.

You can pick any number of possible explanations - good, better, best - for why people thought they were witnessing miracles.

Trump. End of debate.

 

[Learner]

Where do any such Jews mention any such miracles?

They wouldn't, is what I mean, for reasons being of a Messianic nature.

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--

Unfortunately it seems they overlooked verses like Isaiah 53:, Isaiah 61:1-2, Psalm 22:1–31,Dan:9:24-27. Something the High priests (Suddacees) did not recognise in him although it was early at that time,before the crucifixion. Quite possibly one aspect ,that they didn't "believe" simply by just how HE looked ,so "ordinary" like everyone else,so to speak (a different but humble picture to whats usually portrayed as a Greek Demi-god or supermen) when these priests with all the glamour being blinded by their own high self-esteem to make claim, being the holiest of holies (as you put it ),... the chosen to be the direct link with God ...with the belief of NOT expecting any reprisals because of their status in the temple and community . They were also rivals to the Pharisees. The pharisees went their own way with "traditions of men" as its written (henceforth the "maccabees" i.e. priestly class, came about against such traditions). Power-mad-theory may just be right as you mention, touching on a somewhat poltical agenda and less of religious duty to God.

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 didn't believe him then. Its that simple. HE bled like other men and didn't defend Himself. What He did and how He suffered is the discription mentioned in Isaiah 53. The question I would ask then (perhaps this would be more to Jews):

If Jesus was the not the one in Isaiah 53 ... IS it expected that someone else will arrive and suffer in that way and take away the sins of man as described? Its not likely to happen imo nor has it ever happened "after" Jesus! No doubt in my mind HE is the real deal!

(you done a few more posts, I'll just leave it there for now, we don't agree)

 

[Tharmas]

Question for Lion

Lion, I notice you mention “biographical accounts” in your outline of Strobel’s Chap I, and I wonder if you could tell me if that’s your word, “biographical,” or does Strobel use it? I presume the Gospels are meant. I’m wondering because I’m interested in the Gospels, as well as other parts of the New Testament, as literary works and how they convey meaning. Obviously I have not read Strobel or I wouldn’t be asking, but I’m becoming tempted to download a copy if I can find the time.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you hang on for a while, someone might dig up the autobiographical ones. Or, Jesus could come back and write them. Or, he could have already written them and you could go up a really high mountain and........

 

[Keith&Co.]

..., but I’m becoming tempted to download a copy if I can find the time.

Or you could read The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert M. Price, which would also cover the contents of Strobel's work.

 

[Elixir]

No Tri-Omni being needs people to preach to other people about it, to convince people it exists or write books arguing for its existence.
That's one of the perks of being a Tri-Omni being. If it wants something to happen, or for people to believe some certain thing, it can just Make It So.
Anyone claiming to represent or speak for any Tri-Omni being can therefore be rightfully dismissed as a self-interested opportunist.

 

[ruby sparks]

..., but I’m becoming tempted to download a copy if I can find the time.

Or you could read The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert M. Price, which would also cover the contents of Strobel's work.

I'm halfway through 'The Case Against The Case Against The Case Against The Case For Christ'. So far, I'm mostly just very confused.

 

[Tharmas]

..., but I’m becoming tempted to download a copy if I can find the time.

Or you could read The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert M. Price, which would also cover the contents of Strobel's work.

I'm halfway through 'The Case Against The Case Against The Case Against The Case For Christ'. So far, I'm mostly just very confused.

Not to mention confus-ing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

..., but I’m becoming tempted to download a copy if I can find the time.

Or you could read The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert M. Price, which would also cover the contents of Strobel's work.

I'm halfway through 'The Case Against The Case Against The Case Against The Case For Christ'. So far, I'm mostly just very confused.

Does that come in the case set?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And if you believe that......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euchites

The Euchites or Messalians were a Christian sect from Mesopotamia that spread to Asia Minor and Thrace. The name 'Messalian' comes from the Syriac ܡܨܠܝܢܐ, mṣallyānā, meaning 'one who prays'.^[1] The Greek translation is εὐχίτης, euchitēs, meaning the same.

They are first mentioned in the 370s by Ephrem the Syrian,^[2] and Epiphanius,^[3] and Jerome,^[4][5] and are also mentioned by Archbishop Atticus, Theodotus of Antioch, and Archbishop Sisinnius.^[6] They were first condemned as heretical in a synod of 383 AD (Side, Pamphylia), whose acta was referred to in the works by Photius.^[7] Their leader was supposedly a man named Peter who claimed to be Christ.^[8] Before being stoned to death for his blasphemies, he promised he followers he would rise again from his tomb after three days, and he did so in the shape of a wolf, attracting the title of Lycopetrus or Peter the Wolf.^[8] Christians believed it was not him who had come out of the grave, but a devil in disguise.<sup>[9]

----


But, but... Eyewitnesses!</sup>

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And if you believe that......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euchites

The Euchites or Messalians were a Christian sect from Mesopotamia that spread to Asia Minor and Thrace. The name 'Messalian' comes from the Syriac ܡܨܠܝܢܐ, mṣallyānā, meaning 'one who prays'.^[1] The Greek translation is εὐχίτης, euchitēs, meaning the same.

They are first mentioned in the 370s by Ephrem the Syrian,^[2] and Epiphanius,^[3] and Jerome,^[4][5] and are also mentioned by Archbishop Atticus, Theodotus of Antioch, and Archbishop Sisinnius.^[6] They were first condemned as heretical in a synod of 383 AD (Side, Pamphylia), whose acta was referred to in the works by Photius.^[7] Their leader was supposedly a man named Peter who claimed to be Christ.^[8] Before being stoned to death for his blasphemies, he promised he followers he would rise again from his tomb after three days, and he did so in the shape of a wolf, attracting the title of Lycopetrus or Peter the Wolf.^[8] Christians believed it was not him who had come out of the grave, but a devil in disguise.<sup>[9]

----


But, but... Eyewitnesses!</sup>

Let's not forget the translators. it is worth noting the adage that all translation is a lie, which it is of course.

 

[Lion IRC]

Does the book presume Jesus existed? Just checking.

No.
It relies on evidence.
...assuming you mean Jesus of Nazareth

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion, I notice you mention “biographical accounts” in your outline of Strobel’s Chap I, and I wonder if you could tell me if that’s your word, “biographical,” or does Strobel use it? I presume the Gospels are meant. I’m wondering because I’m interested in the Gospels, as well as other parts of the New Testament, as literary works and how they convey meaning. Obviously I have not read Strobel or I wouldn’t be asking, but I’m becoming tempted to download a copy if I can find the time.

Strobel mostly refers to them as "biographies".
"...can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?"
"...do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny?"
"... ancient versus modern biographies"
"... someone's eyewitness account of an event"