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

[steve_bank]

Amazing how many books have been written and how much money made spinning and trying to explain the gospels which contaig a few sound bites of a character named Jesus Christ.There was a performance group called Firesign Theater in the 60s that made a few records.

In one routine there is an exclamation, 'Give them a light and they will follow it anywhere!'.

I am thinking of cats who seem obsessed with red laser pointers. They will follow the spot endlessly around the floor and wall.

 

[SLD]

What I don’t understand is why isn’t there a blu-Ray DVD of the resurrection? This isn’t some simple historical event like the Battle of Zama. This is the most important historical event ever, and it’s being orchestrated by God himself to save mankind for at least the next 2000 years. So why didn’t he ensure that all of posterity would be able to confirm it? There should have been a Roman News Network to cover the event, with a live broadcast to everywhere from Rome to China, Australia and the Americas. If God wants me to believe in this resurrection, he’d have to come up with far more than just another ancient story of such. There are too many other similar stories for me to buy this crap without some damn serious evidence.

SLD

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At no point have I claimed that every part of every Gospel is ALL direct, personal eyewitness testimony.

So exactly what parts are and what is your evidence?

I argue that the Gospel accounts are a collation of three types of testimony

You are not using the word “testimony” properly. And “collation”? By whom?

1. The writer's own personal recollection

Of? GMark is generally estimated to have been written around 70 CE about events that supposedly happened forty years prior. Why in the world would the author wait some forty years to write down his personal recollections?

2. The reporting of other's eyewitness testimony

That’s called “hearsay,” which is NOT allowable “testimony” when you use that word properly and useless to anyone attempting to prove any claims contained within when you don’t.

3. Divine revelation

Again, which parts exactly were magically revealed and why the fuck wouldn’t the whole thing be if any parts were?

But more importantly, why do YOU give a shit about any of this? It’s a complete waste of your time and only proves you to be doubting your own faith.

And I will keep hammering the point that the pseudonymous authorship of 'Mark' actually prevents bible skeptics from claiming knowledge about the (non-eyewitness) identity of that same writer.

You don't know who he was? Well, how do you know he wasn't a witness to ANY of the events in the book of Mark?

You know that’s not how it works. Again, who are you trying to convince?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What I don’t understand is why isn’t there a blu-Ray DVD of the resurrection?

Or just, you know, magical “revelation” implanted into all of our skulls like a GPS chip at birth. Why even bother with any media at all and not just hard code it?

Because god wants you to discover it.

So why did he reveal anything to other people and not to all people?

Ummm, because, uhhh, wait, Lee Strobel...ummm....er............uh............God wants us to learn how to read?

And what NO ONE can explain to me is why Jesus supposedly resurrecting means anything at all. Evidently resurrection was a very common thing. As I pointed out previously (and Lion, of course, ignored), all twelve of the disciples supposedly had the power to ressurect anyone they wanted from the dead (yet, curiously, they apparently didn’t resurrect any of their loved ones or friends or fucking Moses or the like or Jesus or each other).

There should have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of people resurrected from the dead over the centuries and all twelve disciples should be right now sitting on golden thrones in the global capital of Israel as the oldest resurrected divinely inspired beings.

Yet, bupkiss.

 

[Rhea]

The text leaves it open to us to speculate.

Well that was MONUMENTALLY STUPID of god, now wasn’ it.

I think the dead saints were taken up to heaven much like the man on the cross next to Jesus who was told that "you will be with me in paradise."

Except he wasn’t because Jesus sisn’t go there, he went to hell for a 36-hour (3 day!) cruise, then back to earth for a while.

Or was he saying “with me in paradise,” ironically and he actually ook the criminal to hell with him?

But I don't see the "bad writing" storyline continuity issue you're suggesting.

You’d be okay with a story that interrupts the climactic tension to reveal the plot twist out of chronology?

You and I have different litterary standards.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What I don’t understand is why isn’t there a blu-Ray DVD of the resurrection? This isn’t some simple historical event like the Battle of Zama. This is the most important historical event ever, and it’s being orchestrated by God himself to save mankind for at least the next 2000 years. So why didn’t he ensure that all of posterity would be able to confirm it? There should have been a Roman News Network to cover the event, with a live broadcast to everywhere from Rome to China, Australia and the Americas. If God wants me to believe in this resurrection, he’d have to come up with far more than just another ancient story of such. There are too many other similar stories for me to buy this crap without some damn serious evidence.

SLD

Humans are pattern seekers. As such we will invent a reason that events occur. For some people the presence of invisible ghost creatures explains events to their satisfaction. It's a very emotionally satisfying though not so rational account of why things happen, and for many has been quite the profitable enterprise for millenia. It's also terribly easy compared to the alternative.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The text leaves it open to us to speculate.

I think the dead saints were taken up to heaven much like the man on the cross next to Jesus who was told that "you will be with me in paradise."

But I don't see the "bad writing" storyline continuity issue you're suggesting.

Wasn't the guy next to Jesus a convicted thief? Why'd he go to Heaven?

And why would any of "the dead saints" need to be bodily resurrected before they were "taken up to heaven"?
Weren't their souls already in heaven? And if not, does that mean they were somehow alive the whole time their bodies were dead and they were trapped inside rotting corpses for millennia until such time as Jesus came along or something?

 

[Lion IRC]

Lee Strobel. A man of integrity.
When his haters call him a 'liar' it's like they think they can prove that chocolate is a better flavour than strawberry. Or that dogs are better pets than cats.

 

[Rhea]

Thread resurrection. Entertaining.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What I don’t understand is why isn’t there a blu-Ray DVD of the resurrection?

Or just, you know, magical “revelation” implanted into all of our skulls like a GPS chip at birth. Why even bother with any media at all and not just hard code it?

Because god wants you to discover it.

So why did he reveal anything to other people and not to all people?

Ummm, because, uhhh, wait, Lee Strobel...ummm....er............uh............God wants us to learn how to read?

And what NO ONE can explain to me is why Jesus supposedly resurrecting means anything at all. Evidently resurrection was a very common thing. As I pointed out previously (and Lion, of course, ignored), all twelve of the disciples supposedly had the power to ressurect anyone they wanted from the dead (yet, curiously, they apparently didn’t resurrect any of their loved ones or friends or fucking Moses or the like or Jesus or each other).

There should have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of people resurrected from the dead over the centuries and all twelve disciples should be right now sitting on golden thrones in the global capital of Israel as the oldest resurrected divinely inspired beings.

Yet, bupkiss.

This is exactly the thesis of theologian Alvin Plantinga's three volume work "Christian Warrant". God has given us warrant to believe in Christianity via the Holy Ghost. John Calvin's sensus divinitatis. Therefore we are guaranteed to be right about Christianity being true, and no evidence is needed for Christianity, it's very existence is evidence that it is true. Really.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lee Strobel. A man of integrity.
When his haters call him a 'liar' it's like they think they can prove that chocolate is a better flavour than strawberry. Or that dogs are better pets than cats.

As I noted in my Tour de Force on the resurrection, the biggest problem with Jesus, the crucifixion, and subsequent resurrection is that while it was a miracle that looks interesting at the surface, it suffers from serious problems of inadequacy. The greatest miracle to ever happened was witnessed by almost no one and influenced almost nothing. There was a rapture moment available during the crucifixion that'd literally put the fear of god into the witnesses (if there were any... witnesses or crucifixion). No... instead of disappearing from the cross... Jesus decides to disappear in the dark... away from anyone.

Joan of Arc had a much much much bigger (well, anything is bigger than nothing) viable and provable effect in France.

So it does beg one to ask, why perform such a grand miracle to achieve very little. It is like when God starts really caring about freeing the Hebrews in Egypt. Do they get Egypt after rebelling and taking over? Nope.

How wondrous!

 

[James Brown]

The evidence that something miraculous happened is that someone said that something miraculous happened.

There you go.

 

[bilby]

Lee Strobel. A man of integrity.
When his haters call him a 'liar' it's like they think they can prove that chocolate is a better flavour than strawberry. Or that dogs are better pets than cats.

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

If there were no facts, just opinions, then you would be stupid to make the claim that calling Strobel a liar was akin to saying that chocolate is a better flavour than strawberry.

But there are facts, so instead you are both stupid AND wrong.

You appear to be labouring under the delusion that reasoned thought can be effectively achieved without ever learning how to do it; But like most skills, it in fact requires a certain bare minimum level of education and understanding before you can do it without looking like a total numpty.

I strongly recommend that you learn how to think, before continuing to make a clown of yourself by attempting to do so while clearly incompetent.

 

[Atheos]

When people defend liars like Lee Strobel and call him a man of integrity it's like they are using some heretofore unknown meaning of the word "integrity."

I'm old enough to remember when "bad" didn't mean "good." I can roll with the flow.

 

[Lion IRC]

What bilby is saying is that the liar accusations against Strobel should be confined to demonstrable facts and counter-factuals - claims which can be empirically proven.

I agree.

When Strobel says there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence that's either true or false.
When Strobel says 5000 unparalleled in other equivalent ancient historical documents that's either true or false.

Now obviously, Strobel wants to make a cumulative case for the minimal facts about the Crucifixion and his belief that Jesus' Resurection from the grave is the most plausible explanation of those facts - ahead of other alternative theories. But nowhere does Strobel present opinions as facts.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religious magic isn't a theory.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What bilby is saying is that the liar accusations against Strobel should be confined to demonstrable facts and counter-factuals - claims which can be empirically proven.

I agree.

When Strobel says there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence that's either true or false.
When Strobel says 5000 unparalleled in other equivalent ancient historical documents that's either true or false.

Now obviously, Strobel wants to make a cumulative case for the minimal facts about the Crucifixion and his belief that Jesus' Resurection from the grave is the most plausible explanation of those facts - ahead of other alternative theories. But nowhere does Strobel present opinions as facts.

It is true there are in fact many NT documents in existence. And the vast majority were written centuries after the supposed happenings of the gospels. Most are lectionaries, collections of favorite verses for use in sermons. The other that are not lectionaries are copies of copies of documents written a century or so after the facts. Almost no two copies of the gospels agree with each other, there are many variations.

This is a hand wave argument from Strobel and others of his ilk. It all sounds impressive to the less sophisticated reader, but is utterly beside the point. The Gospels contradict each other wildly and cannot be true or written by eyewitnesses or anybody who knew anything worth knowing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What bilby is saying is that the liar accusations against Strobel should be confined to demonstrable facts and counter-factuals - claims which can be empirically proven.

I agree.

When Strobel says there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence that's either true or false.
When Strobel says 5000 unparalleled in other equivalent ancient historical documents that's either true or false.

Firstly, there seems little evidence to suggest the NT doesn't exist. It is the alleged events in the first four books that are in question.

 

[funinspace]

What bilby is saying is that the liar accusations against Strobel should be confined to demonstrable facts and counter-factuals - claims which can be empirically proven.

I agree.

When Strobel says there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence that's either true or false.
When Strobel says 5000 unparalleled in other equivalent ancient historical documents that's either true or false.

Can one deceive without saying something that is directly false?

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-deceit/

 

[Atheos]

Indeed, one of the most fundamental skills of a good lawyer is the ability to twist facts, suppress evidence and use manipulative language in order to support a proposition. The justice system is replete with lawyers who know their client is guilty yet do their job well enough to get an acquittal (or vice versa from the D.A.'s side). Strobel does all of these in "Case For Christ."

Manipulative language: "Chapter 1 - Eyewitness Testimony" Strobel is well aware of what is considered an eyewitness. It is a known individual who swears that their testimony is the truth or a written statement with a clear chain of custody. Anything else will be objected to by the opposing side as "Hearsay." And any judge worth the honor of sitting on the bench will uphold the objection. The "Gospels" are not eyewitness in any sense of the word. We have no reason to believe these books were written by the people after whom they are traditionally named, and it is clear that whoever wrote them was extremely unlikely to have been an actual eyewitness. But in "Case For Christ" there is no opposing lawyer to object, nor is there an impartial judge to sustain. It's tripe.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This entire book is filled with manipulative language, from the gratuitous ass-kissing Strobel does extolling the virtues and credentials of his witnesses to the summary dismissal of (named but never interviewed) dissenting scholars as hacks who know little about the subject matter they're attacking, and who are only motivated by selfish desires to live in sin and denial of Jeeeeeeeeesus.

Suppression of evidence: Never once in the entire book does Strobel bother to interview anyone who has a dissenting viewpoint. He never presents well-known counter evidence such as the lack of contemporary corroboration of Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents," the bullshit Quirinius census that required people to travel to the lands of their ancestors, or even ... well ... any of the remarkable events described in these narratives. The claim that these extraordinary events occurred, yet not one secular historian noticed or made any remark about any of it is a silence that is absolutely deafening. But we can't have any of that in Strobel's "hard nosed investigation of the facts," can we?

Twisting of facts: As mentioned above, appealing to the fact that there are thousands of copies of these stories speaks to nothing other than the popularity of the stories. It has nothing to do with whether or not the stories contain factual information. The fact that there are millions of copies of Gone With The Wind doesn't prove that Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler were real.

In short, Strobel is a liar, liar with pants on fire. It's just that simple.