Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(28-03-2017 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-03-2017 03:51 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  So yeah, I've got a day off. Went to see Power Rangers, picked up my medicine, got some groceries, and then decided I'd catch up on Case for Christ on the toilet. "You can do this Shai, just read it through, then you can make a few general notes after, it's not like-"

And then 4 pages into Chapter Six: The Rebuttal Evidence or Lee Strobel goes after the Jesus Seminar with no understanding of anything at all when I went, "Well darn it, I'm doing the notes as I go. Damn Strobel."

We start again with another court case, this time to be able to go on about what rebuttal evidence is, evidence that proves someone's testimony false. As the chapter begins, we start into how we're going to rebut the Jesus Seminar, or as Lee falsely describes them under Can the Jesus Seminar be Refuted?, a small minority of scholars who are interested in attention with what he implies to be unsupported conclusions.

Next up is the inevitable, look-how-awesome-this-expert-is-guys! As Lee goes into this guy's background he again shows his utter ignorance of academia and academic credentials. Like he has to tell us that his expert graduated "cum laude" with his Masters of Divinity and "Magna Cum Laude" with his Ph.D. I would hope so Lee, if you didn't have the GPA to get "cum laude" status, then you would have failed out of the program, because a C is the gentleman's F in grad school. You literally shouldn't be able to graduate with anything less than a cum laude at that level. Now, I'm being generous here Lee, because I'm making the argument you're just hideously ignorant, when it's equally and possibly more likely that you're in fact hideously dishonest and trying to impress the people who read this book uncritically in their church small groups and know nothing of how academia works!

On page 122 he takes another shot at academia, mentioning how this expert may be an adjunct professor of theology at a Christian university, Bethel University, but, has a job as a pastor at a church, so, "This real-world environment helps anchor him in the reality of everyday life." Before I go on, let's talk about Bethel University. When I typed into Google asking about its accreditation, the second result was about a "warning" about that. BU is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, one of the regional accreditation bodies for higher education, however, as of January 2016, it seems to have been under warning to improve or lose accreditation, as a local paper reported that it , "is under a 12-month probation period for “institutional effectiveness” and “general education competencies."" It's school of education was also, in July, apparently denied state level accreditation by the state of Tennessee. The vote to not approve that was 8-1 against, and apparently based in a lack of assessment capability and "Candidate knowledge skills and professional dispositions". Granted, the Theology department isn't in that school, but still...this all does not look good for me taking this guy seriously.

Page 124, "Here's the truth," he said "the Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament scholarship. It is not the mainstream." Citation please? Of course you won't, you never cite anything in this book. Oh and they're evil liberal fundamentalists out to destroy Christianity or some such no Lee, that's you...and this book...and anyone who knows anything about scholarship; that's the implication we're given here. Also the expert tells us, the Jesus Seminar scholars are at least as biased as Evangelicals, probably more so!

Page 127 we get the quote, "Historians usually operate with the burden of proof on the historian to prove falsity or unreliability, since people are generally not compulsive liars. Without that assumption, we would know very little about ancient history." Suddenly I know why you're an adjunct of theology...because that's basically the opposite of how inquiry works. What the Jesus Seminar is doing is starting with the evidence, not with presuppositional beliefs, and working from there, which is how scientific inquiry should proceed, based out of evidence. Expert also seems to be implying we should trust the Gospels as multiple sources, where the Jesus Seminar does not, because they should totally count as multiple ancient sources (we're so ignoring the Q document's very possibly existence, it's never brought up by Strobel or this expert).

Page 129-130 we go on about Apollonius and the claims of his miracles, and how the fact the Gospels use declarative statements, instead of "some say" or "it has been reported" that means that the Gospels are authentic. Page 131, "And Christianity has nothing to do with life cycles or the harvest." Umm... Facepalm

Oh page 132, we finally bring up the Q document and say there's no evidence for any such thing. Take the expert's word for it. Page 135, "What's not rooted in reality is the faith of liberal scholars." Sort of like the idea that you're an expert that's speaking without bias? Pages 137 and 138 bring us nods to 4 more experts who don't agree fully with the Jesus Seminar. Our first question under "Deliberations" asks you if you've read their findings, and why is it bad for us to believe the news media about faith.

Fully intended to do a two chapter post, but holy crap, I need a break.

Chapter Seven: The Identity Evidence

Good news everyone! This chapter is only 11 pages long, including the Deliberations questions!! We're now in Part Two of the book! Why is this good news? Because that means we're one-third done with this exercise in raising my blood pressure. Let's dive into Part Two: Analyzing Jesus.

Holy cow! Maybe this is the point where the book changes; we didn't actually start this chapter with a court case! We started instead by talking about a man whose career I actually know a decent amount about, John Douglas, one of the best profilers in the FBI's history. Oh and already on page 144 Lee takes another shot at academia, for those of you keeping count, where he talks about how some professors probably are mislabeling Jesus as rolling over in His grave at being worshiped as God. Also Lee again has to point out that his graduate degree was "summa cum laude" from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary. Facepalm

Page 151, potshot at Last Temptation of Christ. Page 152, start off by fellating William Lane Craig's work.

Not a lot jumped out at me in this chapter honestly. However I do have an overarching observation in the tonal change of the book, or at least with this chapter in particular. We no longer have a mask on where we claim to be going, "how much do we trust the Gospels?" Now it's implicitly implied that we should do as Lee as has and embrace them as fully accurate and capable of being used as our evidence. Our expert doesn't try to use other ancient sources, or the early church fathers, but rather, only relies upon the Gospel accounts themselves.

Our postgrad degrees we get either a flat degree without ornamentation or "with distinction". What's the scale in US? cum laude < summa cum laude < magna cum laude? I always like to read it as "this person cums loud" Tongue

At least as far as I've ever encountered, our graduate degrees are just graduate degrees, though some schools will mark on the transcript "passed with distinction", but it's not a universal thing. And the scale here is cum laude < magna cum laude < summa cum for what you think it reads like in your mind... Tongue At my undergrad graduation, someone asked about if it was "cumming loud"!

(29-03-2017 12:02 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  
(28-03-2017 06:41 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Thank you! Sadly I've noticed a lot of grammatical errors after doing that post (then again, probably to be expected since it was stream of consciousness while reading).

> You are only human. The importance of your project and what you have to say are not diminished by a few typos. Consider

Thanks, that's good to know! Smile

(29-03-2017 03:26 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(28-03-2017 06:41 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Thank you! Sadly I've noticed a lot of grammatical errors after doing that post (then again, probably to be expected since it was stream of consciousness while reading).

Don't worry. Your points are clear and convincing. You'd have Mr. Disco-Strobe for breakfast if he dared take you on.

Thanks, I appreciate that!

(29-03-2017 01:27 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Man I'm loving this.

I'm ashamed to admit but back in my mid 20s when I first started wanting to "prove" Christianity, I used Strobel and McDowell as gospel and ate their garbage straight up. I even used it to argue with others.

Oh young ResidentEvilFan, there is just so much I need to warn you about, and yet, tragically I cannot.

I would have done the same as a young Baptist though!

Haven't gone over our chapters together yet with my friend, but since I feel up to it, next chapter!

Chapter Eight: The Psychological Evidence

Another 11 page chapter and hopefully with more substance than last time. Because last chapter was utterly disappointing in its lack of information. We start off with a tongue-in-cheek proposal that almost became law in New Mexico, that essentially dismissed psychologists who testify in court as quacks. Then he discusses how psych professionals are often regarded as suspect in courts, because they deal with defense attorneys to help prove people are 'legally insane". I'm glad you make that distinction Lee; not. Insanity is solely a legal thing, it is NOT a psychological term. So saying "legally insane" is a redundancy.

This time we're back to talking about court cases, this time with a housewife who looked normal, but was charged with murdering her husband. Shock, surprise! She wasn't mentally well, who saw that coming with this example? She claimed to have been assaulted by Dwight D. Eisenhower and Napoleon Bonaparte. So she was found unable to stand trial. So, now we're going to see if Jesus was crazy.

Our expert this time is the head of the American Association of Christian Counselors. Page 161 establishes we're accepting the Gospels as Gospel, if you'll pardon the lame pun. This makes me think that indeed, for the rest of the book, we're gonna be totally not ever questioning anything about them, or rather the Evangelical interpretation that Strobel espouses, ever again.

Yup I'm right here. If this trend continues, my posts are going to start getting super short. Because basically our psych expert is going 'Well sure, people who claim to be God are crazy. But not when they back that up with miracles, let me quote the Bible!'

He actually brings up a nice view on how stage hypnotists do their acts. They use soothing tones of voice and see who in the crowd is reacting the most and then call on them to be volunteers. Looking, in short, for the people who are the most susceptible to an altered state of mind. Then we get into how Jesus couldn't be a hypnotist because the lepers were automatically healed, instead of the days it can take for some conditions to clear up medically after a hypnosis session (or rather the one he uses of a teenager with a skin condition).

Also our expert tries to imply most psychologists believe in demonic possession without outright saying it.

Deliberations wants us to ask, in part, how well the expert trashed any ideas of hypnosis.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shai Hulud's post
30-03-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
I like how Strobel tried the liar, lunatic, or lord CS Lewis garbage.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
31-03-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
He should use it on himself. Liar, lunatic or lord of bullshit.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
31-03-2017, 03:22 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
What the hell is the American Association of Christian Counselors?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
16-04-2017, 01:59 AM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2017 02:04 AM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
It's an Association of Christian Counselors; I actually know a member who runs a "Christian" counseling service. Because you know, there are too many secular therapists. Facepalm

Anyhow, I'm up at 2:30am on Easter and posting one post on TTA before bed, because I went to see The Case for Christ. In the spirit of the GAM guys, how bad was it, you all ask? Well, I watched God's Not Dead 2 in theaters, and I watched A Matter of Faith in theaters...twice. I nearly walked out of this film after paying $10.50 to watch it, halfway through. The book thus far has been bad, but the movie is downright boring and worse.

Anyhow, the high points that I took notes of (since, aside from the people who kept coming in, I was alone):

The story with Hicks and the cop who shot himself with a pen gun is ENTIRELY different than in the book. Also when investigating he meets with Father Mendez, an archeologist, at a gorgeous church. I had several issues with this scene. First of all, the likelihood of finding this well appointed a Catholic church, complete with high altar, right after Vatican II is so ridiculously low as to suspend what little disbelief I had. Second, Father Mendez is NOT the expert we interview in the book, even though he's making all of the same points as that expert and using the same sound bites. Rather he appears to be a composite character of Dr. Yamouchi and Dr. McRay, neither of which is Catholic, nor, therefore, a Catholic priest. This is blatantly trying to appeal to a broader ranger of viewers.

Next major note: No Lee Strobel, you are not allowed to use Carry on My Wayward Son and position yourself as the wayward son. That is for Supernatural and the Winchester brothers. A show with about as much truth in it as most of this movie.

Next major note point: Faye Dunaway plays "Dr. Waters" who tells him it can't be mass hallucination or hypnosis. She also uses talking points from the book and is a character who does not exist in the book. The expert the book references for these is Dr. Collins. Also the medical doctor he visits in the film appears to have either walked off the set of Independence Day, or out of a physical of President Trump.

Last major point I have, before Lee ends up accepting Jesus in his serial killer-esque layer of newspaper clippings, photos, and scribblings, is his last meeting with his atheist mentor. You're all going to weapons grade facepalm at this one...his atheist mentor tells him basically that atheism is a matter of faith, I missed the exact wording, but typed down the next two lines.

Lee: Even in our disbelief, we take a leap of faith?

Atheist mentor: More or less.

As a fun aside, the movie theater just solicited my feedback. When I said I was unlikely to recommend them, I sent them this as the comment they requested when asking why I was giving it a poor rating:
Quote:I just came back from the 12:10am Case for Christ screening on April 16th. Repeatedly people came in to clean the theater, then saw me there and left. The last person came in and just sat down until after the credits, playing on his bright phone in the first row for the last twenty minutes of the movie.

Then it gave me an error message. Hobo

It was boring, predictable, and poorly made. It uses the book's talking points without acknowledging most of the people those talking points come from. Also every shot of Chicago must have the Sears/Willis Tower in it, and somehow William Lane Craig's office in Jerusalem had a perfect view of the Dome of the Rock.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Shai Hulud's post
16-04-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
The God Awful Movie guys tore the movie a new one last week.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
16-04-2017, 04:57 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(16-04-2017 09:51 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  The God Awful Movie guys tore the movie a new one last week.

They did such a good job with it too. Laughed my way through way more than the actual film. Smile

Also that makes me think of the end of the movie. His wife suggests the book and he starts to type it. He converted around 1980 or 1981, the book didn't come out until 20 years ago. That's a long space in between; also CfC was, I believe as GAM pointed out, his 4th book about Christianity, so either it gathered dust for a while or it's another case of this movie just bald faced lying.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shai Hulud's post
16-04-2017, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2017 08:08 PM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Because I can't find my television remote easily right now:

Chapter Nine: The Profile Evidence. How bad could this be? Well...I probably just jinxed this endeavor

This is subtitled, "Did Jesus Fulfill the Divine Attributes of God". In my mind's eye, I 'heard' Aliza go "No, he's not G-d." But, oh well.

Okay let's do this. We're back to a crime story to introduce us to the chapter. I have no clue how Lee's way too excited intro about a drifter who died in prison thirty years after murdering eight young women is going to tie into this chapter, but surely it'll come about at some point.

Looks like next guy up is yet another person who teaches at an Evangelical college in New Testament studies. Color me entirely unsurprised by this point. Anyone else recall when we had William Lane Craig and stuff? I'm kinda missing him and Gary Habermas. Funny aside, both Craig and Habermas are thanked by name in the credits of the new Case for Christ film credits. Anyhow, another round of description that's unnecessary about what this guy looks like and how their interview took place in a deserted faculty lounge and that this guy's wife is British.

Listen Lee, we're on the same side on this issue, so don't do anything stupid, okay? What is up with me tempting fate? Anyhow, we can see already here, the seeds of Lee's conversion. But before we discuss that, let's talk a little about the process of conversion from a sociological standpoint. It's actually a lot like Differential Association theory. You weigh your beliefs in relation to those around you, what they care for, how much you care for them compared to the previously held idea, how much time and effort go into that relationship, etc. What we're seeing by this point in the book, with the acceptance of the Gospels as, pardon the pun, Gospel, is that Lee is already unconsciously embracing the 'definitions' favorable to belief in God and belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. These are replacing his definitions that were previously at least apatheistic, and is most likely an unconscious process. The acquisition of definition and language favorable to a viewpoint is often the first real sign of the changing of one's attitudes and beliefs. Anyhow, simplistic explanation on my part for a phenomenon that would take a book in its own to go on about, but just something I felt the need to note. Whether Lee intends it to be visible in his retelling of the interview, the first signs of his conversion are already apparent. Most likely he's being influenced emotionally by his wife's conversion, by his difficulties at home with it, and with the research he's doing where his mind is starting to engage in a sunken cost fallacy, where he's feeling he's put so much into all of this and can't back out now.

Anyhow, back to the Mystery of the Incarnation section here. Strobel's questioning is about "Can't Jesus be omniscient if He's God" and such. His expert replies with three different ideas, each of which has its own issues. For instance the idea that Jesus emptied part of Himself out in the Incarnation. Anyhow thus far a lot of this chapter is talking in circles and blaming translations of ancient Greek that don't agree with the expert. I'm not an expert on ancient Greek, so I feel a lack of qualifications to criticize in any meaningful way. That said, as we enter into the Hell discussion...this expert seems almost as wishy washy as me on trying to grasp why Hell is a thing. Though he eventually settles on "justice" and that we'll all realize on the last day that this is "justice".

And now we're hitting slavery. First we begin with how slavery wasn't *that* bad in the Bible compared to the treatment of African slaves in the Americas. Then he tries to say Evangelicals are awesome-sauce for ending slavery in England through an Evangelical awakening there with Christians ramming things through Parliament and convincing the government to send gunships to the Persian Gulf and Atlantic to impede the slave trade. For a historian, this expert doesn't seem really strong on his history. Rather, "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" is more along the lines of what actually happened, or in English, "let justice be done though the heavens fall." This is a line that had previously been used by abolitionist politicians in England such as Sumner, but in this case it is the most oft quoted line of the 1772 case of Somerset v Stewart; where Lord Mansfield, a British judge, ruled chattel slavery to be illegal in England, and that it was a violation of the common law. Also in this case, Mansfield notes in his opinion that slavery had never been authorized by statute in England and Wales. So sure, a lot of Christians may have backed it, following the decision, but some sort of Evangelical political uprising didn't force things through all on their own for religious reasons. In fact, some historians cite this ruling as one of the many reasons the North American colonies that would one day become the United States began to drift even more towards an attitude of separation, that the southern colonies were very much reliant on the slave trade to feed their agricultural economy.

Furthermore on the history of slavery in relation to the Americas, while there were religious abolitionists like John Brown, who was put to death at Harper's Ferry for raiding a federal arsenal and trying to promote a slave uprising as part of what he viewed to be a holy cause of liberation, many early prominent abolitionists did so for secular reasons. Slavery was such a contentious religious issue at the time in America that both those for and against it were citing the Bible as support, and the schisms that erupted across denominations even split the nation's Baptists in two. The Southern Baptist Convention split from the American Baptists in 1847 over the issue of slavery, with the American Baptists feeling as a whole that slavery as an institution was not justified by the Bible, while the Southern Baptists felt the opposite. Even more moderate Southern Baptist clergy were likely to say something along the lines of 'man has no business changing what God has ordained' as a dodge to their own personal anti-slavery feelings.

Fun two facts: I never knew any of that as an American Baptist, it's something I learned only after leaving the faith of my childhood. Also, I've been to Harpers Ferry several times while growing up, with my parents. The Federal officer who led the Marines to put down John Brown's 1859 raid was a Colonel by the name of Robert E. Lee....yes, he is THAT Robert E. Lee.

Anyhow, before we hit "Deliberations" the chapter ends nicely with a quote from Galatians 3:28, a verse often used by those religious people who were abolitionists against the practice of slavery in America, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The second question under Deliberations is perhaps the most hard hitting we've had in the book so far, asking if Hell has been an impediment in our own spiritual journey, and what did we think of the expert's explanations? I'd like to also note this is definitely phrased in a more direct way than most of the previous Deliberations questions as well. Rather than pretend we might be non-believers seeking out the evidence for Christ, it basically admits you're probably reading this as part of your church's small group thing.

Had a couple of PM 's I meant to reply to, but think this is it for me tonight. Up at my usual 6am tomorrow, and only had about 10 hours of sleep since Friday night, so turning in a bit early.

Edit: After a reread I apologize for the positively crap job I did on acquisition of language and definitions as an unconscious aspect of things. Also I never did truly grasp how our crime story fit into the rest of the chapter.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Shai Hulud's post
17-04-2017, 08:50 PM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2017 09:08 PM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Chapter Ten: The Fingerprint Evidence Or Aliza continues to scream NOOOOO in the back of my head to these claims.

Lee starts this chapter with another crime story, this one from 1910. It's the murder of Clarence Hiller and is actually quite noteable in that it was the first case in America to use fingerprint evidence to convict someone; the man who did it, had left his fingerprints in a coat of freshly applied paint. Fingerprinting had just been exhibited not long before at "an international police exhibition in Saint Louis", Strobel tells us on page 186. Now Lee makes this sound like it had just happened, but it was in fact in 1905, five years prior. A small nitpick on my part, but still. Details matter.

And on that point, Lee needs to update this to "The DNA Evidence" because as of 2004, the FBI had to change the way they testified in court about fingerprint evidence. They used to testify, even when I was in undergrad, that it was always isn't. Because in 2004, Seattle attorney Brandon Mayfield was arrested for a train bombing in Spain, because the prints at the scene of the crime matched his. Also fun fact, this was 3 years after 9/11, and he had converted to Islam not long before. Mayfield ended up hiring his own forensic expert to look at the prints the prosecution alleged were his...and his expert agreed with them, using more than the normal number of points of comparison that were usually a slam dunk for conviction. It turned out around 20 other people also had a similar enough match they were considered. But that was just in the United States; you see, the Spanish authorities ended up arresting Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian national for the crime. This 2004 case effectively ended the infallibility of fingerprints as court evidence. So for Lee to keep using "the fingerprint evidence" as a chapter title here, comes off rather poor now, as it now undermines his whole point of it being perfect evidence, something I'm assuming he'll make the point for, given his crime example above.

Now onward to our interview subject this time, Pastor Louis Lapides, who was born and raised as a Jew in New Jersey, but instead is now a pastor at a church in southern California. Also one of his degrees is from the same seminary where Strobel's own son now teaches. Not saying there's a link, there's not, just a fun little aside. He also spent a decade with "Chosen People Ministries", evangelizing Jewish college students.

Again, Lee's growing bias is showing, so page 188, "I didn't want to begin by debating biblical nuances, instead, I started by inviting Lapides to tell me the story of his spiritual journey." Family went to a "conservative synagogue" but an Orthodox one on "high holy days", but they worked on the Sabbath and didn't keep kosher. "It never came up" is the response he gives Strobel about discussing the Messiah.

Going to quote CFC again now, page 189, to show bias, "I was incredulous. In fact, i thought I had misunderstood him. "You're saying it wasn't even discussed?" I asked." And again the answer was no. And that Jesus was only spoken of in a derogatory manner. His views of Jesus were by seeing Catholic churches, only bloody and nailed to a cross. And he was sure the New Testament was entirely anti-Semitic and full of instructions on how to massacre Jews, and, from page 189 again, "I thought the American Nazi Party would have been very comfortable using it as a guidebook."

And also from page 189, this time Strobel, "I shook my head, saddened at the thought of how many other Jewish children have grown up thinking of Christians as their enemies."

The seeds of Lapides conversion come after rebelling against Judaism and doing drugs and going to Vietnam after his parents' divorce. He tries Buddhism, then becomes interested in Christianity after seeing an evangelist on Sunset Strip chained to a cross in protest. Page 192, "those are my scriptures he's quoting" is a line by Lapides. Somehow this guy had never heard the words of the prophet Isaiah.... Facepalm Anyhow, quotes Isaiah 53 at this point, one of the most often quoted prophecies about how he was wounded for our transgressions. He claims he suspected it was a fraud, that Christians rewrote the Old Testament to make it so obviously about Jesus, so he had a relative send him a Jewish Bible, and it was the same! Matthew's genealogy of Jesus wow'ed him too. Man the subtitle I picked for this chapter is accurate to an extent. I know Aliza once told me why this wasn't a good one, but can't remember nor find it at the moment... (later addition) oh I remember now, genealogies don't count through stepfathers who didn't contribute any DNA. He has a conversion epiphany in the Mojave Desert, gives up drugs, meets a Jewish woman who follows Jesus who takes him to her church...and the pastor is chained-to-a-cross guy who challenged him before. He marries that woman a year later. Okay, cool, we're done with his story now.

Wow...there is literally 4 pages left to this chapter before we hit "Deliberations" and we've talked about like one thing prophecy wise. One. Okay, page 198 with Strobel bias again, "With Lapides' permission, I started by asking the one that was foremost on my mind, "If the prophecies were so obvious to you and pointed so unquestionably toward Jesus, why don't more Jews accept him as their Messiah?" The answer is counter-apologetics seminars and "Oddly enough, even though the Jewish people are known for having high intellects, in this area there's a lot of ignorance." He tells us also the odds of someone other than Jesus fulfilling all these prophecies is, "one in one hundred million billion".

I...I...what the fudgenuggets am I even reading now Strobel? From Lee himself on Page 199, "I had studied this same statistical analysis by mathematician Peter W. Stoner when I was investigating the messianic prophecies for myself. Stoner also computed that the probability of fulfilling forty-eight prophecies was one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Our minds can't comprehend a number that big! This is a staggering statistic that's equal to the number of minuscule atoms in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion universes the size of our universe!" Listen. Lee. I've had 3 alcoholic drinks in the last 2 years. But if you keep pulling this stuff out of your butt, I may have to go buy some amaretto. Don't make me go to the liquor store Lee.

His other claims, I'm not enough of an expert to understand at a level acquired to affirm or express skepticism over, lacking a firm grounding in things like Old Testament dating schema. We end this chapter with a few paragraph length stories of smart Jews who found Jesus.

So from pages 202 and 203 I want to type in full, two of the questions from "Deliberations"

"Even if you're not Jewish, is there an aspect of Lapides' spiritual journey that is similar to your own? Were there any lessons you learned from Lapides about how you should proceed?"

"Lapides considered his Jewish heritage and unbiblical lifestyle impediments to becoming a follower of Jesus. is there anything that would make it difficult to become a Christian? Do you see any costs that you might incur if you became a Christian? How do they compare with the benefits?"

Edit: By the way. We're now officially done with "Part Two" of the book. The third part is only four chapters long.

Edit 2: Also Mayfield hadn't been outside the U.S. in over a decade before the train bombing in Madrid, Spain.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Shai Hulud's post
17-04-2017, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2017 09:16 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Very nice! You continue to impress me Smile

Yeah, oh my god... once people start incorporating probability into their arguments from incredulity, it makes me want to eat my face off.

PS: laughed so hard at fudgenuggetsBig Grin

Strobel seems blissfully unaware that the authors of the NT had the OT right in front of them.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: