The Case For Christ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2012, 01:09 AM
The Case For Christ
Has anyone read this book? It's by Lee Strobel.

I'm curious whether it's a good read, maybe even convincing to a certain extent. I'm wary about reading such books because I do think there will be a lot of appeals to authority. Which would make the book lack any useful substance.

Or should I just read a summary of it one the internet if I can find one?

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.


Enlightenment is liberating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 01:20 AM
 
RE: The Case For Christ
I read this book and used to think it was quite good. I would say you will find some convincing evidence in it, and some will be too weak, which will then lead you to doubt his overall credibility.
Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 01:27 AM
RE: The Case For Christ
I read the book, but it was when it first came out years ago, and unfortunately I don't remember a lot about it. What I do remember is that I didn't really care for it any more than the Josh McDowell stuff, and that was even when I was very religious. More recently I read the refutation of the Strobel book by Robert Price, The Case Against the Case for Christ, which I liked parts of, but Price makes some fairly fringe theories/claims himself. But looking at amazon.com now, you can buy the Strobel book for $4 (used), so if you're interested then why not give it a shot?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 02:45 AM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2012 03:02 AM by Vipa.)
RE: The Case For Christ
I haven't read the book myself, but I've seen a nice Youtube-series on it with chapter by chapter conclusion: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8...e=g-user-a

I'd say it makes a quite convincing case to not read it ^^ It's like a summary of all the unconvincing arguments you've ever heard. Every chapter is based upon an interview with an authority figure like William Lane Craig (or however he's spelled) who presents the chapter's "evidence".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vipa's post
14-05-2012, 04:26 AM
RE: The Case For Christ
stevelikes2curse recently completed an analysis of the book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60-eK5sf...1FA8681B70

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
14-05-2012, 04:52 AM
RE: The Case For Christ
(14-05-2012 01:20 AM)Egor Wrote:  I read this book and used to think it was quite good. I would say you will find some convincing evidence in it, and some will be too weak, which will then lead you to doubt his overall credibility.
The problem is his bias... he doesn't attempt to get the views of anyone other than Christians. Even if his arguments were sound, it would be hard to convince a skeptic for this reason alone. I think you hit the nail on the head, Egor. His credibility is questionable, which ruins the impact of his arguments.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 05:07 AM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2012 06:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Case For Christ
Have not read it, but checked out a couple of his assertions.

I suggest we read it together. Mark Fulton and I can rip it to shreds.

Example 1. He asserts that the 4 canonical gospels were actually written by actual "Apostles",
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That is ludicrous. If John was written by the actual John, the son of Zebedee, where in hell did he get his Greek education , and when, why, and how did he get his Gnostic bias. If it was written around or after 100 CE, he would have been a VERY old man. So much for John writing John. Example 2. The "divinity". It's different in each of the gospels. So much for "orthodoxy". Example 3. "Salvation" does not appear in Mark, Luke or Matthew. Why is that ? Paul invented it. Ex 4. Matthew spends all of Chapter 1 establishing the Davidic connection through Joseph, then has the Maurey moment, ("Joseph was NOT the father"). Apparently he interviews a bunch of fundies, and presents THAT as fair and ballanced "reporting". Right.
Let's go after him. I'll get Mark, and we can go at it.

We can call it The Case Against this Christ. Yeshua was one of many who were called by the title "christ". Why the one who, may or may not have actally been Yeshua ben Josef, is now called THE christ, can be one of our discussions.

Then, since he titled the book, The Case for Christ, (maybe not even understanding what that title is all about, and how it CHANGED), as an intro or afterword, we can look at the "economic" question ..... "why do you even need a 'christ' " ?, ...... why it's essential for churches to stay in business, that you THINK you need a christ, .....as the answer to that is as enlightening as the examination of THIS christ. The introduction of the salvation paradigm, where it came from, when, and it's mistaken understanding of the Ancient Garden Myth, ("the fall"), when and how THAT got solidified into "othodoxy", (thus CHANGING the political nature of the original "messiah" to a spiritual/ontologic "savior" concept, pretty much destroys the need for the savior). So yeah. This will be fun. When should we start ? A chapter a week ? A month ? How should we organize this ?




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-05-2012, 06:15 AM
RE: The Case For Christ
Mark and Bucky sitting in a tree... ahem. I vote for summary. Never read the book, but from listening to others talk about it, it is a bunch of apologetic claptrap.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 06:28 AM
RE: The Case For Christ
I was the guy speak on his book, then decided not to bother reading it.
His main problems:
He claims 524 (or so) people are actual first hand witnesses of the resurrected Christ. He calls this a slam dunk in any court of law, and he's a lawyer so he should know.
Today, 3,000 people claim to have been abducted by aliens. We call those people crazy and we can interview them directly. Some sound extremely certain that they were abducted.
He also goes through some myth construction and how it would be impossible for a myth to take off as fast as the Jesus story. This has been disputed by social scientists who deal with myths, and when the emperor of Rome declares Christianity the state religion myths become laws.
My overall impression of his talk was that he is just one of the guy selling books to Christians who want something to help them support their beliefs. If you believe his book will help you believe. If you're a skeptic he will not impress you.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 08:25 AM
RE: The Case For Christ
Strobel remains true to form in this book. He has a distinctive style of apologetics, even though he recycles the same "evidence" and arguments you'll find elsewhere (McDowell, et al). Same substance, flashier packaging.

Base on other books of his I've read, such as the Case for Faith, his formula seems to be as follows:

Step 1. Set the stage for the "hard-nosed" investigator that Strobel likes to claim to be and draw some allusions to criminal investigations or judicial process. It's apparently important to him to create the ambiance of critical review and skeptical investigation to compensate for its complete absence in what is to follow.

Step 2. Hype up some sort of nerf-ball questions as "deeply troubling" to those of faith, as if these are the primary questions that skeptics ask. At times, these questions wouldn't be the least problematic for me to answer even as a non-believer. For example, I remember from one of his books (Case for Faith, I think) where he builds up the question of how a rational person could believe in a virgin birth. Seriously? We have the technology for artificial insemination today. If you've already presupposed the concept of a god that created all life, a virgin birth seems quite possible for such a being (in fact, the apologist interviewed later used that very response). See also "straw man" argument for a better understanding of this step.

Step 3. Interview some sort of apologist as an "expert" in some sort of field. Gloss over the agenda of the interviewee. Emphasize field of study over their career as an apologist. Hype up their knowledge and integrity in the introduction, as if to say "he would know and he wouldn't lie." No doubt that the "expert" was supplied the "troubling question" prior to the interview.

Step 4. The "expert" typically provides the same canned apologetic arguments or "evidence" you'll find from reading other apologist books. This field is so predictable and never seems to invent anything new.

Step 5. Do not interview any skeptics or anyone else who could easily mash the fallacious and spurious logic of the apologists into a fine paste.

"An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of (humanity's) knowledge over time is a greater miracle than all the sticks turning to snakes and the parting of the waters."
-Henry Drummond, "Inherit the Wind"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DeistPaladin's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: