Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ?

Question

Who has read it, what were your thoughts? Terrible case made, and if so why?

I thought the part about the corraborating evidence (other writings that refer to Jesus) was interesting, as well as the verification process that the information/history of what was written in the Gospels actually happened.

Answer 1

Being an investigative journalist who worked criminal trials, I appreciated that he tracked down the objections and the answers. He did not write it to engage in a debate (many complain that he did not interview non christians) because his goal was not to create an objective summary and he states that in the title. His goal was to make the case, which he does with a great number of items. Any one of them might not be so strong. The case is very strong when examined in totality.

Answer 2

An Investigative Journalist is supposed to Investigate ALL angles... he did not do this. As for debate... that is exactly what he set it up as, since he claims in the beginning of the book that he was gathering this evidence as if he were going to take it to COURT. He would have been laughed out of the courtroom with this attempt as he didn't really do anything except repeat what others claim. His verification process of the Gospels themselves only dealt with the Gospels and what was written Afterwards. I'm sorry, any journalist will tell you that something written even a month afterwards by someone who didn't even know the person is Hearsay and is not acceptable as Evidence.

No wonder I had never heard of Strobel before these books. He must not have been a very good Investigative Journalist even before this.

Answer 3

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

What other writings?

Josephus' account of Jesus is recognized to have been faked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Other than that there are a few mentions of followers of Christ causing problems. Christ means Messiah. There were dozens of different messiahs in Judea at that time. Even if they were referring to proto-Christians these just mean that the cult had been established by the time these accounts were written, about 100 years after the events. It does not report any miracles etc. It is meaningless in supporting the biblical account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_sources


So with Josephus out I am not aware of any writings actually referring to Jesus, just the followers of the cult.

Answer 4

I even have not examine it. I did, in spite of the fact that, examine "extra beneficial than a chippie" by using Josh McDowell upon the request of a Christian chum. in spite of the fact that Josh McDowell's arguments are finally wrong, I applaud his attempt. and then there is Ken Ham, who revealed a pamphlet pronounced as "What relatively surpassed off to the Dinosaurs." It became into embarrassing.

Answer 5

Well, his arguments are poor. For example, he says Jesus was either "liar, lunatic or lord" but he doesn't realize there are other options, such as:

1) He never existed
2) He existed but did not say the things he is quoted as saying

He assumes what is said in the bible is accurate, and then tries to attribute motive to the Jesus character. He shouldn't make the assumption the bible is true in the first place.

Answer 6

Yes... but there is a much better read that is related to that... Earl Doherty's "Challenging the Verdict". Doherty completely, thoroughly and devastatingly debunks Strobel.
.

Answer 7

I haven't read that book, but I have read his book, "The case for faith." It covers the 8 questions that are asked repeatedly. Such as why would God allow suffering, do miracles exist/are they real, etc. He interviews 8 different people in regards to these questions and doesn't cut them any slack. I found it to be very thought-provoking and a great read for someone who is serious about wanting answers.

Answer 8

Lee Strobel was a "journalist" but his journalism here was horrible. He pretty much only asked people who agreed with the premise to begin with, and just collected all the usual claims for sources. He even goes for the low cliche arguments like C.S. Lewis's "Lord, Liar, Lunatic".

Anyway, the book's been thoroughly debunked in other books and sources
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Answer 9

My chief problems were the appeal to ignorance and the number of strawmen.

It was a long time ago, but I seem to recall he discussed some science that was really basic and said "we can't know this." I do remember he said archaeology proves nothing and then mentioned archaeological evidence.... Also, he called Josephus a contemporary.

try this:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/StrobelIntro.htm

Answer 10

I read part of it.

There are other writings that could be construed to be about Jesus but it requires imagination.