Jump to content

"the Case For Christ" By Lee Stroebel


Bluechipx
 Share

Recommended Posts

'The Case For Christ' makes a lovely doorstop. So does 'Mere Christianity'. Somehow those two survived my Christian faptard lit days. 

 

I can't resist throwing in a free Joyce Meyer meme.

 

c132cff9005a59021bac81e359a1a0168fe792f1

 

Wendybanghead.gif  Wendycrazy.gif  Wendybanghead.gif  Wendycrazy.gif

 

 

Hey, don't people go to hell for posting Joyce Smarmy Meyers' meme's and polluting the inter webs? GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I remember reading one of Strobel's works as a Christian. It's funny now because now I'm on the other side of this whole thing. I never got through it because it was so wordy, and I was a bit irritated by how he wrote things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I remember reading one of Strobel's works as a Christian. It's funny now because now I'm on the other side of this whole thing. I never got through it because it was so wordy, and I was a bit irritated by how he wrote things.

I always had the same problem with the Apostle Paul - too wordy to be of any use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

'The Case For Christ' makes a lovely doorstop. So does 'Mere Christianity'. Somehow those two survived my Christian faptard lit days. 

 

I can't resist throwing in a free Joyce Meyer meme.

 

c132cff9005a59021bac81e359a1a0168fe792f1

 

Wendybanghead.gif  Wendycrazy.gif  Wendybanghead.gif  Wendycrazy.gif

 

 

Hey, don't people go to hell for posting Joyce Smarmy Meyers' meme's and polluting the inter webs? GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

 

 

 

Make no mistake.  Meyer owns her own jet.  She isn't dumb.  She is good at making other people dumb.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book was written in a somewhat engaging manner. I must admit it wasn't too boring and dry, but the arguments were incredibly weak. His argument was totally derailed when he went against the near consensus view that none of the gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses. I don't care what Papias said, Matthew and John were not written by direct disciples of Jesus. Why the hell would Matthew use Mark's account verbatim in many places if Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark was not? And John is so outlandish and contradicts glaringly with the other Gospels. Any respectable investigative journalist would then classify the whole case as hearsay and throw it out, even leaving out the fact that these accounts have probably changed in many significant ways since they were written.

 

Also, the attempt at psycho analyzing Jesus from legendary accounts written 2000 years ago was laughable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what Papias said, Matthew and John were not written by direct disciples of Jesus. Why the hell would Matthew use Mark's account verbatim in many places if Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark was not?

 

Because a lot of fundies think that Matthew was written *before* Mark despite the consensus of most reputable biblical scholars.  They have to think this way in order to make sense of their pre-conceived notion of Matthew as an eyewitness. Square peg, meet round hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't care what Papias said, Matthew and John were not written by direct disciples of Jesus. Why the hell would Matthew use Mark's account verbatim in many places if Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark was not?

 

Because a lot of fundies think that Matthew was written *before* Mark despite the consensus of most reputable biblical scholars.  They have to think this way in order to make sense of their pre-conceived notion of Matthew as an eyewitness. Square peg, meet round hole.

 

 

They evidently don't realize how ridiculous that is. That would mean that Mark only copied parts of Matthew, while omitting other parts, and in doing so completely omitted the resurrection details, which should have been the most important details if the story was true. It would also mean that Mark's poor grammar was added in the copying when he could've just copied Matthew without fudging up the grammar in places. How could anyone believe that crap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

 Any respectable investigative journalist would then classify the whole case as hearsay and throw it out, even leaving out the fact that these accounts have probably changed in many significant ways since they were written.

 

 

That was part of my deconversion, the more i investigated christianity the more laughable and absurd it became. When i was done investigating the truth about christianity, i had no problem at all throwing my bible in the trash.The whole post was great, just wanted to comment on this passage though. -peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

The book was written in a somewhat engaging manner. I must admit it wasn't too boring and dry, but the arguments were incredibly weak. His argument was totally derailed when he went against the near consensus view that none of the gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses. I don't care what Papias said, Matthew and John were not written by direct disciples of Jesus. Why the hell would Matthew use Mark's account verbatim in many places if Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark was not? And John is so outlandish and contradicts glaringly with the other Gospels. Any respectable investigative journalist would then classify the whole case as hearsay and throw it out, even leaving out the fact that these accounts have probably changed in many significant ways since they were written.

 

Also, the attempt at psycho analyzing Jesus from legendary accounts written 2000 years ago was laughable.

What a great post. Great point on how if they were all eye witness they wouldn't need to copy each other in the first place. Way to debunk those fictional gospels. -me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of evidences books, has anyone ever gone through "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell?

 

I've never read the whole thing, but I've had a copy of it for years as a reference. It's pretty flimsy as well, and deceptively so. For example, it gives a chart of Old Testament prophecies and New Testament fulfillments as evidence, but anyone who's honestly evaluated the OT texts in context knows that they often clearly do not mean what the NT quotes claim they mean. (Besides that, even if the OT texts had meant what NT authors claimed they meant, it would still be entirely possible that the NT writers simply used those OT texts to form their NT claims about Jesus.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

Speaking of evidences books, has anyone ever gone through "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell?

A long time ago didn't he also do more than a carpenter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of evidences books, has anyone ever gone through "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell?

I think I tried reading that once many years ago.   The "evidence" is the Bible and is proven true by the Bible. I didn't get very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of surprised nobody has referenced this book.

 

The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel Paperback – by Robert M Price

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stroebel is teaching a class in apologetics here in Houston this semester. I'm very tempted to sign up and pretend that I'm sincerely interested, but I'm afraid I'd give away my cover very quickly. I'm not good at acting or lying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stroebel is teaching a class in apologetics here in Houston this semester. I'm very tempted to sign up and pretend that I'm sincerely interested, but I'm afraid I'd give away my cover very quickly. I'm not good at acting or lying. 

 

It would be difficult to not burst into laughter at Stro-bull's illogical arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this book when i was about 15, just starting to dive into the fundiesm deep end. at the time i thought it was the shit, like "how could atheists still exist 

with this book in publication". some years later, looking back on it, i can't see how an actual atheist would ever be convinced by this book.

essentially, it is entirely meant for believers, so they can feel more righteous, superior , secure in their rightness, as a type of emotional porn. i read two of his books. the writing style was pretty fast flowing for me, which now I realize wasn't because it was well written,

but more it was a little light on the actual science stuff. some of the arguments like when it came to

fossils just ignored contrary evidence, just pretended it didn't exist completely or that scientists were making it up.      

 

what i do recall well from it is that as others have said, it used a lot of "independent" scholars who completely by coincidence all happened to be evangelical Christians. Christians seem to have this bizarre belief that other Christians can't/don't/won't lie. any actual independent scholars or experts are from the "world" and are evil, and have a vested interest in keeping their version of science taught and believed, (but secretly many are not actually convinced of that thing called mainstream accepted science, as obviously real science/evidence points to jesus -sarcasm). to the kind of people who read these books, only god-fearing scientists and scholars have an unbiased, valid and truthful opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually more familiar with the sequels to the Case for Christ than that book. My mom loves The Case for Faith's justifications for God killing children, allowing suffering, and sending people to hell. There's also The Case for Easter, which is just the resurrection part of the Case for Christ stretched over 200 pages. Finally, there's the Case for Christmas. Really? The nativity story is pretty balls out crazy and seemingly impossible to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually more familiar with the sequels to the Case for Christ than that book. My mom loves The Case for Faith's justifications for God killing children, allowing suffering, and sending people to hell. There's also The Case for Easter, which is just the resurrection part of the Case for Christ stretched over 200 pages. Finally, there's the Case for Christmas. Really? The nativity story is pretty balls out crazy and seemingly impossible to defend.

 

There is no reason to write these books other than MONEY. Think about it. Aren't xtians only supposed to need the Bible for all their daily brain-food? So why do they buy so many other books? It's guaranteed money in the bank. I've often considered writing a book where I pretend to be a xtian turned atheist and than turned xtian again. I'm sure I'd make huge money on it. Xtian's lap up that stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.