Rating: 
Summary: No, sorry, still an atheist
Review: A friend of mine introduced me to this book, which he had acquired because local religious groups were passing it out. (which may account for the '10,000,000 in print' claim) All I have to say is this: while Jesus may have been more than a carpenter, Josh McDowell is certainly less than an author.
McDowell asks us in Chapter 1 why Jesus is so influential, adding 'why don't the names of Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius offend people?' (pg. 10) I guess it really depends on who you talk too - the Muslim religion adds 'blessings and peace be upon him' when referring to Mohammed, and most Buddhists I've known held the name of Buddha in high respect. So what makes Jesus so different than any other religious leader? McDowell seems to want to answer that in Chapter 2 ('Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?') by saying 'someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar.' (pg. 30) Nice faith, but unfortunately that's all it is is faith - the teachings of Buddha are very much like the teachings of Jesus, and the life of Guru Nanak, founder of the Sikh faith, is very much like the life of Jesus. (complete with disciples!) McDowell's assurance that Jesus' 'poise and composure would certainly be amazing if he were insane' (pg. 31) is even more simple faith, and relies on the stereotype that 'insane' people are drooling, lumbering lunatics tied down by a straight jacket. In actuality, ask any one familiar with psychological diseases and they'll tell you that many insane people look and act as normal as you and me. Even people suffering from Alzheimer's will have occasions where they can talk and act like the average person.
On page 44 there is a claim that Luke is reliable because he is accurate in his details - does this mean he is reliable about Jesus because he had the right name of the Roman emperor? On page 48 McDowell tries to prove the New Testament is reliable because there are more manuscript copies of it than Caesar's 'Gallic Wars.' Huh? On page 50 there is a claim that, because the New Testament were either taken from or written by eyewitness accounts they are therefore factual, going on to page 53 to say the gospels 'were eyewitnesses and their testimony was not completely disregarded.' This makes it sound as if, because nobody at the time questioned it, it is completely true. I certainly I know I would have questioned some of the gospels the way the stories do not match up. For example, the position of the blind man Jesus heals: in Matthew Jesus encounters TWO blind men leaving Jericho; in Mark the blind man is in Bethsaida; Luke tells us there was a blind man on the way INTO Jericho; John tells us the blind man was in Galilee. Does this sound like a reliable source? How reliable a source are these four books written by four different men - four books of which only two tell us of the birth of Jesus? Not to mention that while most of the Gospels tell us Judas hung himself, Acts tells us he dropped dead in the middle of a field. If McDowell considers the Gospels 'reliable,' then it is for all the wrong reasons. It is also humorous that he is going on about the NT when he was asked how reliable THE BIBLE itself was. The Bible entire is full of contradictions - for example, the OT says that blind people are unclean and therefore should not go before God, yet in the NT that is turned around. If you still do not believe me, then go and read the NT more carefully: Jesus is continually refuting old beliefs from the OT.
In the later chapters McDowell deals with proof of Jesus and his followers...but these are often ridiculous. He says 'I can believe the apostles' testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyrs' deaths,' (pg. 61) saying later 'Jesus' followers couldn't have faced torture and death unless they were convinced of the resurrection.' (pg. 67) I wonder what McDowell thinks of Muslims who are ready to die because they are convinced of paradise, or perhaps those Jews, Muslims, and Pagans who refused to convert during the Inquisition because they were so strong in their faith. Surely, by his logic, those men were just as right. McDowell later makes the argument that the Jesus' resurrection visit to the disciples was not an illusion or hallucination because it is 'unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations.' (pg. 93) However, hallucination (defined as 'an apparent perception of an external object when no such object is present' by 'The Psychological Dictionary') can be caused by serious emotional stress - and if the death of Christ was as serious to the disciples as McDowell proclaims it was, then that is indeed a very logical idea, and would explain their fervor for the cause (which is another affect of this condition). His argument that it 'doesn't coincide with the historical situation or with the mental state of the apostles' (pg. 94) is just absurd, considering that (besides the fact the historical situation has nothing to do with it) I have never seen a detailed account or study of the psychological states of the disciples.
McDowell's arguments are continually one of two thoughts, either 'Jesus and his people are good guys, so of course they're right' or 'I believe this so it must be true.' His later arguments generally boil down at the end of Chapter 8 to: 'Well you can't DISPROVE it, so it must be right!' By Chapter 11 the book has degenerated into a full sermon preaching us to come to Christianity because it is clearly the right course. He tells us on page 39 that 'the Christian faith is not a blind, ignorant belief but rather an intellegent faith...every time in the Bible when a person is called upon to exercise faith, it's an intellegent faith.' Read on and you realize that what McDowell means is that Jesus let's people believe in him when they choose too...in other words (whether McDowell will admit it or not) blind faith. In his own words, 'religion is humans trying to work their way to God through good works' and therefore Christianity isn't a religion because it is people going to God through Jesus. That is a very narrow minded (and Christian biased) view of things: religion is defined in the dictionary as 'belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe' - even Hindus and Taoists believe in more than one god but also believe in a universal power. So sorry, Mr. McDowell, Christianity is a religion.
In summary for the book, I seriously doubt this will convert any one except those who already have some belief in their hearts already. Right-wing Christians will like it and believe it because they WANT to believe it, while contextualists or non-Christians will scoff at its amatuerish logic. If you want a serious theological viewpoint on the Christian religion, I would suggest looking elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: A book that everyone should read at least once...
Review: I first read Josh McDowell's "More Than A Carpenter" when I was a freshman in college. Someone had given me the book, and although I was already a committed Christian, it literally blew me away with the simultaneous simplicity and depth of its arguments on behalf of Jesus Christ. Like a prosecutor laying out his case, McDowell presents a series of facts about Jesus of Nazareth and attempts to uncover the truth about his life. Jesus claimed to be God himself. So either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.McDowell performs brilliantly in putting forward his case that Jesus was and is Lord. Few books better illustrate that believing in Christ is NOT a matter of "blind faith", but rather part of an intellectual exercise. Faith is a matter of believing in and trusting in the facts that are presented. (i.e., Are the words of Jesus trustworthy?) For most objective readers of McDowell's book, the answer will be a resounding yes... Britt Gillette
Author of "Conquest of Paradise: An End-Times Nano-Thriller"
Rating: 
Summary: More Than a Carpenter review
Review: I got this book at a church youth group meeting and was told to read it and that it would answer all my questions if I had any. This book is very in-depth and i would recommend it to anyone who is questioning their religion. This book has the answer to every question you might have and it is very informative. The reason I did not give it 5 stars is because it could get very confusing at times. This book is diffidently a hard read and I would recommend it to more of the older crowd.
Rating:
Summary: One has to confront the truth.
Review: I read this book and it offered me a deeper confirmation of the truth the Jesus Christ is the Lord. I passed it on to my GF at the time and she told me she had questions for me. But she never mentioned it again! But this does not detract from the fact that the book forces us to answer the question He asked of his disciples, "Who do you think I am?"
Rating:
Summary: you can't deny the truth
Review: I've notice a bunch of negative reviews, no doubt by people upset they cannot refute the evidence but still wish not to believe the truth. This book is basically the easy to read version of his massive "evidence that demands a verdict". If you've glanced at that book, this will be nothing new. But this is a lot easier for the average person to take in. Only takes a few hours at most to read it completely. As metioned in the book, seek and you will find.. if you don't believe, simply use all of your energy to try to prove it wrong like the author did, in the end you will find the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Christian essential
Review: If a Christian has not read this book, then she is missing out on a great thing. Her library is not complete. Her intellectual understanding of Christianity requires betterment. This book is an essential first read on Christian apologetics.
Rating:
Summary: A simple, easy to read case for the claims of Jesus Christ
Review: If you are trying to find a simple, easy to read case for the claims of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Josh McDowell's "More Than A Carpenter" is what you've been looking for. It is not a powerful apologetic or a theological masterpiece but it is a great introduction into the study of who Jesus Christ really is. The foundation of the book is based on the three primary possibilities for who Christ is; Lord, liar or lunatic. This is backed up with a defense of the reliability of the Scriptures, an argument from changed lives over history and an argument for Christ's resurrection. I highly recommend the book to those wanting an introduction to who Jesus really is. The book will probably not convinced the hardened skeptic, but for many, it will be an opportunity for God to open their hearts and minds to the truth, that when received by faith, can transform their lives. If you are looking for apologetics, I recommend Ravi Zacharias, J.P Moreland or Norman Geisler. For a deeper examination of the claims of Christ from another skeptic turned Christian, you may want to check "The Case for Christ," by Lee Stroble.
Rating:
Summary: It accomplishes the goal
Review: Is this book an exhaustive defense of the Christian faith? NO! At 128 pages it is a clear and concise argument dealing with many areas where people have doubts. It is an extremely easy read and McDowell is a compelling storyteller. It is a great first step for those who are searching. Yes, the sources sighted are all somewhat old but the truth of those sources has not changed. Some reviewers have attacked their truthfulness of these sources based on the arguments of the Jesus Seminar. It needs to be remembered though that the Jesus seminar is on the Margins of Scholarship and in NO way reflects the views of most the scholarly world. Also, the Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument needs to be understood in its proper context. As McDowell states at the beginning of that chapter "...skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or prophet who said a lot of profound things." Of course there are more than 3 options. One can deny that Jesus ever lived or claim that the things written about him are just myths. But, that is not what most people do. They claim that he was just a good person. The Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument is directed towards those people. It is impossible to look at the teachings of Christ and conclude that he is anything other than the Lord, a Liar or a Lunatic. For those who deny the historicity of Jesus there are other chapters. :) This is a great starting place for people who are searching for the truth with an open mind and for those who need to strengthen their intellectual understanding of their faith. But, for those who are looking for deep arguments look else where since that was not the purpose of this booklet.
Rating:
Summary: Food for thought. . . or debate.
Review: Mcdowell did not answer every possible objection in this extended tract, nor is his prose style likely to please those who prefer in-depth scholarship and a neutral style. Not all of his points are logically valid, and he overreaches sometimes. But I guess what irritates some readers more than when he's wrong is when he's right. The modern history of Biblical criticism, the "search for the historical Jesus," is nothing more than a massive attempt to evade the implications of the "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument by adding a fourth category: "Legend." This is an act of desperation. Anyone can read the New Testament and see in a minute that the Gospels are historical records. As for Farrell Till, whom a reviewer from Washington (D.C.?) said would "eat Mcdowell alive," in debate, he sounds impressive so long as he talks about subjects I know little about. But whenever he strays onto subjects I am familiar with, it becomes quickly evident to me how superficial his understanding is. If the reviewer is still looking for a debating partner, and Josh doesn't have time, drop me a line, and I'd be happy to oblige him.
Rating:
Summary: The Passion - Mel says, "Get this book".
Review: Mel Gibson had a show tonight on PAX TV of the making of, The passion ... He mentioned some sites he recommended and this book. I reviewed this book already but thought his recommend would be of interest. Diane
|
