<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: a new look at an old story
Review: Anyone who has ever considered the subject of the resurrection would do well to read this objective and compelling book. I liked the fact that the author gives a thorough overview of the process of news reporting before proceeding to investigate this familiar story. By looking at the facts in a straightforward, contemporary way, a startling report is presented. As a result, the reader gains a fresh insight into this controversial subject. Persueing this event in history as a news reporter would is an experience that is both rewarding and enriching.
Rating:
Summary: A Fresh, Objective Look At An Event 2000 Years Ago
Review: Applying the modern-day journalist's standard--point-by-point--to the resurrection of Jesus Christ brings a new perspective.Proctor uses the test of good journalism to evaluate the resurrection accounts of 2000 years ago. (Click on the "Table of Contents" under "Book Information" in the upper lefthand corner of this screen to see the standards he uses.) This point-by-point evaluation provides new insight to an event that I thought I knew well. Also, by comparing and folding the various accounts into a single "news event" the reader comes to a new appreciation of the breadth of the Biblical information. Very readable, yet powerful in its comprehensive approach.
Rating:
Summary: The book left me on an emotional and intellectual high!
Review: I enjoyed William Proctor's idea of using a modern-day investigative journalism approach to review whether or not an important part of religious history is newsworthy. I liked the detailed way in which the author covers his potential news story. The book is written in a way that the reader is able to easily follow and understand the investigation process. The book content is like reading an interesting newspaper report or watching a captivating broadcast investigative show such as 20/20 or Dateline. The Resurrection Report is an easy and quick read. It is an intellectual yet uncomplicated and unpretentious approach to an age-old topic -- the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Rating: 
Summary: There are many books on this topic superior to this one
Review: Its apparent that William Proctor's intentions in writing this book were good. However, I'm sorry to say that the end result disappoints. Most skeptics would scoff at the reconstruction used by Proctor in his attempt to piece together the events surrounding Jesus death and supposed resurrection. If you're interested in the topic of the resurrection of Jesus, then I'd recommend "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's much more readable and contains better arguments for the validity of the resurrection.
Rating:
Summary: Convincing Resource
Review: This book has done much for my personal relationship with Christ and is an effective resource for wintessing to others. As a 30 year trial lawyer, I have come to the God of the Bible late. Juries are instructed that discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses are to be expected and do not destroy the truth of their testimony. Thus, the mechanism employed by Proctor in approaching "The Greatest News Story of All Time" was a very effective approach to my left-brained, lawyer's mind. I was ready for the highlight of the book - Chapter 5, "The Resurrection Rewrite." If you know someone like me whom you are trying to lead to Christ, this book can be just the ticket. Now, with a bit more maturity, I will use it as a ready resource with inquirers and those who are open to the truth of the gospel. It has allowed me to join Chuck Colson in the conviction that "men will not die for a lie." And to defend the truth of the "The Greatest News Story of All Time."
Rating:
Summary: A Fresh, Objective Look At An Event 2000 Years Ago
Review: This book is so uniquely written. I found it refreshing and highly thought provoking. Even though we are all very familiar with this awesome story, The Resurrection Report allows the reader to look at this story in a brand new light. Words can't express how deeply moved I was by this book. Mr. Proctor did an outstanding job!
Rating:
Summary: The best book I've read in years!
Review: This book is so uniquely written. I found it refreshing and highly thought provoking. Even though we are all very familiar with this awesome story, The Resurrection Report allows the reader to look at this story in a brand new light. Words can't express how deeply moved I was by this book. Mr. Proctor did an outstanding job!
Rating: 
Summary: Proctor Needs to Study Theology
Review: William Proctor may convince true believers that their beliefs are true. That's always an easy task. And from the reviews I've read of The Resurrection Report, he's succeeded in keeping the choir on his side. But theologically sophisticated readers will find this book to be a waste of time. The combination of Proctor's deep and obvious enmeshment with his subject matter, and his lack of basic theological training, provides some real whoppers. Consider his discussion of why the resurrection narratives in the Synoptic Gospels are each so unique while the pre-resurrection accounts in the same three gospels have so much material in common. For Proctor, the "obvious response" is that the gospel writers "sensed that what they were writing was of supreme importance for the faith." And because of the unique importance of these resurrection narratives, God gave the writers "an extra measure of grace" to enable each to write an "exceptionally strong" account. (Pages 44 to 45.) Now, anyone who has taken Intro to the NT knows, and Proctor himself knows, that in writing their gospels Matthew and Luke relied heavily on Mark as a source, often copying passages verbatim. (This is the view held by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, including most evangelicals.) But since Mark contains only the briefest of resurrection accounts, and abruptly ends with the women fleeing from the tomb, Matthew and Luke were forced to find their own sources for their resurrection passages. Hence the diversity. No "extra measure of grace" needed to explain the obvious. Proctor's willingness to resort to supernatural explanations when obvious literary ones exist, suggests an agenda and a willingness to violate his Rule #4 of First-Rate Reporting, "keep your prejudices out of the story." More fundamentally, I find Proctor's application of modern journalism principles to the gospel writers to be highly anachronistic, and an essentially useless undetaking. The question of what genre the gospel writers intended their gospels to be is a hotly debated one in theological circles. Did the writers view themselves as historical reporters, ("just the facts, ma'am,") or did they readily employ metaphor as a tool to present the highest truths, as was so common in Greek literature of the era? Proctor's references to Luke as "A True Investigative Reporter," and to John as "The First `New Journalist,'"and his use of such journalistic terms as "scoop" and "re-write man," are cute, but they skirt the complex issue of genre and give the novice reader a sense of assurance that the theologically astute know is not justifiable. Proctor seems to genuinely believe that the issues are simple. (He actually titles a three page section of his book "All You Need to know About the Synpotics.) I respectfully suggest he spend a few years in seminary before his next theological undertaking.
Rating:
Summary: Proctor Needs to Study Theology
Review: William Proctor may convince true believers that their beliefs are true. That's always an easy task. And from the reviews I've read of The Resurrection Report, he's succeeded in keeping the choir on his side. But theologically sophisticated readers will find this book to be a waste of time. The combination of Proctor's deep and obvious enmeshment with his subject matter, and his lack of basic theological training, provides some real whoppers. Consider his discussion of why the resurrection narratives in the Synoptic Gospels are each so unique while the pre-resurrection accounts in the same three gospels have so much material in common. For Proctor, the "obvious response" is that the gospel writers "sensed that what they were writing was of supreme importance for the faith." And because of the unique importance of these resurrection narratives, God gave the writers "an extra measure of grace" to enable each to write an "exceptionally strong" account. (Pages 44 to 45.) Now, anyone who has taken Intro to the NT knows, and Proctor himself knows, that in writing their gospels Matthew and Luke relied heavily on Mark as a source, often copying passages verbatim. (This is the view held by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, including most evangelicals.) But since Mark contains only the briefest of resurrection accounts, and abruptly ends with the women fleeing from the tomb, Matthew and Luke were forced to find their own sources for their resurrection passages. Hence the diversity. No "extra measure of grace" needed to explain the obvious. Proctor's willingness to resort to supernatural explanations when obvious literary ones exist, suggests an agenda and a willingness to violate his Rule #4 of First-Rate Reporting, "keep your prejudices out of the story." More fundamentally, I find Proctor's application of modern journalism principles to the gospel writers to be highly anachronistic, and an essentially useless undetaking. The question of what genre the gospel writers intended their gospels to be is a hotly debated one in theological circles. Did the writers view themselves as historical reporters, ("just the facts, ma'am,") or did they readily employ metaphor as a tool to present the highest truths, as was so common in Greek literature of the era? Proctor's references to Luke as "A True Investigative Reporter," and to John as "The First 'New Journalist,'"and his use of such journalistic terms as "scoop" and "re-write man," are cute, but they skirt the complex issue of genre and give the novice reader a sense of assurance that the theologically astute know is not justifiable. Proctor seems to genuinely believe that the issues are simple. (He actually titles a three page section of his book "All You Need to know About the Synpotics.) I respectfully suggest he spend a few years in seminary before his next theological undertaking.
<< 1 >>
| 
