Rating: 
Summary: A Modern Apology
Review: This book might convince those who are basically rational people, but limited knowledge of history, literary scholarship and the Bible. It also gives the appearance of scholarship to those who seek reinforcement. 'The Case For Christ' is written in a narrative style - such that biblical material uses to blur history and fiction.I was given a copy of this book and told that it answers all the questions that skeptics put forth about the bible. It addresses many of the questions, but gives misleading conclusions, and ingores that real tough questions. Mixed with leading and pretentious conclusions there are flat-out false statements that might be missed in the jumble. Strobel pretends to be objective at the outset of this book, but the agenda shows through by the end. It turns devotional, in my opinion revealing the agenda of the author. I do not advise anybody to "judge a book by its cover", but having read this book, I find the cover symtomatic of the same complex the author exhibits. Just as good biblical scholars do indeed question the authorship of the gospels (allegedly written by eyewitnesses and the people whose names their titles bear), a good scholar will not overlook the problem with being nailed to a crucifix through the hand. If you want to rationalize the bible as history this book will aid you. However, as a student of history and the Bible, I found this book quite disingenuous, misleading and simply inaccurate.
Rating:
Summary: Plausibility and truth are not identical concepts
Review: With this book, Strobel has proved with reasonable certainty that: 1) that Jesus lived, 2) that he died, 3) that his body disappeared, 4) that a large number of contemporary Christian scholars believe Jesus rose from the dead, and 5) that this doctrine was also accepted by early Christians. The only point which Strobel has proven beyond all possible doubt is the fourth one: that a large number of Christian scholars believe Jesus rose from the dead. The other points have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence -- but perhaps that's because Strobel's textual evidence comes primarily from the Gospels, and the only people he interviewed for this book are committed Christians. What Strobel has not proved is that 1) the Resurrection and other Christian doctrines represent hypotheses that can be satisfactorily tested by any means other than dying, 2) that if we can't provide a natural explanation for the reported disappearance of Jesus's body, we are not allowed to say, "I don't know what happened, nor do I care", but must perforce accept a supernatural explanation, and 3) that only one supernatural explanation is possible. Strobel's analogy to a court of law is weak, if the decision we are being asked to render is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. In a court of law, the "supernatural defense" tends not to carry much weight. Strobel's closing argument is even weaker: try being a Christian, and see if your life changes. By all means, try it. I hope that you find joy and happiness. But don't think that your joy says anything at all about the historical accuracy of the Gospels. It testifies only to the psychological effects of Christian belief. Strobel makes a number of points which only diminish the credibility of the book as a whole. For example, the great eclipse which is reported as having occurred in 33 AD is taken by Strobel as proof that something of supernatural significance occurred in that year. I'm not impressed. The record of eclipses on NASA's website shows that eclipses have occurred with great frequency throughout the ages. Many of these eclipses, by the way, have been alleged to be associated with historic events. Hogwash. There's no need to assign supernatural significance to natural events. Didn't anyone else here ever read Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee"? Then there's the statistical analysis of how likely it would be that a given individual might fulfill a certain number of Old Testament prophecies. If Strobel's going to assert that this proves that the chances are one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc., he should at least provide some support for this claim. To make this assertion without saying how the probabilities were calculated does not mesh with the image of the responsible journalist which Strobel strives to project. Fooey. It makes me wonder if what seems plausible in the rest of Strobel's argument is equally unsupported.
| 
