Rating: 
Summary: An objective view to Christianity
Review: Wow. I was a Christian before reading this educated, elegant work and found the evidence and "arguments" Strobel presents throughout an affirmation of my faith.
I read this book immediately after finishing Holy Blood Holy Grail; although Lee Strobel doesn't refer to that controversial bestseller many of his questions seemed to refute the theories contained in it.
The Case For Christ is an enlightening book written honestly and imaginitively. By drawing parallels to court cases Strobel not only brings an immediacy to his own investigation, but also draws the reader in as evidence for the Christian faith is presented in a logistical logically sound manner. An excellent book for Christians or those searching for a faith yet unsure if there's anything beyond myth and dogma to Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: Sadly Lacking in Persuasion-- Only for The Uncritical
Review: Strobel sets up a number of straw men in this book, and then knocks them down: "Critics say that Jesus was such and such-- but Expert X says diferent!!!" This is his method, and it gets tiresome quickly, for many reasons. First, he does little to lay out reputable criticisms, picking and choosing those arguments he wishes to refute. Then he goes to his experts, all of whom are (surprise!) Christian professors who destroy the straw argument, leaving us little choice but to agree that, indeed, Christ actually did this or that miracle. As an example of rational argumentation, the book gets zero stars, though it's at times entertaining. There's an excellent book waiting to be written on this topic. This ain't it.
Rating:
Summary: This case is a surefire mistrial!
Review: I bought this book to see if the author had put together a credible impartial case for God/Jesus/Christianity, but as usual I was disappointed by the lack of real evidence. It is obvious that the author's training is in journalism because the book is written using a conversational style that is appropriate for those with a six grade education. Anyone who made it to seventh grade and learned critical thinking will see through the weak aguments the book presents. I have never seen a "case" with so many holes. The author claims at the outset to present a fair impartial case in this book; however, he only uses witnesses (interviewees) that make positive claims that support his case. This is not responsible writing. If this is the best that Christian apologetics has to offer (and it seems to be based on the popularity of this book) I am even more confirmed in my ExChristian status. Recommend instead: Challenging the Verdict
Rating: 
Summary: Journalistic malfeasance
Review: Mr. Strobel attempts to use what he claims are standard journalistic methods for investigating the plausibility of a controversial idea: interview the top experts in the field, then comapre and analyze what they say for logical and empirical plausibility. In his review of The Case For Christ in PHILO vol 2, no. 1, Spring/Summer 1999, Jeff Lowder conclusively proves that Mr. Strobel makes hash out of all standards of journalistic integrity. Lowder points out that Mr. Strobel, by his own admission, spent no more than two years in his "spiritual journey"
from skepticism to Christianity. Whom did he interview? Thirteen Evangelical apologists.Did he interview any critics of Christian apologetics? No! But he does attack many of these critics in his book. He interviews a prominent critic of the Jesus seminar but not one member of the seminar itself. He repeatedly criticises the opinions of atheist philosopher Michael Martin, but ignored Martin's responses to those attacks. Fair and Balanced? I think not. This is only the beginning of the many exasperating features of Strobel's book. For the rest, read Jeff Lowder's review.
Phew!
Rating:
Summary: Pretentious underpinnings
Review: All through this book I kept saying to the author: "Ask the question!" As a so-called "atheist journalist" the questions he posed to these biblical scholars were neither atheistic nor journalistic. It was as if he was looking for some social currency or credibility by saying that he was a non-believer but his heresy was very unconvincing. Furthermore, if he were a trial attorney he would have been accused of 'leading the witness' as he spared his interviewees the tough questions. If he were a true investigative journalist he would have gotten the other side of the story from ahteistic scholars. No doubt, a lot of christians have given glowing reviews as the average for this book is 4 stars. At the risk of sounding arrogant I must say that my opinion matters more than most. Why? I am an atheist myself (and I wish I had the opportunity to interview some of these 'scholars'). If you want a pat on the back for your faith and wish to hear someone preach to you and the other chior-members then this book is for you. If you are an atheist looking to have some questions answered then try Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God".
Rating: 
Summary: It Was Okay But...
Review: I liked Lee Strobel's book, but it wasn't a patch on the other Tribune jounalist's examination of the life of Christ--THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JESUS CHRIST "as told to" Neil Elliott, which I found inspiring and moving in a special way, so that it could appeal to the entire range from fundamentalists to anti-Jesus liberals. We need more books to put Jesus in the context of the Roman Empire and a Holy Land caught up in a special brand of Messianic fervor. That was where Jesus was coming from, whether God incarnate or merely a "Son of Man," as he referred to himself.
Rating:
Summary: Strobel is a lousy skeptic
Review: When my wife asked me to read this book I was at first excited to see a book that looks at the evidence for the Bible and Christianity with a skeptical eye and asks the hard questions. Unfortunately this book turned out not to be what it sells itself as. The book focuses mainly on a heavy handed appeal to authority. Each chapter begins with lengthy descriptions of the totally awsome person Strobel is about to interview. These descriptions focus on what a swell person the interviewee is and how smart, respected, and fair he is. Why spend all this time on the person and take it away from the arguments? I think it is because Strobel realizes that most people are too lazy to think for themselves and are really only looking for some authority that agrees with them. In short Lee Strobel is in the business of providing the illusion of rationality to millions of Christians. His claims to being a skeptic are blown away by the obvious hard questions that he fails to ask, the fact that he does not interview a single skeptic, the lame arguments that he lets his interviewees get away with, and the sophistry that he indulges in. If Strobel was a skeptic he was a very, very bad one. He totally ignores the fact that some gospels say Jesus met the disciples in Galilee first and other say Jerusalem. There are 50 miles between the two and Strobel accepts the idea that the gospels only show minor differences. The evidence that he accepts that there was 3 hours of darkness the day that Jesus was crucified is laughable but Stroble doesn't bat an eye. He even blithly sits by while one expert explains how slavery wasn't such a bad thing back in Bible days! If you know what you believe and you want a few lame arguments to back it up when talking to half-assed skeptics then this book is for you. If you are truly open minded and interested in the truth about the Bible and Christianity pick up a copy of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (Yes, THE Thomas Paine). At least Thomas Paine has the guts to call it as he sees it.
Rating:
Summary: Garbage
Review: All I can say about this book is that it is complete garbage. I am not even going to waste my time trying to explain my harsh critisism. This book is garbage.
Rating: 
Summary: Case Closed!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: Anyone who doubts the Bible, or the documentation is completely ignoring the evidence. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then show the body! The whole matter comes to one thing. Those who refuse to accept the fact that the Bible is true do not want to come to this conclusion because once faced with the facts, there must be a decision to either accept it and change, or ignore it and die in sin, or be in the Tribulation. I know many will tell me to prove the Bible. I have a question for you though. Can you, with all seriousness, tell me what you will say to Jesus when you stand before Him if it is true?? I can definitely tell you this, you better really KNOW that you are right, as you will have a great dissappointment if you are wrong. Many of the so-called contradictions are posted to try to disprove the Bible. However, they are all taken out of context, as well as completely dismiss how scriptures were written. I challenge anyone. Prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Should be pretty easy, since he would have to be buried somewhere in Israel. His location of burial can be verified by other places other than the Bible as well. Face the facts. Jesus did rise from the dead and there is NO PROOF to say otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: a book for those who are weak in their faith
Review: I have read several books on the historical Jesus that were written by New Testament scholars. This was my first by a lawyer. Apparently lawyers have much better insight than NT scholars. Strobel [the lawyer] seems to believe that "we can reconstruct reasonably accurate history... from the gospels". Bart D. Ehrman, professor of religious studies at UNC and author of Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, says that "as events that defy all probabilities, miracles create an inescapable dilemma for the historian. Since historians can only establish what probably did happen in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, they can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened." John Meier, professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America and author of The Marginal Jew, says that after reviewing the origins and hidden years of Jesus, "one deficiency should be glaring to any reader with a historical sense. Our overview wanders in a historical twilight zone in the sense that almost no chronological markers light the path Jesus trod." And William R. Herzog, professor of NT Interpretation at Colgate Rochester Divinity School and author of Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, summed up his study of the historical Jesus as follows: "a shadowy figure begins to emerge from the mists of the firth century, standing on a far shore, beckoning the inquirer to come closer. Try as we might, we cannot approach the shore, but remain at sea, on the face of the deep, too far removed for a closer look. The mists thicken, and the figure disappears, leaving only the memory of his appearing."
The treatment of the Q source is a wonderful example of the lack of any scholarly intent in Strobel's book. Perhaps the Q source is "nothing more than a hypothesis", which is basically all Strobel says about it, but according to Ehrman "most scholars are reasonably sure,... that at one time it did exist". Meier says, "I accept the standard view in NT research today... Both Matthew and Luke... composed larger Gospels... by combining and editing Mark, a collection of Jesus sayings that scholars arbitrarily label Q, and special traditions peculiar to Matthew and Luke." Why are most scholars reasonably sure that Q existed? You won't find out by reading Strobel's book. My guess is that Strobel thought it might be difficult to "reconstruct reasonably accurate history" from "nothing more than a hypothesis".
In Strobel's book we read that "it has been assumed that John is largely independent of the other three gospels". Assumed by whom? Strobel doesn't say. Could it be the assumers are evangelical apologists? According to Meier, "Whether the Gospel of John... offers an independent source... is still hotly debated."
Strobel seems to think that establishing the date for the writing of the Gospels can be useful in determining their historical accuracy. But no matter when they were written they were, according to Ehrman "based on earlier sources - such as Q" and "the sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves: they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories - indeed, sometimes invented the stories - as they retold them."
Strobel says that "the Jesus of faith is the same as the Jesus of history". To those who profess to be guided by faith I have nothing to say. But to the man who claims to have proven true the demonology and miracles of primitive Christianity by a critical historical investigation I can only throw up my hands in disbelief at their apparent ignorance, or dishonesty, or both. Strobel says in the introduction that he didn't want to believe in Christ because he enjoyed his "self-serving and immoral lifestyle". After reading his book it is not at all obvious to me that his belief in Christ has brought about any change.
|
