5. Were the gospel writers biased to the point of not being trusted?
The primary argument that Lee Strobel's expert uses to pass this test is his personal opinion that because the writers of the gospels loved Jesus they were prompted to record his life with great integrity. This is conjecture, and isn't backed up with evidence. You can look at the writings about Jesus and conclude that the writers loved Jesus, with some degree of certainty. However, it is not certain that accuracy was within their ability. Also, while it is certainly possible that their love lead them to do the best they could, in modern times we see the opposite often happen. After all, isn't one of the hallmarks of small religious sects is that their members do not question dogma and tradition enough? However, in my opinion, we really can't say one way or another.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Consistency Test
4. Are the gospels consistent enough with one another to be believable?
There is disagreement between the gospels, and Christians themselves do not agree on how best to resolve disagreements. Disagreements do not indicate that the gospels are wholly false, but certainly they do not provide evidence as to their accuracy either. What is most interesting to me is the Christian obsession to explain away inaccuracies saying it MAY have been because of such and such, with little if any evidence that such and such was indeed the cause. If your belief is independent of coming up with these explanations that are based mostly on conjecture, why waste the time?
For example, take the difference between Mark and Luke saying that demons were driven into swine at Gerasa, while Matthew says that this even occurred in Gadara. Blomberg's first explanation was that it was "possible" that one was a town and the other a province. Lee Strobel, who I must say at that very moment appears quite the skeptic for the first time in the book, points out to Dr. Blomberg that Gerasa the town isn't anywhere close to the Sea of Galilee, which is where supposedly the event took place. Here is Dr. Blomberg's response:
"But there have been ruins of a town that have been excavated at exactly the right point on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The English form of the town's name often gets pronounced 'Khersa,' but as a Hebrew word translated or transliterated into Greek, it could have come out sounding something very much like 'Gerasa.' So it may very well have been in Khersa--whose spelling in Greek was rendered as Gerasa--in the province of Gadara."
Dr. Blomberg may be right. However, if there is a possibility that he may be right, or as he says if it "may very well have been," then there is also a possibility that one of the accounts, or possibly both are wrong. Does this prove that Jesus didn't throw out demons and place them into a herd of swine? Of course not! Yet it doesn't give us any increased confidence in the three different accounts, either.
Blomberg also tackles the lineage of Jesus which differs greatly between Matthew and Luke. Once again, he can only deal in possibilities. No one knows for sure why the lineage of Jesus is different in Matthew and Luke. Blomberg gives two possible explanations, but then has this added advice:
Why does Lee Strobel include advice like this given his challenge? To me this sounds like I'm being asked to set aside my commonsense and logic. It seems to say "if something doesn't fit the picture, don't worry about it, because most of it does." Finding possible ways to have multiple accounts be consistent with one another does not prove the validity of the stories and beliefs that they contain. I can see how such advice can calm doubts in the believer when examining inconsistencies between in-errant texts, but it does not provide much help to me, the skeptic.
There is disagreement between the gospels, and Christians themselves do not agree on how best to resolve disagreements. Disagreements do not indicate that the gospels are wholly false, but certainly they do not provide evidence as to their accuracy either. What is most interesting to me is the Christian obsession to explain away inaccuracies saying it MAY have been because of such and such, with little if any evidence that such and such was indeed the cause. If your belief is independent of coming up with these explanations that are based mostly on conjecture, why waste the time?
For example, take the difference between Mark and Luke saying that demons were driven into swine at Gerasa, while Matthew says that this even occurred in Gadara. Blomberg's first explanation was that it was "possible" that one was a town and the other a province. Lee Strobel, who I must say at that very moment appears quite the skeptic for the first time in the book, points out to Dr. Blomberg that Gerasa the town isn't anywhere close to the Sea of Galilee, which is where supposedly the event took place. Here is Dr. Blomberg's response:
"But there have been ruins of a town that have been excavated at exactly the right point on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The English form of the town's name often gets pronounced 'Khersa,' but as a Hebrew word translated or transliterated into Greek, it could have come out sounding something very much like 'Gerasa.' So it may very well have been in Khersa--whose spelling in Greek was rendered as Gerasa--in the province of Gadara."
Dr. Blomberg may be right. However, if there is a possibility that he may be right, or as he says if it "may very well have been," then there is also a possibility that one of the accounts, or possibly both are wrong. Does this prove that Jesus didn't throw out demons and place them into a herd of swine? Of course not! Yet it doesn't give us any increased confidence in the three different accounts, either.
Blomberg also tackles the lineage of Jesus which differs greatly between Matthew and Luke. Once again, he can only deal in possibilities. No one knows for sure why the lineage of Jesus is different in Matthew and Luke. Blomberg gives two possible explanations, but then has this added advice:
"...there are occasions when we may need to hold judgement in abeyance and simply say that since we've made sense out of the vast majority of the texts and determined them to be trustworthy, we can give them the benefit of the doubt when we're not sure on some of the other details."
Why does Lee Strobel include advice like this given his challenge? To me this sounds like I'm being asked to set aside my commonsense and logic. It seems to say "if something doesn't fit the picture, don't worry about it, because most of it does." Finding possible ways to have multiple accounts be consistent with one another does not prove the validity of the stories and beliefs that they contain. I can see how such advice can calm doubts in the believer when examining inconsistencies between in-errant texts, but it does not provide much help to me, the skeptic.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Character Test
Where the gospel writers truthful?
Dr. Blomberg implies that the honesty of the gospel writers is supported because they are not shown to be dishonest. Were it a formal argument this would be a logical fallacy. It may be that the gospel writers were honest people, but it may also be that they were not. Could they have perpetrated a great hoax, or perhaps a small hoax of embellishing history? It may be unlikely, but it is possible. For example there is no historical reference of Jesus that Lee Strobel mentions that was written while Jesus was alive. All writings regarding Jesus were written after his death. Why is it impossible that later references refer to an established hoax? However, I'm willing assume that Dr. Blomberg mentions the lack of negative information about the gospel writers not to convince us of their honesty, but only as fact.
So perhaps it is because Jesus' followers were willing to die for their beliefs? There are other possibilities to consider: the person may not know that what they believe is false, the liar may prefer death than to have the truth disclosed, the consequences of either disclosing the truth or maintaining the lie are equivalent, or some combination. In any event, someone enduring unspeakable hardships because of their professed beliefs does not necessitate the validity of those beliefs. Since you can find religious people of other faiths being persecuted terribly for their beliefs, perhaps the Christian may agree that the willingness to endure suffering and death due to firmly held beliefs does not necessitate the truth of those beliefs.
So once again, this test gives us no more or less information than we had before as to the validity of the beliefs held by the writers of the gospels, nor their written word. Some parts may be true, some parts may be false, some may be a mix.
Dr. Blomberg implies that the honesty of the gospel writers is supported because they are not shown to be dishonest. Were it a formal argument this would be a logical fallacy. It may be that the gospel writers were honest people, but it may also be that they were not. Could they have perpetrated a great hoax, or perhaps a small hoax of embellishing history? It may be unlikely, but it is possible. For example there is no historical reference of Jesus that Lee Strobel mentions that was written while Jesus was alive. All writings regarding Jesus were written after his death. Why is it impossible that later references refer to an established hoax? However, I'm willing assume that Dr. Blomberg mentions the lack of negative information about the gospel writers not to convince us of their honesty, but only as fact.
So perhaps it is because Jesus' followers were willing to die for their beliefs? There are other possibilities to consider: the person may not know that what they believe is false, the liar may prefer death than to have the truth disclosed, the consequences of either disclosing the truth or maintaining the lie are equivalent, or some combination. In any event, someone enduring unspeakable hardships because of their professed beliefs does not necessitate the validity of those beliefs. Since you can find religious people of other faiths being persecuted terribly for their beliefs, perhaps the Christian may agree that the willingness to endure suffering and death due to firmly held beliefs does not necessitate the truth of those beliefs.
So once again, this test gives us no more or less information than we had before as to the validity of the beliefs held by the writers of the gospels, nor their written word. Some parts may be true, some parts may be false, some may be a mix.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Ability Test
Is it possible that information in the gospels was accurately preserved before it was recorded?
Lee Strobel's expert, Dr Blomberg, makes one primary argument in defense of this test.
A. Jewish scholars were used to memorizing huge amounts of scripture
B. Jewish scholars could accurately retell scripture from memory
C. ancient middle eastern retellings differ one from another by about forty percent
D. the gospels differ one from another on any given passage by about forty percent
Therefore, it is likely that early Christians engaged in the same kind of retelling practices.
Even if you ignore the admission of doubt signaled by the use of the word "likely," such an argument is almost impossible to defend. There is so much that we don't know. We don't know how many of the pre-gospel early christians were Jewish scholars and could have participated in accurate memorization, or been available to check the accuracy of other's retelling of scripture. More over, even if this practice was done, and we had concrete proof, we wouldn't know for which parts of the gospels it was used, and to what rate of success.
We know that there are chiasms in the New Testament, but we don't know if these are there because the material was passed orally and then written, or written to facilitate oral tradition, or both. We are left with the same dilemma, some parts of the gospels may go on a fact pile, and other parts may not. However, I still see no way to determine one from the other. In any event this test and accompanying argument do not convince me that accurate oral traditions were used to communicate facts about Jesus from the time the occurred to the point when they were related in the Gospels. But does it convince you?
Lee Strobel's expert, Dr Blomberg, makes one primary argument in defense of this test.
A. Jewish scholars were used to memorizing huge amounts of scripture
B. Jewish scholars could accurately retell scripture from memory
C. ancient middle eastern retellings differ one from another by about forty percent
D. the gospels differ one from another on any given passage by about forty percent
Therefore, it is likely that early Christians engaged in the same kind of retelling practices.
Even if you ignore the admission of doubt signaled by the use of the word "likely," such an argument is almost impossible to defend. There is so much that we don't know. We don't know how many of the pre-gospel early christians were Jewish scholars and could have participated in accurate memorization, or been available to check the accuracy of other's retelling of scripture. More over, even if this practice was done, and we had concrete proof, we wouldn't know for which parts of the gospels it was used, and to what rate of success.
We know that there are chiasms in the New Testament, but we don't know if these are there because the material was passed orally and then written, or written to facilitate oral tradition, or both. We are left with the same dilemma, some parts of the gospels may go on a fact pile, and other parts may not. However, I still see no way to determine one from the other. In any event this test and accompanying argument do not convince me that accurate oral traditions were used to communicate facts about Jesus from the time the occurred to the point when they were related in the Gospels. But does it convince you?
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Intention Test
Was the intent of the gospel writers to accurately preserve history?
In the case of the gospel of Luke Blomberg, Lee Strobel's expert, uses Luke's own words. However, in the case of Mark and Matthew Blomberg's evidence is a little sketchy: "they are close to Luke in terms of genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke's historical intent would closely mirror theirs." Perhaps it is reasonable, but it is also reasonable that their investigation efforts were not as careful. There is no way of knowing for sure, is there?
For John there is also a weak conjecture argument that if theology is to be believed it is important that the history is accurate. I really don't believe that this is a tautology. If it is meant to be, then it certainly needs to be supported much better than to simply state it.
So what do we know of the intent of the authors of the Gospels? We know that at least one of them, Luke, has stated a clear intent to be accurate. A careful reading shows Luke's concern in context: "an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down." His aim therefore is not to play the sceptic: to determine whether or not events happened based on the supposition that they didn't happen. Rather his writing arises from the view that these things did happen, and to be accurate to the story as it was handed down.
Unfortunately, careful presentation of a case does not guaranty its accuracy. For example, it is the intent of prosecutors and the judicial system in which prosecutors play a role not to put innocent people behind bars, which is why our judicial system is founded on a innocent until proven guilty premise. However, unintended mistakes can happen. Often the more careful a prosecutor was in preparing and presenting a case, the more difficult it has been to identify and reverse mistakes. How does this happen? It happens because the prosecutor, like Luke has to rely on other people to make his case, whose intent may be unknown, or who may not be as careful as the prosecutor. In the case of a well established myth the origin may be impossible to determine, and hence the original motivation equally as impossible to know. Luke did not have the benefit of a snopes.com.
So it may be that the things that Luke writes about did happen, or it may be that they did not happen. Since bible accuracy is not an either or proposition, both may also be the case.
In the case of the gospel of Luke Blomberg, Lee Strobel's expert, uses Luke's own words. However, in the case of Mark and Matthew Blomberg's evidence is a little sketchy: "they are close to Luke in terms of genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke's historical intent would closely mirror theirs." Perhaps it is reasonable, but it is also reasonable that their investigation efforts were not as careful. There is no way of knowing for sure, is there?
For John there is also a weak conjecture argument that if theology is to be believed it is important that the history is accurate. I really don't believe that this is a tautology. If it is meant to be, then it certainly needs to be supported much better than to simply state it.
So what do we know of the intent of the authors of the Gospels? We know that at least one of them, Luke, has stated a clear intent to be accurate. A careful reading shows Luke's concern in context: "an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down." His aim therefore is not to play the sceptic: to determine whether or not events happened based on the supposition that they didn't happen. Rather his writing arises from the view that these things did happen, and to be accurate to the story as it was handed down.
Unfortunately, careful presentation of a case does not guaranty its accuracy. For example, it is the intent of prosecutors and the judicial system in which prosecutors play a role not to put innocent people behind bars, which is why our judicial system is founded on a innocent until proven guilty premise. However, unintended mistakes can happen. Often the more careful a prosecutor was in preparing and presenting a case, the more difficult it has been to identify and reverse mistakes. How does this happen? It happens because the prosecutor, like Luke has to rely on other people to make his case, whose intent may be unknown, or who may not be as careful as the prosecutor. In the case of a well established myth the origin may be impossible to determine, and hence the original motivation equally as impossible to know. Luke did not have the benefit of a snopes.com.
So it may be that the things that Luke writes about did happen, or it may be that they did not happen. Since bible accuracy is not an either or proposition, both may also be the case.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Chapter Two: Eight Tests
I wonder if Lee Strobel maybe didn't make a mistake in the title of this chapter. Most of his tests deal more with the question "do the writers of the gospels stand up to scrutiny," and do not answer the question: do the gospels themselves stand up to scrutiny? While it is true that the background of witnesses in a courtroom is often used judge the credibility of the witness, the fact that a witness is credible does not equate the story the witness tells being credible. Also, the accuracy of a testimony is not a dichotomy. There may be some parts of the testimony that are accurate, and there may other parts that are not. Moreover, we learned in chapter one that the gospels are bias motivated compilations of stories, history, and eyewitness accounts from multiple sources, with little indication as to the original sources nor where one story stops and an eyewitness account starts. This is the way histories were written in ancient times we learned. Such methods of writing complicate the tasks of determining the accuracy of an account, which is why lawyers don't write briefs in the same manner, nor are modern histories written that way.
In modern times we vet information through multiple sources. For example: I hear a story from someone that they know of a public pool that contains a special chemical which turns red when a child urinates in it. I also hear the same story from several other people, and happen to read about an encounter with such a chemical in an Orson Wells biography . I can believe it, or I can question and do still further research. Perhaps I can contact my friends and get more details such as: which municipalities installed the wonder pee discovering chemical? Or, thanks to Al Gore, I can check the web.
Whenever Lee Strobel or one of his experts uses words such as believable, plausible, probable, or likely, I always think of a multitude of possibilities that seem equally plausible to me. Lee Strobel does not provide me anything in this chapter that can helps me dissect the New Testament into facts and myths. Instead I'm still left with big piles of "unlikely," "maybe" and "I don't know." Hopefully future chapters will be of more value.
However, maybe I'm missing something, maybe there is evidence that I overlooked, that is right in front of me. So in case the reader is interested, what will follow are explanations for why these tests didn't work well for me.
In modern times we vet information through multiple sources. For example: I hear a story from someone that they know of a public pool that contains a special chemical which turns red when a child urinates in it. I also hear the same story from several other people, and happen to read about an encounter with such a chemical in an Orson Wells biography . I can believe it, or I can question and do still further research. Perhaps I can contact my friends and get more details such as: which municipalities installed the wonder pee discovering chemical? Or, thanks to Al Gore, I can check the web.
Whenever Lee Strobel or one of his experts uses words such as believable, plausible, probable, or likely, I always think of a multitude of possibilities that seem equally plausible to me. Lee Strobel does not provide me anything in this chapter that can helps me dissect the New Testament into facts and myths. Instead I'm still left with big piles of "unlikely," "maybe" and "I don't know." Hopefully future chapters will be of more value.
However, maybe I'm missing something, maybe there is evidence that I overlooked, that is right in front of me. So in case the reader is interested, what will follow are explanations for why these tests didn't work well for me.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Chapter One Evidence
Before continuing with chapter two, here is the evidence from chapter one:
Before I begin a discussion of chapter two, I'm wondering if someone could point out if there is any significant evidence from chapter one missing from this list, or if I'm wrong on anything?
- Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus and so would have been able to add eyewitness testimony
- Mark was a companion of Peter
- Luke was a companion of Paul
- The Gospels are anonymous
- 2nd century Christian testimony indicates the identity of the authors of the Gospels
- Ancient histories are a compilations of varied sources mixed with narration
- Ancient Greek and Hebrew didn't have quotation marks
- There are significant portions of Matthew and Luke similar enough to bring about the idea of a common source for those portions
- It has been tradition to believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark when composing their own Gospels
- Irenaeus, an early christian writer says the order was: first Matthew and then Mark followed by Luke and John.
- Standard scholarly dating puts the earliest Gospel, Mark, around 40 years after Christ's death.
- The Gospels and Christian tradition claim that Jesus is God
- Paul began writing within a decade of Jesus death, during which time he received a creed that included testimony of Jesus' death for sins and resurrection.
Before I begin a discussion of chapter two, I'm wondering if someone could point out if there is any significant evidence from chapter one missing from this list, or if I'm wrong on anything?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Chapter One Summary
The first chapter was somewhat disappointing because evidence was not as clearly presented as I expected it to be, Lee Strobel was not as skeptical as I was expecting, and some of the arguments his expert made were weak. However, the history of the Gospels was interesting, and I still see potential for the book, especially on the topics of faith and the supernatural, which I hope Lee Strobel will address address in later chapters.
When I read the introduction I got the impression that this book was written for me, the skeptic. However, the first chapter made me think that Lee Strobel wrote this book for the believer. I realize that Strobel wrote the book after his conversion, but his recordings of interviews were allegedly a part of his conversion process, and so presumably took place before his conversion. Several times in the first chapter when Lee Strobel took a weak argument on face value I just wanted to yell: "No! No, that does NOT make sense." At this point Lee Strobel doesn't seem to be a very thorough skeptic. Still, its early in the book, and he may become more skeptical later. I now know that if I ever write a book to convince Atheists, I will pay Atheists to criticize the book as I'm writing it.
Although chapter one gave me a much better understanding of the Gospels, it was also a little disappointing that Lee Strobel was not more upfront regarding the composition of the Gospels. A close reading of Strobel's first chapter reveals that the authors of the Gospels use a mix of eyewitness testimony, previous accounts, tradition, and oral history, woven together with added narration. According to Strobel's expert, Blomberg, that is the way histories were written in ancient times (pg 31). But there is a good reason that modern courtroom evidence does not follow this format: it is not a reliable way to present evidence. It's disappointing then that such a narrative is presented next to modern courtroom testimony, without acknowledging and explaining the difference to us. This gives us the impression that the two are synonymous, which they are not. Imagine how confusing it would be to a juror to have hearsay, eyewitness testimony, and oral tradition seamlessly presented from a single witness. Perhaps Lee Strobel does not point out the difference between the two because he truely does see a Gospel written in the traditional historical format of its day and a modern eyewitness testimony as synonymous?
Finally, I was surprised by what was missing from the first chapter. There is no discussion regarding the supernatural (does it exist), nor of supernatural evidence (is it reliable). Yet Lee Strobel includes supernatural hearsay testimony as evidence (pg 35). If Mr. Strobel is to continue his courtroom analogy, then at some point he must address these issues. I have not yet lost hope that he will. But if he doesn't, then it may be because Strobel already had a belief in the supernatural when he began his investigation, which calls into question his credentials as a skeptic.
Questions for Discussion:
When I read the introduction I got the impression that this book was written for me, the skeptic. However, the first chapter made me think that Lee Strobel wrote this book for the believer. I realize that Strobel wrote the book after his conversion, but his recordings of interviews were allegedly a part of his conversion process, and so presumably took place before his conversion. Several times in the first chapter when Lee Strobel took a weak argument on face value I just wanted to yell: "No! No, that does NOT make sense." At this point Lee Strobel doesn't seem to be a very thorough skeptic. Still, its early in the book, and he may become more skeptical later. I now know that if I ever write a book to convince Atheists, I will pay Atheists to criticize the book as I'm writing it.
Although chapter one gave me a much better understanding of the Gospels, it was also a little disappointing that Lee Strobel was not more upfront regarding the composition of the Gospels. A close reading of Strobel's first chapter reveals that the authors of the Gospels use a mix of eyewitness testimony, previous accounts, tradition, and oral history, woven together with added narration. According to Strobel's expert, Blomberg, that is the way histories were written in ancient times (pg 31). But there is a good reason that modern courtroom evidence does not follow this format: it is not a reliable way to present evidence. It's disappointing then that such a narrative is presented next to modern courtroom testimony, without acknowledging and explaining the difference to us. This gives us the impression that the two are synonymous, which they are not. Imagine how confusing it would be to a juror to have hearsay, eyewitness testimony, and oral tradition seamlessly presented from a single witness. Perhaps Lee Strobel does not point out the difference between the two because he truely does see a Gospel written in the traditional historical format of its day and a modern eyewitness testimony as synonymous?
Finally, I was surprised by what was missing from the first chapter. There is no discussion regarding the supernatural (does it exist), nor of supernatural evidence (is it reliable). Yet Lee Strobel includes supernatural hearsay testimony as evidence (pg 35). If Mr. Strobel is to continue his courtroom analogy, then at some point he must address these issues. I have not yet lost hope that he will. But if he doesn't, then it may be because Strobel already had a belief in the supernatural when he began his investigation, which calls into question his credentials as a skeptic.
Questions for Discussion:
- In the first chapter did Lee Strobel ask a critical question that surprised you?
- How good do you think Blomberg's arguments were, and which arguments did you find to be the most convincing? Which did you find to be the least convincing?
- Do you believe that the Gospels are synonymous to modern eyewitness accounts? Why or why not?
- When might you accept written testimony containing a mix of eyewitness accounts, hearsay accounts, tradition, and oral history, woven together with added narration as reliable courtroom evidence?
- If you were Luke writing the Gospel of Luke, what might you include that isn't there, without changing the actual content of the Gospel? Why do you think Luke didn't include such things?
- Does it bother you that the inspired word of God was written using the historical techniques of those times? Why or why not?
- If a written account of a supernatural event were presented in a court case from a source you trusted, would you believe it?
- Why do you think that Lee Strobel presented supernatural evidence, but did not engage his expert in any discussion as to the validity of the supernatural?
- If Lee Strobel is not a reliable skeptic, can you trust his conclusions and evaluations of the evidence? Why or why not?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Divine Jesus
In the section of chapter one entitled "Going Back to the Beginning" Lee Strobel's expert, Blomberg, explains that
Blomberg uses Paul for the existence of early evidence for
Blomberg makes his point that
Lee Strobel ends the chapter with his own view of the significance of the evidence:
Let us assume that the letters of Paul are as old as Blomberg claims they are, are not invented, and that they accurately portray the beliefs of their author, Paul. To trust Paul's belief in the resurrection as fact, one has to accept that there were multiple witnesses to a supernatural event. This is my personal greatest objection-- not the disputed authorship of the bible, the potential interference of personal religious idealism on supposed facts, nor the weakness of Blomberg's comparison arguments. Those are all objections, but not the greatest objection. To be clear my greatest objection is a belief in events that are proven impossible by science. In the case of the resurrection: someone who has died a violent death and whose corpse has been laid up for three days, does not gain back all of the blood they lost, heal dead muscle tissue so that blood can flow, establish a pulse, resume brain activity, push a stone aside, walk, and start talking to people.
Supernatural belief is not unique to Christianity, but is common to most religion. If the supernatural is not possible, then Jesus could not have risen from the dead, and no matter how fervent the testimony of Paul, it just didn't happen. Perhaps people (more than 500) "saw" Jesus as a mirage in the distance, or a reflection in a pool, and the later Gospels made the story to be a more credible one. Although we will never know how the legend was established, if you don't accept the supernatural then Paul is wrong, no matter how honest and fervent his beliefs are.
Is it really so impossible that legends about the supernatural Jesus were created a few years after Christ's death, or for that matter while he was still alive (which I personally think is more likely)? I believe that such legends can be created in a short amount of time. I hope that Strobel and those he interviews will shed more light as to why they made the rational choice to accept the irrational as fact. In my opinion this is where the faith of the believer has a significant role to play, a topic that Lee Strobel has to mention, and the discussion of which I look forward to. But what do you the Christian reader think? If supernatural evidence was presented in a courtroom, which after all is the analogy that Strobel uses in The Case for Christ, would you entertain it as probable? Why or why not?
To find the earliest information, one goes to Paul's epistles and then asks, 'Are there signs that even earlier sources were used in writing them?'
Blomberg uses Paul for the existence of early evidence for
- the divinity of Jesus
- the death of Christ for our sins
- the resurrection of Jesus
- sightings of Jesus after his death
Blomberg makes his point that
That's not later mythology from forty or more years down the road, as Armstrong suggested. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, through not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of that very event.
Lee Strobel ends the chapter with his own view of the significance of the evidence:
It certainly seemed to take the wind out of the charge that the Resurection--which is cited by Christians as the crowning confirmation of Jesus' divinity--was merely a mythological concept that developed over long periods of time as legends corrupted the eyewitness accounts of Christ's life. For me, this struck especially close to home--as a skeptic, that was one of my biggest objections to Christianity.
Let us assume that the letters of Paul are as old as Blomberg claims they are, are not invented, and that they accurately portray the beliefs of their author, Paul. To trust Paul's belief in the resurrection as fact, one has to accept that there were multiple witnesses to a supernatural event. This is my personal greatest objection-- not the disputed authorship of the bible, the potential interference of personal religious idealism on supposed facts, nor the weakness of Blomberg's comparison arguments. Those are all objections, but not the greatest objection. To be clear my greatest objection is a belief in events that are proven impossible by science. In the case of the resurrection: someone who has died a violent death and whose corpse has been laid up for three days, does not gain back all of the blood they lost, heal dead muscle tissue so that blood can flow, establish a pulse, resume brain activity, push a stone aside, walk, and start talking to people.
Supernatural belief is not unique to Christianity, but is common to most religion. If the supernatural is not possible, then Jesus could not have risen from the dead, and no matter how fervent the testimony of Paul, it just didn't happen. Perhaps people (more than 500) "saw" Jesus as a mirage in the distance, or a reflection in a pool, and the later Gospels made the story to be a more credible one. Although we will never know how the legend was established, if you don't accept the supernatural then Paul is wrong, no matter how honest and fervent his beliefs are.
Is it really so impossible that legends about the supernatural Jesus were created a few years after Christ's death, or for that matter while he was still alive (which I personally think is more likely)? I believe that such legends can be created in a short amount of time. I hope that Strobel and those he interviews will shed more light as to why they made the rational choice to accept the irrational as fact. In my opinion this is where the faith of the believer has a significant role to play, a topic that Lee Strobel has to mention, and the discussion of which I look forward to. But what do you the Christian reader think? If supernatural evidence was presented in a courtroom, which after all is the analogy that Strobel uses in The Case for Christ, would you entertain it as probable? Why or why not?
Degrees of Confidence
I'm disappointed by the ambiguity that Lee Strobel allows to go unquestioned.
Blomberg goes on a bit on his theory that fake documents are produced with the names of prominent people to give them more weight. This just seems backwards to me... if I wanted to perpetrate a written lie I'd pick an author who would be questioned less, rather than pick someone prominent that lots of people may have known personally. Also there is the possibility that there were earlier gospels already circulating so perhaps those names were not available. But that isn't really why I mention this passage, since such a discussion just leads to arguments over unknowns. What is interesting to me is that the story as Mr. Strobel tells it doesn't have the tone of a skeptic, though he says that he is being skeptical.
I'm quite sure Lee Strobel seen the following exchange:
Expert: "It's Possible."
Lawyer: "But you are not certain, so its also possible that xyz didn't happen."
Expert: "Yes, that's true".
However Strobel gives no indication (at least not in this part of the book) that he pursued such a line of inquiry with his witness whenever Mr. Blomberg said something was "probable" or "possible". It is possible that an intelligent, critically thinking person may believe the Gospels are written by someone other than the authors (p22). It is possible that someone made up or embellished parts of the Gospels and had a motivation to do so (p23). It is possible that the Gospel of John may not be John the apostle (p23). It is possible that we will never know the authors of the works that some of the Gospels are based on (p26). It is possible that a theological agenda could cause the compilers of the Gospels to twist and color the record (p31). Acts may not have been written before Paul was put to death (which is very key to his version of dating the Gospels, important because it has the potential to place the Gospels outside of the lifespans of those who are reported to have compiled them) (p33). It maybe that Lee Strobel did follow this line of questioning, and dug much deeper into just how possible something was or wasn't. If this is a book written for skeptics then it is a wonder that he does not present these further inquiries! Ruling out beyond a doubt the obvious questions that arise every time his expert says something is only probable makes this book seem to be written more for the believer, rather the unbeliever. Perhaps this can be addressed in a future edition? I wonder if he had an atheist review his book critically before it was published?
Lee Strobel gives us some interesting historical evidence and other comparisons to increase the degree of confidence in conclusions based on probabilities. These also are not treated as a skeptic treats something, which Lee Strobel identifies himself as being at the time these interviews were conducted.
Critical thinking begs the questions: "What facts do you have to support the claim that they were Peter's observations?" "Did you have access to Peter's writings?" "How do you know nothing was added?" There is nothing to backup this historical assertion whatsoever. We are left no option but to take his claim as fact.
Blomberg gives us an analogy to show how something motivated by ideological purpose may still be accurate. He chooses the Jewish Holocaust documentation as an example of one such event. (p32) This kind of logic is puzzling to me. Not only is the nature of the documentation very different, but so are the number of eyewitnesses, the duration of time between the documentation and the event, the number of people affected, the number of non Jewish documents corroborating events, and the documents and testimony by the people who committed the crimes. It would be as if Jesus himself wrote down everything he wrote. However, lets assume that it is a good comparison. How can a comparison provide us with evidence as to whether or not something written with an ideological purpose is accurate? Does this mean that all I need to refute the argument is a modern comparison of something written with an ideological intent that is proven to be false? I don't think that any Christian would stand for such a weak argument. Lee Strobel should consider removing this analogy, because far from convincing, it cheapens his entire claim to appealing to logic.
Unfortunately Lee Strobel's expert, Blomberg, likes such comparison arguments, because he uses another one when considering the issue of the time expired between Jesus's death and when the Gospels were compiled. Because a well known biography of Alexander the Great was written much later than the Gospels were and is found to be accurate, therefore the Gospels, which by comparison are like a news flash should not be doubted because of when they were written. Once again, I'm sure that this comparison argument can be proven the other way around. Of course that argument would also be refuted. Christians would point out, and rightly so, that my comparison is completely different. This is the point: most comparison arguments serve only illustrate a point of view, and not tools for persuasion unless the subjects being compared are identical.
So what do my Christian friends think? Did Lee Strobel act the skeptic during his interviews, or could he have been more skeptical? Why wasn't he more skeptical, with regard to what he chose to include in his book? Are comparison arguments fair game when trying to determine your degree of confidence, and did they really add something to the book in your opinion? If I use such an argument someone please jump up and down and wave your arms widely (or the commenting equivalent). The most likely product of such an argument will be fighting over the qualities of the comparison. This can only detract from the heart of the matter: did Christ live, perform miracles, die for my sins, and rise from the dead so that I might have eternal life? I for one am looking forward to finding out what in particular tipped the scales for Mr. Strobel. Hopefully his book includes all the details of his personal conversion.
Even so, I wanted to test the issue further. "Excuse my skepticism," I said, "but would anyone have had a motivation to lie claiming these people wrote these gospels, when they really didn't?"Blomberg shook his head. "Probably not. Remember, these were unlikely characters," he said...
Blomberg goes on a bit on his theory that fake documents are produced with the names of prominent people to give them more weight. This just seems backwards to me... if I wanted to perpetrate a written lie I'd pick an author who would be questioned less, rather than pick someone prominent that lots of people may have known personally. Also there is the possibility that there were earlier gospels already circulating so perhaps those names were not available. But that isn't really why I mention this passage, since such a discussion just leads to arguments over unknowns. What is interesting to me is that the story as Mr. Strobel tells it doesn't have the tone of a skeptic, though he says that he is being skeptical.
I'm quite sure Lee Strobel seen the following exchange:
Expert: "It's Possible."
Lawyer: "But you are not certain, so its also possible that xyz didn't happen."
Expert: "Yes, that's true".
However Strobel gives no indication (at least not in this part of the book) that he pursued such a line of inquiry with his witness whenever Mr. Blomberg said something was "probable" or "possible". It is possible that an intelligent, critically thinking person may believe the Gospels are written by someone other than the authors (p22). It is possible that someone made up or embellished parts of the Gospels and had a motivation to do so (p23). It is possible that the Gospel of John may not be John the apostle (p23). It is possible that we will never know the authors of the works that some of the Gospels are based on (p26). It is possible that a theological agenda could cause the compilers of the Gospels to twist and color the record (p31). Acts may not have been written before Paul was put to death (which is very key to his version of dating the Gospels, important because it has the potential to place the Gospels outside of the lifespans of those who are reported to have compiled them) (p33). It maybe that Lee Strobel did follow this line of questioning, and dug much deeper into just how possible something was or wasn't. If this is a book written for skeptics then it is a wonder that he does not present these further inquiries! Ruling out beyond a doubt the obvious questions that arise every time his expert says something is only probable makes this book seem to be written more for the believer, rather the unbeliever. Perhaps this can be addressed in a future edition? I wonder if he had an atheist review his book critically before it was published?
Lee Strobel gives us some interesting historical evidence and other comparisons to increase the degree of confidence in conclusions based on probabilities. These also are not treated as a skeptic treats something, which Lee Strobel identifies himself as being at the time these interviews were conducted.
"Again, the oldest and probably most significant testimony comes from Papias, who in about A.D. 125 specifically affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations. In fact, he said Mark 'made no mistake' and did not include 'any false statement.'
Critical thinking begs the questions: "What facts do you have to support the claim that they were Peter's observations?" "Did you have access to Peter's writings?" "How do you know nothing was added?" There is nothing to backup this historical assertion whatsoever. We are left no option but to take his claim as fact.
Blomberg gives us an analogy to show how something motivated by ideological purpose may still be accurate. He chooses the Jewish Holocaust documentation as an example of one such event. (p32) This kind of logic is puzzling to me. Not only is the nature of the documentation very different, but so are the number of eyewitnesses, the duration of time between the documentation and the event, the number of people affected, the number of non Jewish documents corroborating events, and the documents and testimony by the people who committed the crimes. It would be as if Jesus himself wrote down everything he wrote. However, lets assume that it is a good comparison. How can a comparison provide us with evidence as to whether or not something written with an ideological purpose is accurate? Does this mean that all I need to refute the argument is a modern comparison of something written with an ideological intent that is proven to be false? I don't think that any Christian would stand for such a weak argument. Lee Strobel should consider removing this analogy, because far from convincing, it cheapens his entire claim to appealing to logic.
Unfortunately Lee Strobel's expert, Blomberg, likes such comparison arguments, because he uses another one when considering the issue of the time expired between Jesus's death and when the Gospels were compiled. Because a well known biography of Alexander the Great was written much later than the Gospels were and is found to be accurate, therefore the Gospels, which by comparison are like a news flash should not be doubted because of when they were written. Once again, I'm sure that this comparison argument can be proven the other way around. Of course that argument would also be refuted. Christians would point out, and rightly so, that my comparison is completely different. This is the point: most comparison arguments serve only illustrate a point of view, and not tools for persuasion unless the subjects being compared are identical.
So what do my Christian friends think? Did Lee Strobel act the skeptic during his interviews, or could he have been more skeptical? Why wasn't he more skeptical, with regard to what he chose to include in his book? Are comparison arguments fair game when trying to determine your degree of confidence, and did they really add something to the book in your opinion? If I use such an argument someone please jump up and down and wave your arms widely (or the commenting equivalent). The most likely product of such an argument will be fighting over the qualities of the comparison. This can only detract from the heart of the matter: did Christ live, perform miracles, die for my sins, and rise from the dead so that I might have eternal life? I for one am looking forward to finding out what in particular tipped the scales for Mr. Strobel. Hopefully his book includes all the details of his personal conversion.
Who Are The Eyewitnesses?
I have to say that the first chapter of the book really surprised me. I wasn't expecting to learn anything new.
Expert testimony in the first chapter is provided by Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D., who has impressive credentials, and knows both sides of every issue: though he is not a skeptic of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. His obvious bias aside he does a fair job of presenting the main characters in the Bible.
The biggest surprise of this chapter was how few eyewitnesses there are. Here is the Gospel pedigree mixed with other bible events as presented by Blomberg.
Does this mean that Irenaeus puts Matthew, which is reportedly based on Mark, as being written before Mark? I was confused by this. Hopefully someone can explain it.
But the real confusion is that the case that opens the chapter speaks of eyewitness testimony, yet there seems to be no complete consistent eyewitness testimony. Instead what we have is mostly hearsay mixed with possible eyewitness testimony when it comes to the events of Christ's life, and especially Christ's words.
I'm not understanding (though perhaps it will be explained more fully in subsequent chapters) how this view is to instill confidence in the Gospels as eyewitness evidence of the kind that was related at the beginning of the chapter? There we had the report from a man concerning a series of events that he saw with his own eyes, devoid of any hearsay, or for that matter reports of hearsay. If eyewitness testimony is yellow, hearsay red, and reports based on hearsay purple, and these are all mixed together, you get quite a different picture than if all you are reporting on is pure eyewitness testimony.
There is a large difference for a juror when judging the validity of direct eyewitness testimony, and indirect eyewitness testimony. So even if the following statement is valid
the juror is not helped much by knowing who wrote the material if the source cannot be trusted, and if it is not clearly presented which parts are personal eyewitness accounts (preferably from more than one witness) and which is hearsay. For now I assume that Mr. Strobel will clear this question up in future chapters.
Finally, on the subject of the identity of the eye witnesses, Lee Strobel mentions a discredited collection of documents called the apocrypha (p 23). It is mentioned that these documents were written much later. However there is a definite lack of detail to support that these may not also be based on hearsay, or reports of hearsay. Once again, I do recognize that it is early in the book, and that as the case progresses some of my questions will be answered.
Not to worry, this isn't everything I've learned from chapter one :-). But I thought it would be a good start. Hopefully someone can help clear up some of the questions I have before proceeding to other information Lee Strobel shares in the chapter? Also I thought it may make things more easy to comment on and discuss if I didn't bite off the entire chapter in one post.
Expert testimony in the first chapter is provided by Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D., who has impressive credentials, and knows both sides of every issue: though he is not a skeptic of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. His obvious bias aside he does a fair job of presenting the main characters in the Bible.
The biggest surprise of this chapter was how few eyewitnesses there are. Here is the Gospel pedigree mixed with other bible events as presented by Blomberg.
- 30-33 AD Crucifixion
- 32-35 AD Paul's Conversion
- 50s AD Paul's major letters
- 60 (70s) AD Mark
- Q ?
- 61 (80s) AD Gospel of Luke (draws from Mark)
- 62 (80s) AD Acts (Luke)
- 80s Matthew (draws from Mark)
- (90s) John (was John aware of Matthew Mark Luke?) - Mostly from the apostle but perhaps some editorial changes at the end and "creating the stylistic uniformity of the entire document" (p 24).
Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding he church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching.
Does this mean that Irenaeus puts Matthew, which is reportedly based on Mark, as being written before Mark? I was confused by this. Hopefully someone can explain it.
But the real confusion is that the case that opens the chapter speaks of eyewitness testimony, yet there seems to be no complete consistent eyewitness testimony. Instead what we have is mostly hearsay mixed with possible eyewitness testimony when it comes to the events of Christ's life, and especially Christ's words.
- Matthew - based on Mark, who reported preaching from Peter who was reportedly a witness to Christ, possibly other eyewitness testimony, and possible personal eyewitness testimony
- Mark based on Peter who was reportedly a witness to Christ
- Luke - based on Mark, who reported preaching from Peter who was reportedly a witness to Christ, and possible other eyewitness testimony
- John - "based on eyewitness material" (pg 24, though it isn't completely clear in the text to what degree and how much) and possible personal eyewitness testimony
Blomberg stroked his beard and stared at the ceiling for a moment as he pondered the question. "Well, you have to keep in mind that Q was a collection of sayings, and therefore it didn't have the narrative material that would have given us a more fully orbed picture of Jesus," he replied, speaking slowly as he chose each word with care.
I'm not understanding (though perhaps it will be explained more fully in subsequent chapters) how this view is to instill confidence in the Gospels as eyewitness evidence of the kind that was related at the beginning of the chapter? There we had the report from a man concerning a series of events that he saw with his own eyes, devoid of any hearsay, or for that matter reports of hearsay. If eyewitness testimony is yellow, hearsay red, and reports based on hearsay purple, and these are all mixed together, you get quite a different picture than if all you are reporting on is pure eyewitness testimony.
There is a large difference for a juror when judging the validity of direct eyewitness testimony, and indirect eyewitness testimony. So even if the following statement is valid
If we can have confidence that the gospels were written by the disciples Matthew and John, by Mark, the companion of the disciple Peter, and by Luke, the historian, companion of Paul, and sort of a first-century journalist, we can be assured that the events they record are based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.
the juror is not helped much by knowing who wrote the material if the source cannot be trusted, and if it is not clearly presented which parts are personal eyewitness accounts (preferably from more than one witness) and which is hearsay. For now I assume that Mr. Strobel will clear this question up in future chapters.
Finally, on the subject of the identity of the eye witnesses, Lee Strobel mentions a discredited collection of documents called the apocrypha (p 23). It is mentioned that these documents were written much later. However there is a definite lack of detail to support that these may not also be based on hearsay, or reports of hearsay. Once again, I do recognize that it is early in the book, and that as the case progresses some of my questions will be answered.
Not to worry, this isn't everything I've learned from chapter one :-). But I thought it would be a good start. Hopefully someone can help clear up some of the questions I have before proceeding to other information Lee Strobel shares in the chapter? Also I thought it may make things more easy to comment on and discuss if I didn't bite off the entire chapter in one post.
Eyewitness Testimony
The first section of Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ deals with Eyewitness testimony. In the first chapter he relates a legal case where eyewitness testimony played an integral role in proving the guilt of a defendant.
Whenever one talks about eyewitness testimony it is also important to mention hearsay, the second hand account of eyewitness testimony, and it is interesting to me that Lee Strobel does not make this distinction in the first chapter of his book? But perhaps he makes this distinction later in his book.
The case that Lee Strobel presents is of an eyewitness testifying against several criminals. It is a case of a credible eyewitness who not only witnessed a crime, but then a second crime as the perpetrator in the first crime attempted to murder the eyewitness. This is an incredibly strong case. It is no wonder then that
It is this case that is used as a backdrop for presenting eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Whenever one talks about eyewitness testimony it is also important to mention hearsay, the second hand account of eyewitness testimony, and it is interesting to me that Lee Strobel does not make this distinction in the first chapter of his book? But perhaps he makes this distinction later in his book.
The case that Lee Strobel presents is of an eyewitness testifying against several criminals. It is a case of a credible eyewitness who not only witnessed a crime, but then a second crime as the perpetrator in the first crime attempted to murder the eyewitness. This is an incredibly strong case. It is no wonder then that
his word was good enough to land the trio in prison for the rest of their lives
It is this case that is used as a backdrop for presenting eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Introduction
UPDATE:
I've added the jury quote to the margin of the blog, to remind myself of the challenge that Lee Strobel makes in the introduction. Also as people follow along and read each post, I want them to be reminded of the challenge as well. I happen to believe that Lee Strobel's claims are sincere, and so I wish to limit discussion to what is his book. If there is other information in other books, lets tackle those books after this one has been read. For the present time I'm interested in Lee Strobel's case for Christ, and not the case of another author.
More over I'm not interested in refuting minute details of his expert's testimony with competing evidence from a source other than Lee Strobel's book. Where the experts leave room for questioning, we might question. However where experts are 100% sure of something we'll give Lee Strobel the benefit of the doubt. For example, in chapter one on page 23 Mr Strobel's expert says "There are no known competitors for these three gospels." There are other sites that have argued that this statement is wrong. However, since Lee Strobel has not mentioned them, I'm not interested in delving into the details of this one statement. To do so would lead down an endless rabbit hole, the end of which is doubtful to ever be reached. Like wise I'm sure it will happen that someone will think Lee Strobel's case can be strengthened with supplemental information. I would ask though the same principle be applied when this happens. If more information is required to make Lee Strobel's case stronger, I hope he will include it in a future edition of the book.
With all of that in mind... lets jump in.
The introduction gives me great hope for this book. Hopefully there will be evidence from multiple sources, the veracity of which is beyond question. Lee Strobel uses a judicial case from his days as a reporter to illustrate how evidence can point someone to certain conclusions, but upon closer inspection fits a different conclusion much more precisely.
More over it would appear that I have a better starting point than Strobel does, who at the beginning of his investigation described himself as an Atheist but admits that
I don't see my life that way. In fact, I even go to church with my family now and then. While some atheists feel that religion poisons everything, and that religion is evil, I'm not certain of either of those statements. I've seen religion do some terrible things, but I've also heard first hand of people being motivated to do some very wonderful things.
Towards the end of the introduction Strobel encourages the reader to play the role of a juror. While I'm skeptical that this book will change my life and cause me to become a Christian, I'm more than happy to put aside that bias and treat it as though it were evidence presented in a courtroom. Hopefully my Christian friends who are following along can let me know when I stray from this goal. I also hope that Christians who may happen across this blog who are not my friends (those who know me only as atheistreader) will do the same---in the same Christian manner.
I've added the jury quote to the margin of the blog, to remind myself of the challenge that Lee Strobel makes in the introduction. Also as people follow along and read each post, I want them to be reminded of the challenge as well. I happen to believe that Lee Strobel's claims are sincere, and so I wish to limit discussion to what is his book. If there is other information in other books, lets tackle those books after this one has been read. For the present time I'm interested in Lee Strobel's case for Christ, and not the case of another author.
More over I'm not interested in refuting minute details of his expert's testimony with competing evidence from a source other than Lee Strobel's book. Where the experts leave room for questioning, we might question. However where experts are 100% sure of something we'll give Lee Strobel the benefit of the doubt. For example, in chapter one on page 23 Mr Strobel's expert says "There are no known competitors for these three gospels." There are other sites that have argued that this statement is wrong. However, since Lee Strobel has not mentioned them, I'm not interested in delving into the details of this one statement. To do so would lead down an endless rabbit hole, the end of which is doubtful to ever be reached. Like wise I'm sure it will happen that someone will think Lee Strobel's case can be strengthened with supplemental information. I would ask though the same principle be applied when this happens. If more information is required to make Lee Strobel's case stronger, I hope he will include it in a future edition of the book.
With all of that in mind... lets jump in.
The introduction gives me great hope for this book. Hopefully there will be evidence from multiple sources, the veracity of which is beyond question. Lee Strobel uses a judicial case from his days as a reporter to illustrate how evidence can point someone to certain conclusions, but upon closer inspection fits a different conclusion much more precisely.
But the key questions were these: Had the collection of evidence really been thorough? And which explanation beset fit the totality of the facts?
More over it would appear that I have a better starting point than Strobel does, who at the beginning of his investigation described himself as an Atheist but admits that
Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.
I don't see my life that way. In fact, I even go to church with my family now and then. While some atheists feel that religion poisons everything, and that religion is evil, I'm not certain of either of those statements. I've seen religion do some terrible things, but I've also heard first hand of people being motivated to do some very wonderful things.
Towards the end of the introduction Strobel encourages the reader to play the role of a juror. While I'm skeptical that this book will change my life and cause me to become a Christian, I'm more than happy to put aside that bias and treat it as though it were evidence presented in a courtroom. Hopefully my Christian friends who are following along can let me know when I stray from this goal. I also hope that Christians who may happen across this blog who are not my friends (those who know me only as atheistreader) will do the same---in the same Christian manner.
Welcome!
Welcome to the atheist reader. The current book that is being read is The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. My goal is to dissect each book that I read down to its main points. Who knows, maybe if this catches on we'll have to vote on the next book that is covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)