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.

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.