I am in the process of reading the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It has so far been a great book that I recommend to everyone no matter their religion or lack thereof. The book is very logical and unbiased, if you haven’t heard of it, the book takes an investigation into Christianity to find if it is true or false. It address: eyewitness evidence, documentary evidence, corroborating evidence, scientific evidence, rebuttal evidence, identity evidence, psychological evidence, profile evidence, fingerprint evidence, medical evidence, evidence of the missing body, evidence of appearances, and circumstantial evidence. Again I highly recommend it. There were some very good questions he asked after the first and second section of Part one in his book and I am very interested in what people have to say about these questions. I would love to hear what your opinions are and what you would like to say.
“Do you believe the gospels can have a theological agenda while at the same time being trustworthy in what they report? Why or why not?”
“When people you trust give slightly different details of the same event, do you automatically doubt their credibility, or do you see if there’s a reasonable way to reconcile their accounts?”
:))
I'm reading it. It's ridiculous!
He claims he's an investigative journalist. I wouldn't trust a story he worked on. He accepts almost everything as fact at face value. He rarely wants to look into things deeper. And, on the rare occasions when he does, he asks another person who he already knows has the same viewpoint as the person who brought up the point he wants to question.
Right now, he's looking into the findings of the Jesus Seminar. So, what does he do? He goes to a person who is an acknowledged critic of the Seminar. He doesn't talk to a member of the Seminar. He doesn't talk to a neutral scholar. He talks only to someone opposed to it.
This, of course, is the problem with the whole book. He wants to look into the validity Christianity. He only talks to Christians. He doesn't talk to people of any other religion. He doesn't talk to atheists, agnostics, deists and what not. He doesn't talk to scientists that say anything against the historical validity of the New Testament, whether or not they consider themselves Christians.
My conclusion is this. Either he's a liar, an idiot, or someone who really wanted to be convinced.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund