Diogenes the Cynic

That's just the thing, though, Strobel does NOT give atheist counter-arguments. He presents strawman counter-arguments -- arguments that atheists and skeptics do not actually make -- attacks those and then acts like he's accomplished something. For example, modern critical scholars (who are not not just atheists) do not argue against the empty tomb with claptrap like "the disciples were hallucinating," or "the body was stolen," etc. These are imaginary objections which are not actually voiced by skeptics because they are based on assumptions not in evidence. It is not necessary to explain why the disciples claimed to have seen a risen Jesus because there is no proof that they MADE such a claim.¹
I guarantee that he would not. Never mind atheist counter-arguments² -- even mainstream Christian scholarship would blow his arguments out of the water.


¹Even his arguments against the strawmen are unconvincing. Of course the disciples could have lied or stolen the body or been hallucinating. These scenarios are not likely but all of them must be preferred to magic.

²It's not even really correct to speak in terms of "atheistic" and "theistic" arguments. It's more about good scholarship and bad scholarship. Strobel is not just out of step with atheists (who may or may not know anything about NT criticism), but out of step with mainstream Christian scholarship. His books are only effective with people who a.) already believe or already predisposed to believe, and b.) lack education as to the subject matter. He doesn't just avoid atheist arguments, he avoids all genuine scholarship altogether.

Chris Weimer

Web Results 1 - 3 of 3 for "strobel, debunked". (0.23 seconds)
Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results.
Lee Strobel's "A Case for Faith" - Page 2 - IIDB
Google "strobel, debunked" and you will find numerous websites that have done the work for you. CC. I just did that, and the first result that came up was ...
www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=215740&page=2 - 11 hours ago - Similar pages - Note this
Lee Strobel's "A Case for Faith" - IIDB
Google "strobel, debunked" and you will find numerous websites that have done the work for you. CC. Cheerful Charlie is offline ...
www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4708836 - 12 hours ago - Similar pages - Note this
[ More results from www.iidb.org ]
I LOVE UFO live eurockeennes 2006 festival 2 - izlesene video izle ...
Wickström bukowski modestmouse polivynil disidente youngsaeng yeongsaeng kyujong hyunjoong hyungjun hyungjoon jungmin Strobel debunked waliyaa vichire suve ...
http://www.tubetube.net/videoizle/Di...estival-2.html - 61k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 3 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not afraid of reading contrary opinions, but Strobel is a bad apologist who relies on bad methodology and bad information. In the interest of fairness, I will admit that Hitchens gets some of his NT scholarship wrong in his own book as well, but his mistakes are far less egregious, less frequent and (frankly) less intentional.

Toto

I've noticed that Google gives me an IIDB page at the top of the search.

But if you take out the quotes, you can find:

Case Against Faith

Earl Doherty's CHALLENGING THE VERDICT

Better yet to search for Strobel along on the infidels.org site, where the word debunked might not be used.

Leff Lowder on Strobel

Paul Doland on Strobel

OneInFundieville

I read a number of Strobel books in my deconversion process. Also read a few McDowell books, CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, Francis Schaefer's primary apologetic work and one light-weight book by Ben Young.

In fact I was cross-referencing what each of the others had to say on canonization the night the tipping point of cognitive dissonance occured. (However, I do believe that was jus the straw that broke the camel's back.)

On the whole historicity of Jesus and empty tomb thing I've also read a few Hambermas and Licona books.

One of the things that I've never been able to figure out is why everybody is so overly focused on the cross and the tomb as the crux of the matter.

I mean, that's like, the "solution."

Doesn't one first need to get the problem rather than find a solution looking for a problem.

How come nobody ever really talks about the historicity of Adam and the significance of all that in the context of the doctrine of original sin.

I have the Baker apolgetics encyclopaeia and it actually does have an entry on the historicity of Adam. I was shocked! I mean the content is rather lame and all they really do is some sort of "Adam is historical because part of the Genesis account reads like a historical narrative" kind of argument but sheesh.

Anyhow, even if the tomb were empty and even is Jesus was raised from the dead, what's the big deal with that? I mean like Lazarus did that, no? And greater works than these happen all the time. And what good televangelist doesn't have stories to tell.

Original sin is where it's got to start.

This whole Western-influence nature of a "story." Introduce the characters, establish the problem/conflict, ...

Act 1 establishes the conflict. Act 2 complicates it. Act 3 resolves it.

The Greek influence being overlayed on the backstory, we gotta talk about Act 1 first.

IMO, historicity of Original Sin is much more apologetically signficant than the Empty Tomb in our Passion Play.

OneInFundieville

I don't agree with that at all. I find it very useful to read other points of view to understand their thinking right or wrong.

C'mon. I still read Dembski. Yes it can be tough, but the only way to know what an "thought leader" says is by his or her own words.

Just because something is schlocking thinking doesn't mean it's not influential "thinking."

Sparrow

I'll look for it, but it will be Monday before I can get to it I think. I watched the clip referenced above. It's not the same clip I have.

From my perspective, most believers will accept the authority of the bible on nothing more than its age. They have no idea who wrote it or when. They're not going to look into any of these issues at all.

Like someone mentioned above, I rejected the original sin doctrine before I ever doubted the existence of Jesus, let alone a resurrection.

Doug Shaver

I didn't get that impression. When I read it, it looked more like a believer trying, not always successfully, to imagine how an atheist might think.

Doug Shaver

I suspect that might be another indication, among many others that I've noticed, that the primary purpose of most apologetics is not to make believers out of unbelievers but just to keep believers believing. While the overt message seems to be "This is how we know we're right," there is also a covert message: "This is why you musn't pay any attention to any of those skeptics."

Sparrow

I searched and could not find the video on my pc. But in searching, I found what I think is the piece in question. It was a 'documentary' done by Elizabeth Vargas of ABC news entitled 'Resurrection: A Search for Answers'. Follow the link or google for more details. Since by Vargas' definition Strobel is a scholar, it is only by a similar looseness of term that I can call her a journalist. Now I remember why I deleted the video.

Vargas did describe the two (Garden tomb and Church of the Holy Sepulcher) traditional tombs, but never really delves into why there are contradictory locations. She's entirely too credulous for my taste.

I did search a few torrent sites without luck. Perhaps you can find a copy at your local library or jesus outlet store.