scigirl

I started this thread as an extension of <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001321" target="_blank">this one</a> from evolution/creation. Somehow we got on the topic of Les Strobel's book A case for Christ.

Here are other links about this book, that I found by searching the Biblical C&A archives, provided by Mageth:

Earl Doherty, <a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/ctvadvert.htm" target="_blank">Challenging the Verdict</a>

and our own Jeffery J Lowder, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html" target="_blank">The Rest of the Story</a>.

scigirl

scigirl

I suppose I should point out my position of the book.

1) Les Strobel was never an atheist - and the book was so contrived it made my head hurt.

2) This book actually helped my deconversion because it is the first time I found out that certain books were intentionally left out of the Bible because they didn't fit with the "story" of Jesus that the Church wanted to tell.

What this means to me is: Modern-day Christians claim to base their religion on the bible. Yet early christians based the bible on their already-established religion. Circular reasoning anyone?

scigirl

Philosoft

This is my position as well. The Case for Faith makes it even more clear.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, scigirl,

I've followed up the link that you've provided to the review by Jeffery J Lowder, and read some of his analysis.

Of course, I agree that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. These are all anonymous documents that, in their present shape, probably date from about 150-200 CE. But I don't think that the Q hypothesis should be seen as such great evidence for this.

Here's what Lowder writes,

[quote]

And Blomberg dismisses the Q hypothesis as "nothing more than a hypothesis" (p. 31). Yet the two-source hypothesis--that Matthew and Luke were written with a copy of Mark and Q in front of them--is not just an arbitrary assumption held only by liberal scholars. The evidence has led even conservative scholars to accept the existence of Q. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary has written an excellent paper, "The Synoptic Problem," which argues for both Markan priority and the existence of Q.

[unquote]

Myself, I think that the 2 Source Hypothesis (2ST), and the Q Hypothesis that's associated with it are complete bunk. Especially the 2ST is complete bunk, because there's so much hard textual evidence that contradicts it. In particular, GMark is certainly not a 1st century text. So this alone makes the 2ST complete bunk -- and there's so much more there to contradict it.

So I find it extremely unfortunate that the NT scholars are so commonly seen as "liberals" if they support 2ST, and "conservatives" if they reject it. Because, from my point of view, these are all died-in-the-wool conservatives!

The only true liberals are the people like Alfred Loisy, who rejected long ago this absurd notion that all of our NT gospels are 1st century texts.

All the best,

Yuri.

Amos

Don't you think that with the keys to the kingdom in your hand you can write anything you want? The bible is just a tool written to feul religion.

Here's Jn 5:39-40 "[You] search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life--they also testify on my behalf. Yet you are unwilling to come to me to possess that life."

The above very well means that there in no salvation in the bible but that it is just smokescreen to hide the truth that is found outside the bible. Misleading is right word for this and that is why literary censorship is necessary.

Skeptical

That's a pretty bold statement considering that the vast majority of NT scholars would disagree with you. What is your evidence that GMark is "certainly not a 1st century text"?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Skeptical

I read CFC alongside Doherty's rebuttal. I can say that there is no doubt in my mind that IF Strobel was an atheist, he wasn't a very well thought out or well read one. Bottom line, he simply does not ask the appropriate followup questions, even when the followup questions are obvious and right there in front of him. He does not in any way address some of the major problems with the ideas proposed by his "experts" and simply accepts everything they tell him. He is, in short, completely credulous and uncritical.

The other main problem with the book is that some of the "experts" he questions make comments that are flat out lies that anyone who had done even the slightest bit of research should recognize as such. For example, Habermas makes the ridiculous claim that the reason for the similarity between certain pagan myths and gospel stories (virgin birth, resurrection, eucharist, etc) are that the pagans copied from the Christians. Anyone who has done even cursory research knows that this is patently false since many of the Pagan traditions began hundreds of years before Jesus is reported to have lived. Additionally, the earliest christian apologists who were sitting nearly two thousand years closer to the events than modern scholars _never once used this argument_. Justin Martyr used the "diabolical mimicry" argument to explain the _fact_ that christian creeds looked very similar to much earlier pagan creeds. I think Justin was in a little better position to address this question than we are today. He knew then what Habermas certainly does and what Strobel should have known, many pagan traditions pre-dated similar christian ones by centuries.

I almost put the book down when I got to this chapter, but I struggled through it. Some of the other chapters are a little better, but they all leave key questions unanswered due to Strobels lack of either knowledge, intellectual courage or both.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

It would be most helpful if you would submit it rather than assert it.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Skeptical, you're quite right that the vast majority of NT scholars would disagree with me. But of course, this would never stop me from saying things that I'm saying...

See my objections to the 2ST outlined in the other thread (Six Big Fallacies of NT Studies).

I've been in these Synoptic discussions for years, often arguing with some of the top specialists, so the evidence isn't so hard to come by. And now, since I can't post to those specialist lists any more, I guess I will just have to tell the rest of the world just how silly all these Big Experts really are...

All the best,

Yuri.

"One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea" -- Walter Bagehot (1826-1877)

Skeptical

Ok, I'll bite. What is the evidence? I saw your comments in your other thread, and I have not yet seen the foundation and references for your assertions. If your going to make such strong assertions, I'm sure you'll agree that you have to have some pretty strong evidence to back it up.