Ancient's Reviews > The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
120169
's review
Jan 22, 14

bookshelves: religion, f-this-crap
Recommended for: People not looking for real answers, Christians who really don't want to challenge their beliefs

Rated 1 star for false advertising, poor journalism, poor investigation, poor argumentation, and poor scholarship.

There's not enough room here to critique all the specifics of this book, so I'll get right to the heart of things (if you're interested in a more detailed critique, check out Robert M. Price's excellent The Case Against the Case for Christ. Or check out the review at infidels.org).

At the beginning of The Case for Christ Strobel presents himself as a journalist and a former atheist/skeptic who is about to conduct a serious investigative search into whether or not Jesus is exactly what orthodox/fundamentalist churches teach him to be - the God Man with miraculous powers born of a virgin to die for the sins of the world, etc., etc.

But here's the problem - the contents of this book are nothing resembling serious investigative journalism. They are a collection of arguments, quotes, and information almost 100% of which are supplied by a small group of like-minded, Evangelical Christian apologists. Strobel never interviews any of the many, many other scholars with views that differ from that of this small, very conservative Evangelical group. (And there are plenty of scholars just as, if not more qualified and respected, who would disagree with what the members of Stobel's clique have to say.)

I rate TCFC at 1 star not because I disagree with the arguments presented in it (which I do), but because it's so dishonest. It claims to be investigative reporting when it presents only a mass of one-sided, biased apologetical material. After having spent years as an investigate journalist, Strobel is either clueless as to what constitutes investigative journalism (possible, but unlikely), or he began this project already possessing a set of strong religious convictions, proceeded to gather only those arguments, interviews, and info which support these particular convictions, and then combined that material into a book dishonestly marketed as investigative journalism (the more likely case).

Strobel is free to write whatever kind of books he wants, but he isn't free to make false claims without expecting to be called out on them.

The true intended audience for TCFC are Christians who are looking for somebody to tell them exactly what they want to hear - that all the traditional (and overly simplistic) beliefs they were taught about Jesus in Sunday School are true and proven. TCFC is not a book written for critical thinkers looking for an honest exploration of well-researched and well-supported scholarship and arguments concerning who Jesus was.

If you are interested in a more honest inquiry into opposing viewpoints about Jesus written for the average reader where different sides get to present their own views in their own words (although one that is still quite slanted in it's presentation), check out Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? edited by Paul Copan.
49 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Case for Christ.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-27 of 27) (27 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

George Really guys, what are you disputing? Facts are facts. I was not an atheist, but have done great study on the reliability of the manuscripts of the New Testament. I have also debated in a liberal seminary with professors and scholars which I attended. Their arguments were blowing in the wind. There is NO reason to believe that Jesus was not who He was reported to be. Although I do not know Lee Strobel, he seems to have put forth a reasonable and well researched argument. Is it not liberals that ask us conservatives to read with an open mind? From the sound of it, you have already made up your mind before you even opened the book. Please be more open minded to those who disagree with your viewpoint. That is what tolerance is all about. I recommend you read any of Michael Green, C.S. Lewis, Schleiermacher (On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers), and I would include G.K. Chesterton's works as well. Many can be downloaded on your Kindle. My assertion is that we must be reasonable and civil with one another, no matter our beliefs. G. Rhodes


message 2: by Ancient (last edited Aug 10, 2011 06:19PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient I have no idea what you debated, what the arguments were, or what arguments you would refer to as "blowing in the wind," but I do know that Strobel's book only takes into account the minority position of a set of very conservative, traditionalist Christians.

There is nothing uncivil or unreasonable in exposing an author's dishonesty and/or selective choosing of facts and arguments. Strobel made his case, and I am saying it is a very poor case if one considers that he only allowed a small number of like minded people speak their opinion. If the long time Christian convert Strobel is going to take on the persona of a hard-nosed journalist in his book, then he'd better report like one instead of speaking like a conservative Christian apologist in skeptical reporter's clothing.

C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton were anti-modernist Christian converts who wanted to ignore the body of critical theological scholarship which had been amassed over the last couple of hundred of years. Both of them were popular writers, polemicists, and apologists who appealed to the imagination via rhetorical argument. Neither of them were theologians or archaeologists attempting to study the texts and artifacts of Christian history in a scientific manner.

When you write that "There is NO reason to believe that Jesus was not who He reported to be," I'm not sure you are aware of the difficulties in trying to assess just exactly who Jesus was and what he said. The best records about Jesus that we have are the four gospels of the New Testament, but these writings are not simple new reports. Each gospel is a complex literary creation involving several layers of reporting, transmission, interpretation, and editing. At best, we only get to see and hear Jesus through the New Testament gospels as through a glass darkly. Who Jesus claimed to be and what the later developing Christian church tradition claimed that he claimed to be are two very different things.

Even though this is a book site, there is a very good video documentary for the average, interested person that I can recommend if you want to get your feet wet with the whole historical Jesus business. From Jesus to Christ is an excellent video series by PBS's FRONTLINE aimed at the average layman. (A person can watch it on DVD or for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli...).

The Search for Jesus: Modern Scholarship Takes a Look at the Gospels is an excellent beginner book on the problems of understanding who Jesus was. There are so many different perspectives on Jesus out there. Rather than attempting to cite them all, I'll provide another webpage that lists a number of them in all their variety. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...)


Andrew Hang on, it's called The Case For Christ, not the Case For and Against Christ. How is that false advertising?


message 4: by Ancient (last edited Jan 14, 2011 09:40AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Maybe you're getting Strobel confused with Josh McDowell. McDowell is the one who pretends to be a lawyer making a court case. Strobel is the one who takes on the persona of the ace investigative reporter.

Investigative reporters are supposed to gather all the facts and follow all the leads. As I wrote, the author does a horrible job of investigative reporting. He only gathered a small number of opinions and perspectives from one group of conservative evangelicals. A real investigative reporter would have interviewed a variety of people out there who have their own legitimate claims based on competing research.

Strobel prints only the hearsay opinions made by certain scholars criticizing the research and reputations of their rivals. No respectable reporter or journalistic organization would conduct themselves that way. A real investigative reporter (i.e. one with integrity) would have sought out the scholars who were criticized and given them chance to defend themselves and their research in their own words.

TCFC is a dishonest presentation. Strobel is too smart not to know how to carry out a legitimate, sound investigative report. Investigative reporting is not about finding and reporing only the information that you want to find, it's about finding and reporting all the relevant information that you can find.

If a reporter filed a story about a new drug and only reported the findings that would support the views of the drug manufacturers while ignoring all kinds of studies and research conducted that would tell a different side of the story, would that be honest investigative reporting?

If a reporter filed a story on deep sea oil drilling, and he or she only interviewed representatives of the oil companies and then said that the case was closed or only interviewed the oil company's critics and then said case closed, would that be a legitimate investigative report?

If somebody were running for president, and a reporter only interviewed that candidate's own campaign staff or only the staff of that candidate's opponents and in either case pretended that one group or the other's was all there was to say about the presidential candidate, would you call that legitimate investigative reporting?

Strobel's book could be retitled:

The PR Campaign For Certain People's Ideas About Christ
or
The Salesman's Pitch For What Certain People Think You Should Think About Christ
or
One Side of The Story - A Selective Presentation of Certain Partisan Theories And Partial Information About Research Into Who Jesus Was

I wouldn't have a problem with any of those.


Andrew I read what you wrote. I just wonder if a journalist wrote a book called The Case Against Christ and approached it in the same way Strobel did for this book, would you be as scathing? I doubt it.


message 6: by Ancient (last edited Jan 14, 2011 02:53PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient The issue here isn't being either "for or against Christ." The issue here is assessing people's claims about Jesus and seeing if they hold up when examined.

Strobel and company didn't make "the case for Christ," they made the case for the particular ideas they believe about Jesus. What they're saying is that if you disagree with us and try to disprove our claims, you're against Christ. They're the ones making this personal and all about them.

It's like somebody saying that they're making "The Case For Australia" or "The Case For the U.S.", and if you don't agree with their particular political views, then you must therefore be against Australia or the U.S. In fact, all you might be against is these people's particular interpretations and characterizations of these countries. In this scenario, if you were to disagree with these people's arguments, that doesn't necessarily make you an unpatriotic bad guy, that means that you have your own views which might be just as valid and arguable.

I have scorn for anyone who resorts to a less than honest presentation of information in order to advance his or her goals or causes. By his fruits do I know him.


message 7: by Ezequiel (new)

Ezequiel You have all wrong Mr. Ancient. Author Lee Strobe world view was much like yours so he set out to disprove what people have said (on the side of Christianity) but only came to the conclusion that they where right. The quotes he has for the people you would like him point out more are the ones that made HIM believe that Christianity was wrong. So he wasn't trying to give all the evidence so you can come up with your own conclusion but how HE came up with the conclusion that Jesus is who he said he is. When people read, write, teach, and so on they do it with a world view. It is obvious that your still searching for answers but like you said one has to look at both sides and come up with you own conclusion. It is obvious that you are being biased simply by looking at the books you read. Make your own Case for or against Christ. See if what Christians say is true or not.


message 8: by Ancient (last edited Sep 08, 2011 11:22AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Ezequiel wrote: "You have all wrong Mr. Ancient. Author Lee Strobe world view was much like yours so he set out to disprove what people have said (on the side of Christianity) but only came to the conclusion that t..."

Oh, boy... I feel like I'm going to be repeating myself a million times when it comes to this book review.

My central problem here is (and always has been)that Strobel pretends that The Case for Christ is an exercise in investigative journalism which it clearly is not.

I would have less of a problem and would take less issue if Strobel would have just said something along the lines of, "This is a book of apologetics for the version of Christian belief that I happen to believe," and then would have proceeded to present his apologetical arguments.

Bias is not the issue. I've never claimed or pretended that I don't have a "bias," or an opinion, or a point of view. Strobel is the one who pretends to play the role of a skeptical reporter in his book after having been a committed Christian convert for decades now. If anyone is being disingenous about their own bias or point of view, it's not me.

Again, my beef is primarily with the manner in which Strobel presents his information and with the claims that he makes regarding the manner in which he presents his information. This book is not an investigative report, this book is an apologetical defense of the author's own belief system. Fine. Argue what you want, believe what you want, just don't write a book where you pretend that apologetics is investigative journalism.

After thinking about this some more, I'm starting to think that perhaps I've been overestimating Strobel's depth of knowledge. Maybe he is just way out of his element when it comes to the world of theological scholarship. Maybe he really doesn't realize how much more information and issues to grapple with exist in the field of historical Jesus studies.


message 9: by Ezequiel (new)

Ezequiel Ancient wrote: "Ezequiel wrote: "You have all wrong Mr. Ancient. Author Lee Strobe world view was much like yours so he set out to disprove what people have said (on the side of Christianity) but only came to the ..."

I know the feeling you have when you have to repeat yourself, I am a father of 4.
As I said before that Mr. Lee Storbel was not doing investigative reporting but giving an account of how he set out to disprove Christianity so of course it sounds like he is trying to clarify truth claims, prove the existence of God and the such because these are the things he first set out to disprove and is now showing what he found to be truth. If Jesus wasn't so important why are so many books written about him (books you have read, many in the only mindset disprove who he was) if he was just a man then why does it bother you so much. The fact is we all know in our hearts we have a choice to make, to believe that facts/evidence presented before us or prove that evidence is flawed. The fact is Jesus IS who he said he IS and you and all who read this have a choice to make believe it or not. And The Case for Christ gives us evidence for the belief in Christ (regardless of how it is written). So make your choice. Author Lee Storbel did.


message 10: by Ancient (last edited Sep 01, 2011 10:22AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Ugh. I don't seem to recall writing anywhere about how "Jesus wasn't so important," or about being "bothered" by Jesus. Where exactly did you find those quotes in what I have written?

I still don't get the impression that you are listening to what I am saying. (I'm sure that this is probably getting as tedious for people to read as it is for me to keep trying to spell out.) Let me reiterate, and please don't attribute statements to me that I never wrote.

This is not a religion forum, this is a book site. I am critiquing a book. I have no interest in arguing about or critiquing your personal religious convictions or relationship with God or whatever the case might be. None of that is any of my business or concern.

In my opinion, Lee Strobel wrote a misleading, disingenuous book that distorts facts and issues by presenting them in a selective manner in order to make the arguments he presents for his own personal religious beliefs to seem better proven than they actually are and to make his opponents ideas seem more ridiculous than they actually are. He tries to lend all of this creedence by presenting himself as a crackerjack investigative reporter and former Yalie.

I am not trying to tell people what they can or cannot believe. I don't care what people end up believing, nor could I control what people choose to believe even if I wanted to (I've already learned that people will believe whatever they want to believe for whatever reasons they want to believe it regardless of any facts and evidence). All I am saying is that one should present their arguments in an honest and forthright manner. One should not muddy the waters of debate by distorting the facts, the issues or the presentation.

That's it.

I've already contrasted TCFC with another book, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?, which I feel does a much better and more honest (although still somewhat flawed) job of presenting different issues and disagreements about Jesus and Christianity. Some people in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? agree with Strobel's ideas (and probably your own), others do not. But everyone gets to speak for themselves and present their own differing views in their own words.

Again, I have been trying to critique a book, not launch some kind of holy war on people's chosen religious beliefs. The latter is a separate discussion, one that doesn't belong here, and one that I have no intention of starting.


message 11: by Tim (new)

Tim So why do the bad reviews of this book get all these angry comments while the good reviews get none? As a non-American, I get the impression from the the Christian Right that the evil godless liberals are always baiting them, mocking their faith etc etc. Looks like the other way around to me.


Elizabeth Newton If you're presenting a case for something, doesn't it have to be largely one-sided?


Ancient Elizabeth wrote: "If you're presenting a case for something, doesn't it have to be largely one-sided?"

But doesn't that depend on what you claim to be setting out to accomplish?

Strobel doesn't introduce himself as an apologist making a one-sided apologetical case, he introduces himself as setting out to do the work of a "skeptical" investigative reporter doing investigative research.

And isn't investigative journalism, which Strobel claims to be doing here, supposed to be about trying to find the truth, the whole truth? To expose every angle, to present every side to the story, to bring all the relevant information before the public? At least when it's done right?

Beyond that, would you trust a one-sided case if you knew it to be a one-sided case? (And Strobel never admits to doing this in his book.) Doesn't one-sided imply that something is biased, slanted, and misleading? Isn't a one-sided case basically propaganda?


Elizabeth Newton I agree. But let's be honest here. Strobel wants other people to experience what he has experienced. I haven't actually yet read the book. My brother is reading it at the moment. I'm next. :) And I'm just going by the title - "The Case For Christ" and I'm picturing a court scene. When a lawyer is in court presenting a case, (or any debate-setting for that matter), they are doing it with the intention of making one side look particularly stronger. But I may get back on here and comment again when I have indeed read the book for myself. Otherwise, I haven't got a lot of credibility here. :) Nice to meet you by the way.


message 15: by Ancient (last edited Mar 06, 2013 10:24AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Elizabeth wrote: "I agree. But let's be honest here. Strobel wants other people to experience what he has experienced. I haven't actually yet read the book. My brother is reading it at the moment. I'm next. :) And I..."

Nice to meet you, too. Yes, please by all means read the book first before commenting on it. One could only hope that the bare minimum requirement for a book debate would be that everyone has already read the book.

"But let's be honest here. Strobel wants other people to experience what he has experienced."

Sure, let's be honest, but let's also be clear in our understanding. Strobel may indeed want other people to experience what he experienced, but this book is not about experiencing, it is about making arguments and giving supposed proofs. It's about thinking not experiencing. My review has nothing to do with anyone's personal experiences, it's solely an analysis of Strobel's arguments.

"The Case For Christ" and I'm picturing a court scene. When a lawyer is in court presenting a case, (or any debate-setting for that matter), they are doing it with the intention of making one side look particularly stronger."

This is again why it's important for us to read a book before commenting on it. I'm afraid I have to limit myself to talking about what an author has actually written, and am unable to speak about what an author could have written. As you'll discover, Strobel presents himself as the one time jaded, world-weary reporter whose seen it all before he found Jesus. It's Josh McDowell who does the whole court room schtick.

I'll be happy to discuss anything about this book that you want - provided that you do the necessary reading first. Good luck and good reading...


Scott Rachui Ancient, Bob Price is a kook by any standard. His book which you reference is as nutty as they come. Price tries to make the case that Christ didn't even exist. No reputable scholar (Christian or atheist) denies Christ's existence. However, given that you seem to believe Price, I suggest any number of books about Bigfoot sightings or UFO abductions. The case they make for their respective claims is about equal to the ones Price makes.


message 17: by Ancient (last edited Jun 06, 2013 08:42AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Scott wrote: "Ancient, Bob Price is a kook by any standard. His book which you reference is as nutty as they come. Price tries to make the case that Christ didn't even exist. No reputable scholar (Christian o..."

Scott,

I'll admit that Price's speculations can get away from him at times, but I wouldn't go so far as to categorically dismiss him as some mere "kook." Price seems to be at his best when he's debunking other people's bogus arguments, and it's that particular aspect of The Case Against The Case For Christ, the way that he picks apart the specifics of Strobel's book, that I appreciate and why I recommended it. That doesn't mean that I necessarily endorse each and every theory Price puts out there in that book, but I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) that people are mature enough thinkers that I don't have to spell that out for them. I'm assuming that people already know that they need to read everything with a certain degree of skepticism, especially when it comes to the kind of tangled arguments you're dealing with in the historical Jesus debates. I don't know that I could say that I agree with any author and book on that subject 100% of the time. Some authors and books seem to be better than others, but it all remains a highly speculative affair.

But in Price's defense, while I'm not convinced that there never was any Jesus, Price's writings have challenged me to rethink even the supposed consensus of scholars (if there can even be said to be such a thing) and to realize that what scholars claim that we can know is still probably more an uncritically accepted construct of church tradition, theology, and the literary imagination of the NT authors taken for granted as being fact. I think that Price is right insofar as what people think they know about Jesus is probably more fiction than fact, and that whomever the historical Jesus was is probably for the most part unknown and perhaps unknowable.


message 18: by Steven (new)

Steven "The fact is Jesus IS who he said he IS and you and all who read this have a choice to make believe it or not."

That's not a fact. That's your opinion.

You've made your point to Ancient. Why keep beating a dead horse? It's not going to rise again after three days.


message 19: by Steven (new)

Steven
Beyond that, would you trust a one-sided case if you knew it to be a one-sided case? (And Strobel never admits to doing this in his book.) Doesn't one-sided imply that something is biased, slanted, and misleading? Isn't a one-sided case basically propaganda?


That right there is more than enough argument to dismantle Strobel's case.

His entire case is based off of his experience with "the saving grace of Jesus" -- an experience which is mostly emotional, and thus he must evoke emotion in his appeal to others, because that's how you hook converts.


Katherine Beecham I'm pretty sure strobel did research both sides. He references many skeptics. As well as going into each interview with questions from skeptic theologians, historians ect that oppose the beliefs of Christian who believe that Jesus is God, and lets them give their best evidence to support that belief and explain why the skeptics point are not accurate.


message 21: by Ancient (last edited Jan 13, 2014 10:24AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Katherine wrote: "I'm pretty sure strobel did research both sides. He references many skeptics..."

Katherine,

Does Strobel give equal representation and voice to people who have ideas about Jesus which differ from that of him and his pals? Strobel goes out of his way to get extensive personal interviews from people like Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, and William Lane Craig - does he also try and get any personal interviews with theologians, historians, and/or scholars with different opinions in order to give them a chance to defend their own ideas in their own words?

There's a huge difference between Strobel "referencing" the opinions of people he disagrees with and Strobel allowing the people he disagrees with to speak for themselves in the same way he allows the people he agrees with to speak for themselves.

The unequal treatment and unequal representation make it quite obvious that Strobel is only interested in setting up a bunch of straw men opinions to be knocked down with ease.


message 22: by Mike (last edited Feb 09, 2014 09:40PM) (new)

Mike Jeez Ancient, you really do have the patience of a saint in this comment thread. Also, good job putting in the infidels link, if people were in fact curious about the other side of Strobel's narrative that link is an excellent place to start!

While I have not read this book (nor really intend to), I can certainly sympathize with your frustration about how the author approached the subject. If someone is going to make a case for X, they need to show why the case against X lacks merit or else they are just preaching to the choir (and this applies to any subject, be it theological, political, or sports related).


message 23: by Ancient (last edited Nov 26, 2013 09:15AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Mike,

Mike wrote: "Jeez Ancient, you really do have the patience of a saint in this comment thread."

Thanks, that's a kind thing to say. I really wish I could lay claim to noble motives, but in reality my ongoing comments are probably more fueled by cantankerous, stubborn frustration and other things of that nature.

I find Strobel's books to be deeply offensive crimes against honest scholarship. When I first read The Case For Christ, his thoroughly dishonest, snake oil approach to the historical Jesus debate made me so angry that I felt compelled to write something in response.

It's the lack of intellectual scruples on display in books like TCFC, not the beliefs themselves that I find to be so offensive. A lot of people seem to not understand the distinction. If people want to believe things in spite of facts, scholarship, and evidence to the contrary for reasons of faith or whatever, that's one thing. That position does not make sense to me, but I wouldn't consider it to be dishonest. However, to actively distort presentations of facts, scholarship, and evidence (the way Strobel does) in order to lead people to believe something is an entirely different matter. That's the way of deceit. It's building belief on lies and half-truths.


message 24: by Edie (new)

Edie Mondazze I didn't see anything from you saying exactly HOW Lee Strobel was dishonest.


message 25: by Edie (new)

Edie Mondazze Therefore, your bias and un-backed comments take away from your credibility.


message 26: by Mike (new)

Mike Edie, you should read some of the discussion thread, Ancient's issues with this book are clearly laid out. The two links he posted at the top of the review expand on the academic arguments against the case made in the work (well worth checking out if you want to hear the other side). I think Ancient's bigger beef is that this work was not an honest assessment of the Case of Christ (as it claimed to be), but a one sided polemic meant to reassure a specific bloc of people.

Like I said, check out some of the comments in this thread and the aforementioned links to get a fuller picture of what is going on both with this book and why Ancient had an issue with it.


message 27: by Ancient (last edited Feb 18, 2014 11:56AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ancient Edie wrote: "I didn't see anything from you saying exactly HOW Lee Strobel was dishonest. Therefore, your bias and un-backed comments take away from your credibility."

Edie,

If you read my review, I did lay out in a general way how Strobel makes a dishonest presentation. He claims that he is doing investigative journalism, but all he does is hand a pulpit over to a certain group of people who all share the same opinions and lets them preach their message without raising any serious questions about anything they have to say. That's not investigative journalism, and for him to pretend that it is is false.

If you're more interested in the specific details of how Strobel misrepresents the material he covers, I've already cited Robert Price's book and infidels.org as two resources. I didn't feel it necessary for for me to rewrite what they and several others have already covered. But I'll also say that it's Strobel's overall approach, his method of framing the questions and the overall debate, that has to be understood as the major problem of his book.

Strobel's book greatly oversimplifies the problems he is investigating (or, rather, "investigating"). By leaving much additional information and findings of scholarship out of his book, he makes it seem as if he has definitively covered everything when he has not. By not letting other qualified scholars voice their opinions contrary to those of the scholars he cites, he makes it appear as if there are no legitimate objections to their answers. Basically, he is presenting the reader with only part of the discussion, but pretending it's the last word on the subject.

As for my credibility, I've never claimed to have any special credibility. I'm just a person trying to figure it all out just like everybody else. The only special qualifications I have is that I try to be relentlessly honest and to use my brain to ask real questions. The only special insight I have when it comes to something like Strobel's books is that I grew up being hoodwinked by guys like him. I was raised in a religious environment where people routinely distorted the truth with dishonest pseudo-scholarship. The people in my church preferred to lie to themselves about many facts rather than change their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Having escaped from that kind of religious propaganda environment, I am very much opposed to these kind of religious hucksters fooling other people with distortions, half-truths, and misleading presentations.

I would never expect you or anyone else to take anything I have to say on blind faith, so my personal credibility has nothing to do with anything. I'm not an authority, nor would I want anyone to believe what I have to say without thinking it through for themselves. All I'm trying to do is warn people about how Strobel's book is misleading in it's claims. It's up to everyone else to investigate further and decide for themselves.

Keep studying and reading, and have to courage to listen to the other side of the story. That's the only way we continue to learn and grow.


back to top