The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

by Lee Strobel

“So these liberals say historical research can’t possibly discover the Jesus of faith, because the Jesus of faith is not rooted in history. He’s merely a symbol,” Boyd continued. “But listen: Jesus is not a symbol of anything unless he’s rooted in history. The Nicene Creed doesn’t say, ‘We wish these things were true.’ It says, ‘Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and the third day he rose again from the dead,’ and it goes on from there.

Dude’s getting a little upset here - name calling and all. What these “liberals” are saying, it seems to me, is that the Jesus of faith is pretty bad ass.

“Take away miracles and you take away the Resurrection, and then you’ve got nothing to proclaim. Paul said that if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, our faith is futile, it’s useless, it’s empty.”

But why? She here’s the problem. The idea that if these things didn’t really happen, then our entire faith is crushed. That literal interpretation is what makes people believe dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark, and that God kicked out asses out of Eden because we ate from the tree of knowledge - and any number of things that quite frankly sound completely bananas. There needs to be some reading between the lines. We need to spend time appreciating the poetry.

“I don’t want to base my life on a symbol,” he said resolutely. “I want reality, and the Christian faith has always been rooted in reality. What’s not rooted in reality is the faith of liberal scholars. They’re the ones who are following a pipe dream, but Christianity is not a pipe dream.”

This guy is a numb nut.

left-wing scholarship

I appreciated this book a whole lot more before the name calling & side-taking. I do not support this sort of bullshit.

There’s a third-century account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection that stars a talking cross and that less than a handful of scholars think predates the gospels.

Okay, but you’re talking about miracles and resurrection - why is a talking cross where you draw the line?

If the Jesus of faith is not also the Jesus of history, he’s powerless and he’s meaningless.

But WHY?! Why?!!! So frustrating!

unless he established his divinity by rising from the dead, he’s just a feel-good symbol who’s as irrelevant as Santa Claus.

Oh my God. Really? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, all of his teachings are meaningless? I’m sorry, that’s just moronic.

prominent conservative evangelicals

So what are we saying here? That to follow Jesus, one must be a conservative evangelical? Because if that’s the case… you can fuck all the way off.

also from other well-respected scholars representing a wide variety of theological backgrounds.

It’s interesting that you didn’t name any of the Jesus Seminar people. You painted them all with one brush, as if none of them are well respected scholars from diverse backgrounds. SOMEBODY has to be the bad guy, right? Let me guess - Satan?

He goes on to quote other distinguished scholars with similar opinions, including Dr. Howard Clark Kee, who called the Seminar “an academic disgrace,”

Again, you’re naming all of the Seminars detractors, but not a single member of the Seminar. What’s more, you’re making a generalization about Biblical scholars - that they are all right-wing conservative evangelicals. Tell me, sir, what makes a right-wing conservative evangelical automatically more credible? There is anger in these pages - and once again here we are at the end of a conversation you’re not even willing to have. Unless you actually talk to one of these Jesus Seminar people, I’m afraid your approach is “as meaningless as Santa Clause.”

What dangers do you see in relying on the news media in reporting on issues of this kind?

Seems to me, you’re suggesting the news media reporting on findings more to your liking are just fine with you. Right-wing evangelical ideology. Nothing dangerous there, right? Numbskull.

because the Jews of his day didn’t have any concept of the Trinity. They only knew of God the Father—whom they called Yahweh—and not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. “So if someone were to say he was God, that wouldn’t have made any sense to them and would have been seen as clear-cut blasphemy. And it would have been counterproductive to Jesus in his efforts to get people to listen to his message.

Jesus makes the truly radical statement that it’s not what enters a person that defiles him but what comes out of his heart.

Which is a meaningless sentence… unless Jesus rose from the dead?

We have to ask, What kind of person thinks he has the authority to set aside the divinely inspired Jewish Scriptures and supplant them with his own teaching?

Perhaps a man of conviction who was tired of hearing the same rehashed bullshit.

“Jesus taught in a radical new way. He begins his teachings with the phrase ‘Amen I say to you,’ which is to say, ‘I swear in advance to the truthfulness of what I’m about to say.’ This was absolutely revolutionary.” “How so?” I asked. He replied, “In Judaism you needed the testimony of two witnesses, so witness A could witness the truth of witness B and vice versa. But Jesus witnesses to the truth of his own sayings. Instead of basing his teaching on the authority of others, he speaks on his own authority.

“The real issue is, what happened after the crucifixion of Jesus that changed the minds of the disciples, who had denied, disobeyed, and deserted Jesus? Very simply, something happened to them that was similar to what Jesus experienced at his baptism—it was confirmed to them that what they had hoped Jesus was, he was.”

“We have to ask, Why is there no other first-century Jew who has millions of followers today? Why isn’t there a John the Baptist movement? Why, of all first-century figures, including the Roman emperors, is Jesus still worshiped today, while the others have crumbled into the dust of history? “It’s because this Jesus—the historical Jesus—is also the living Lord. That’s why. It’s because he’s still around, while the others are long gone.”

“Not really. Might Jesus have sometimes healed by suggestion? I have no problem with that. Sometimes people can have a psychologically induced illness, and if they get a new purpose for living, a new direction, they don’t need the illness anymore.

Nice!

“So along comes Jesus and says to sinners, ‘I forgive you.’ The Jews immediately recognize the blasphemy of this. They react by saying, ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ To my mind, that is one of the most striking things Jesus did.”

“So part of Christian theology has been concerned not with ‘explaining it all away’ but with trying to take the biblical evidence and, retaining all of it fairly, find ways of synthesis that are rationally coherent, even if they’re not exhaustively explanatory.”

If the Incarnation is true, it’s not surprising that finite minds couldn’t totally comprehend it.

The Bible says that the Father is loving. The New Testament affirms the same about Jesus. But can they really be loving while at the same time sending people to hell? After all, Jesus teaches more about hell than anyone in the entire Bible. Doesn’t that contradict his supposed gentle and compassionate character?

hell is not a place where people are consigned because they were pretty good blokes but just didn’t believe the right stuff. They’re consigned there, first and foremost, because they defy their Maker and want to be at the center of the universe. Hell is not filled with people who have already repented, only God isn’t gentle enough or good enough to let them out. It’s filled with people who, for all eternity, still want to be at the center of the universe and who persist in their God-defying rebellion.

Hmm. Theirstate of mind keeps them from God.

God has to be an objective reality if he’s going to have any meaning beyond my own imagination.

it was literally beyond words to describe; they had to invent a new word: excruciating. Literally, excruciating means ‘out of the cross.’

“In a profound sense, Christianity without the resurrection is not simply Christianity without its final chapter. It is not Christianity at all.”1

I just dont get this

“While the creed says Jesus was crucified, buried, and then resurrected, it doesn’t specifically say the tomb was empty,” I pointed out. “Doesn’t this leave room for the possibility that the Resurrection was only spiritual in nature and that Jesus’ body was still in the tomb?”

“The creed definitely implies the empty tomb,” Craig countered. “You see, the Jews had a physical concept of resurrection. For them, the primary object of the resurrection was the bones of the deceased—not even the flesh, which was thought to be perishable.

“The core of the story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus, puts it in a tomb, the tomb is visited by a small group of women followers of Jesus early on the Sunday morning following his crucifixion, and they find that the tomb is empty. They see a vision of angels saying that Jesus is risen.

“As long as the existence of God is even possible, it’s possible that he acted in history by raising Jesus from the dead.”