Lee Stobel's case for Christ/Christianity.

[Elijah John]

Anyone familiar with Lee Strobel's Case for Christ or Case for Christianity?

What do you think of his arguments. (examples please)

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

It has been a long time since I last read Strobel. His writing is a great catalog of logical fallacies, self aggrandizing narrative and repetition.

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I think of Strobel basically the same way that I think of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. They appeal to those who already agree with them, but commit a variety of logical fallacies that those who are not already on their side are less likely to overlook.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 3 by bjs]


I'd be keen to read a catalogue of logical fallacies employed regularly by Sam Harris if you find the time.

Strobel has no better luck establishing his "pillars accepted by the majority of theological scholarship" as facts than anyone else that's tried. I bet he and Craig enjoy some quality tea parties together.

[rikuoamero]

Anyone familiar with Lee Strobel's Case for Christ or Case for Christianity?

What do you think of his arguments. (examples please)

Yeah, I'm familiar with Case for Christ. For someone who claims to be conducting an honest investigation, he only did half the work - he only talked to people who share his beliefs. Not once does he talk to a non-believer.

[alwayson]

Lee Strobel doesn't understand what 1 Cor. 15 actually says.

1 Cor. 15 indicates that Cephas etc. only knew Jesus from VISIONS/DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures.

1 Cor. 15.:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

It has been a long time since I last read Strobel. His writing is a great catalog of logical fallacies, self aggrandizing narrative and repetition.

I agree. Been a long time since I read it, portions of it quickly when a friend gave it to me because i'm a lawyer and he thought it would be convincing. Just the opposite. Strobel makes arguments no lawyer would make in a courtroom. He completely misunderstands evidence, then pontificates as if he actually knows something. It is a superficial treatment that glosses over important details.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I think of Strobel basically the same way that I think of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. They appeal to those who already agree with them, but commit a variety of logical fallacies that those who are not already on their side are less likely to overlook.

Strobel, a journalist and 3d rate author has little in common with Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens. The latter three base their arguments on fact and on lack of evidence for the truth of religion. Dawkins actually IS a scientist and understands his material. Strobel simply collected some quotes from others to justify his beliefs without doing any original work himself.

[WinePusher]

Anyone familiar with Lee Strobel's Case for Christ or Case for Christianity?

What do you think of his arguments. (examples please)

I've never liked him. Listening to him speak and reading his stuff made me start rooting for the other side. Same things true for this other guy named Turek. I saw Hitchens debating this Turek fellow a while back and throughout the whole debate I kept cheering for Hitchens, even though I share the same beliefs as Turek.

As for Strobel's arguments, well he doesn't really have anything original. His books just reiterate and rephrase (poorly) classical arguments for God's existence that have already been rehashed over and over and over.

I think of Strobel basically the same way that I think of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. They appeal to those who already agree with them, but commit a variety of logical fallacies that those who are not already on their side are less likely to overlook.

Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are very respectable intellectuals imo, and I wouldn't necessarily say that their work contains "logical fallacies." I've always admired atheistic intellectuals far more than people like Strobel, and even William Lane Craig.

[Elijah John]

I agree with much of what has been said here on this thread. Some of it refreshing coming from fellow believers.

Added twist...how does Strobel compare with other popular apologists, like Josh McDowell?

Not familiar with W L Craig, but are authors such as Luke Timothy Johnson, and David Limbaugh any more convincing? (both have written books about the "real" Jesus)

Do they offer better arguments anyway?