First of all, Strobel is not a skeptical fellow, at all. He is a creationist, enough said on that topic.
I have no idea if he is a creationist now. It's hardly the point. He is a skeptical fellow, and was formerly skeptical about Jesus.
So you are asking us to just read that book and agree with the guy because once upon a time he was a crime reporter who “found” god? And we should not say anything negative unless we have read the thing?
He was, and perhaps remains, a man who looks hard at evidence, and reserves judgment until all the evidence is in, as we all should be. You say many things that show I am correct to advise you not to speak before reading or watching the video. Shall I elaborate?
If there were even the chance that this would be a book based on serious scholarship and a thorough investigation on textual evidence with/and credible sources, I would read it. But the author and his so-called experts are just a bunch of evangelicals who would not know science or fact based research if it bit them in the rear end.
If you had read it you would know that these gentlemen are all very serious and well trained scholars who have spent their lifetimes studying the Bible. They are not 'a bunch of evangelicals'. Who are you to say whether men with PhDs and knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, history, archaeology and even statistics and mathematics (if I recall) 'would not know science or fact based research'?
If your baseless assumptions are anything to go by, it would be
you who wouldn't know. All you need to do is look into this matter as I have suggested. Instead you choose to make assumptions, and attack.
Ok. So now what? Are you implying he actually has credibility here because of who he once was? Is this supposed to be an argument from authority? Then it falls short, he was just a reporter with a lucky break. How does that connect to biblical scholarship? Maybe you should mention that he is an apologist and a pastor that might work better for some.
You have read way too much into this. I simply meant if a hard-nosed Chicago crime reporter could remain opened-minded enough to see the truth, then perhaps you, the forum reader, could too. He's an apologist and pastor
now! And yes, you're right, that might be more convincing to some, if we were preaching to the choir.
I was not implying that he is credible because of something he once did. I merely meant to point out you may have heard of this man. And by the way, the Ford Pinto story was not just a lucky break. He was in the habit of poring through archives for days, months and years in his capacity as a reporter. All this connects to Biblical scholarship in that such requires research skills, skepticism, playing the devil's advocate... Another assumption you make ("Like all people with something to prove, he found material to do so") is that these people just find what they are looking for. Many of the scholars Strobel interviewed started out as skeptical as he was, and their research (in some cases, years of research) convinced them that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be.
What if I still think it’s irrelevant to me what he found out about his religious sentiments? Like all people with something to prove, he found material to do so.
How can the fact that God became Man and sacrificed Himself, suffered crucifixion and died for your sins, to pay a debt that Law demands possibly be irrelevant to you? I can't imagine what could be more relevant. Really now!
It still means nothing other than he managed to reaffirm what he wanted to believe. Seriously, his book is basically an argument for intelligent design. The fact that he interviewed people from for the Discovery Institute and Craig who “discusses” Big Bang theory should entice me or make me want to actually waste the money and time to read that book?
Again, he
did not want to believe any of this. When his wife chose to believe he at first wanted to divorce her, saying it was not what he had signed up for. I don't recall intelligent design ever being discussed in the book, which again, you would know if...
(and you would not have to spend a dime, if you look at the video online)
There is still no proof that Jesus actually existed and here you might want to refer to bishops of the early church, such as Irenaeus and Theophilus who did not think that the Christos was actually a physical being, but understood it to be a manifestation of logos.
Either you have paid no attention to what you wrote here, or you don't know what the word 'exist' means. There was much debate in the early church as to whether Jesus was fully divine, or fully human, or half and half. After many accusations of heresy, the official line was that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. I realize that sounds pretty fishy from a modern, scientific outlook, but there it is.. The early church fathers can hardly be held to objective standards that developed much later in history. So do you mean that if some one or some thing is a manifestation of the Word of God it does not actually exist? That’s woorisome because I believe you and I are manifestations of the logos too.
And if people who lived during the first and/or second century after the events described in the synoptic gospels have either not even heard of a Jesus figure or deny that it was a physical presence
I hardly understand this. Of course there were many millions of people in the first two centuries A.D. who had never heard of Jesus. What of it? And if there were those who denied his physical presence, like Irenaeus and Theophilus, as you claim, then they were
still believers in Christ. I suppose you mean Theophilus to whom the Luke gospel and the Acts (by the same author) were addressed. Well, wasn't that Luke's whole point then?
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." -Luke 1
You continue:
.... then some evangelical apologist will certainly not manage to sway me that his version of bible myths is any more real than that travesty of creationist science they want to peddle.
My suggestion that you read or watch before you speak still holds true. In any case, you seem adamant on not being convinced of anything, which makes me wonder why you participate in a science forum at all, and then why you would choose to enter a discussion on whether the fact that Jesus existed can be seen as the proof required that there is indeed a Lord in heaven.
Strobel ,many of the scholars interviewed in
The Case for Christ and yes, I, realized the truth of Jesus Christ after much hard going, skepticism and doubt, but always with a commitment to being open-minded and facing the facts no matter where they might lead. Can you do as much, my friend?