This has been a lot of typing, but I’m finally almost done with this book.
This chapter opens with a story of how compelling circumstantial evidence can be at a trial. Unfortunately, we’re treated to more arguments from the bible rather than any evidence being put forth. In case it’s not obvious, I’m sick of this book by this point. This may be a short post because I’m just sick of dealing with the same arguments over and over. This chapter can be skipped because it’s very obvious that Strobel isn’t even bothering to write for a non-Christian by this point. There is no evidence provided at all.
In this chapter, Strobel interviews Dr. J. P. Moreland.
Exhibit 1: The Disciples Died For Their Beliefs
No actual evidence is provided in this section. All things mentioned presuppose the historical reliability of the bible. I’m really getting tired of having to say this, but see the problems with chapters 2 and 3 for reasons why we shouldn’t take the gospels as good historical fact.
Dr. Moreland claims, without furnishing any evidence for it, that “[Dr. Moreland:] …the apostles were willing to die for something they had seen with their own eyes and touched with their own hands.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 268). I need some evidence for this to be furnished in order to believe it. Telling me that the bible or church says so is not adequate evidence.
There’s another statement I’m getting tired of saying but applies here. Just because you were willing to die for your beliefs does not mean that those beliefs are correct, factual, or in any way accurate to what happened. People have died because they were lied to and believed the lie wholeheartedly. For example, the heaven’s gate cult. Are we supposed to believe that they knew the truth because so many were willing to die?
Exhibit 2: The Conversion of Skeptics
Again, the bible is not a reliable source and should not be treated as such. Stop referring to it if you want to convince anyone of a claim. See the Problems with Chapters 2 and 3 again. Just because the bible claims someone was skeptical and then changed their mind after the (supposed) resurrection does not mean that person existed OR was even skeptical at all.
Dr. Moreland claims that Muhammad’s and Paul’s revelations are completely different because “[Dr. Moreland:] Muhammad claims he went into a cave and had a religious experience in which Allah revealed the Koran to him. There’s no other eyewitness to verify this. Muhammad offered no publicly miraculous signs to certify anything.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 270). How very convenient that Dr. Moreland ignores the point that there would have been no one around to see Paul have his conversion either. In fact, the only record we have of how Paul was converted is through his own words. This is literally the same as Muhammad, Paul even managed to twist a religion that was getting started into his way of thinking and become a central figure because of it.
This chapter also presumes that a person called Saul who became Paul actually existed. That viewpoint is under heavy debate due to lack of historical evidence for Paul[1]. If Paul didn’t exist, then it appears that someone used Paul as a pseudonym and made up a great SOB backstory for him to lend credibility for why he was so fanatical.
Exhibit 3: Changes to Key Social Structures
This section is atrocious. There is no evidence brought forth that the claims are true, and again, some of the things stated are directly contradictory to things that Strobel’s own experts have told us before. Some of these things are also contradicted by historical documents.
To start off with, Dr. Moreland appears to equate the relaxing of Jewish laws with Jesus and the Christianity movement. (Strobel, CFC, P. 272-273). This may be the cause for stopping animal sacrifices and changes in thought regarding Moses law, and I’m willing to grant that.
What is flat out wrong is when Dr. Moreland states Jews would “[Dr. Moreland:] …not doing anything except religious devotion every Saturday… …after the death of this Nazarene carpenter, this fifteen-hundred-year tradition is abruptly changed.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 272). Contrary to what Dr. Moreland implies, Jews still worship on Saturday even today. They have had no change on this point. Christians might worship on Sunday because they believe Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, but that is not evidence for the claim.
Dr. Moreland also says “[Dr. Moreland:] Yet Jews begin to worship Jesus as God within the first decade of the Christian religion.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 273). This is blatantly false and even disputed by the same documents Strobel’s other experts have pointed out: The Talmud. In the references given by Strobel’s experts, the Jews certainly didn’t worship Jesus. They certainly don’t today either.
Dr. Moreland also says “[Dr. Moreland:] …Christians pictured the Messiah as someone who suffered and died for the sins of the world, whereas Jews had been trained to believe that the Messiah was going to be a political leader…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 273). Perhaps that’s because the prophecies of a Messiah all point towards a political leader rather than a spiritual one, and Jesus did not fulfill any of them?[2]
Dr. Moreland claims that “[Dr. Moreland:] …an entire community of at least ten thousand Jews were willing to give up these five key practices…” (Strobel, CFC, P.273 ) shortly after Christianity got started. Like most claims, he furnished no evidence for this. Without any evidence to back this claim up, the claim seems most likely made up and pulled in to lend credence to a story. In fact, if, as Dr. Moreland claims, “[Dr. Moreland:] …they had seen Jesus risen from the dead” (Strobel, CFC, P. 273), we could expect to see far more mention of Jesus in historical texts along with much strong corroborating evidence for his existence outside of church propaganda. Instead, we have nothing to back up any of these claims.
The claims that Jewish people changed their viewpoints provides no evidence for anything that Strobel is trying to prove. All this proves is that the Jews changed their social structures at some point.
Exhibit 4: Communion and Baptism
Dr. Moreland points to communion and baptism as evidence for the resurrection story somehow. All that communion shows is that the early Christians at the time believed it to be important. As for baptism, both the Jews and the Essene cult had something similar that Christianity pulled from. The fact that “[Dr. Moreland:] people were baptized in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 275) just means that early Christians believed it was the correct way to do things.
Dr. Moreland makes the same logical fallacy that every other expert Strobel interviews has done when he says “[Dr. Moreland:] …these two sacraments can be dated back to the very earliest Christian community-too early for the influence of any other religions…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 275). Just because something goes back to the earliest sources doesn’t mean it wasn’t influenced by another religion. By Dr. Moreland’s own admission, “[Dr. Moreland:] The early church adopted a form of baptism from their Jewish upbringing…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 275). This is one influence already, and I’m sure there are more.
Dr. Moreland also claims that “[Dr. Moreland:] …there’s no hard evidence that any mystery religion believed in gods dying and rising, until after the New Testament period.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 275). The theme of a god dying and coming back to life again is the staple of many religions, many of which predate Christianity. It’s such a big religious trope that it has it’s own wikipedia page[3]. Having a god come back to life is certainly nothing new for a religion by the time that Christianity hit the religious scene.
Exhibit 5: The Emergence of the Church
Dr. Moreland argues that “[Dr. Moreland:] …this movement triumphed over a number of competing ideologies and eventually overwhelmed the entire Roman empire.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 276). He overlooks the fact that a religion spreading doesn’t prove the correctness or truth of the religion. The only conclusion that we can draw from this is that the people believed the message of Christianity. The same thing could be said of other faiths, such as Islam. This causes no problems for a naturalistic view of history.
Dr. Moreland starts to tie things up by saying “[Dr. Moreland:] …if someone wants to consider this circumstantial evidence and reach the verdict that Jesus did not rise from the dead-fair enough. But they’ve got to offer an alternative explanation that is plausible for all five of these facts.” (Strobel, CFC, P. 276). Given that none of Dr. Moreland’s points have any evidence for any of the claims made, then the best explanation is still that no resurrection ever took place with the burden of proof resting firmly on those who make extraordinary supernatural claims.
For Strobel to claim “[Strobel:] Given all five uncontested facts, I had to agree with Moreland that the Resurrection, and only the Resurrection, makes sense…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 276) is madness. Drawing this conclusion in such a way that tries so hard to make you believe it is just dishonest. We have been given no facts, no evidence, and merely been told that the resurrection story is true. Strobel, as stated before, is clearly not writing for a skeptical audience. He is writing for people who already believe in Christianity.
Taking the Final Step
Dr. Moreland offers “[Dr. Moreland:] …the ongoing encounter with the resurrected Christ that happens all over the world…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 277) as one more piece of “evidence” for the resurrection. This is not evidence. This only proves people believe in Christianity and discounts religious experiences from any other religion. To any Christian readers who made it this far, do you think other religions don’t also have spiritual experiences? Are we to believe in Hinduism because millions of people feel the presence of their lord Krishna?
Interestingly, Dr. Moreland tries to address my last point. He states “[Dr. Moreland:] I’m not saying, ‘Just trust your experience.’ I’m saying, ‘Use your mind calmly and weigh the evidence, and then let experience be a confirming piece of evidence…” (Strobel, CFC, P. 278). I’ve weighed the (lack of) evidence provided here and let the experience be a confirming piece of evidence that these claims are worthless.