{"id":76,"date":"2020-08-20T04:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-08-20T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/?p=76"},"modified":"2025-03-12T19:23:06","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T19:23:06","slug":"problems-with-the-case-for-christ","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/2020\/08\/20\/problems-with-the-case-for-christ\/","title":{"rendered":"Problems With The Case for Christ"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

PWTCFC: Chapter 1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Why this?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

My parents gave me “The Case for Christ” and asked me to read it. I agreed, though I’ve never seen evidence for any god. I’ll review each chapter separately to highlight it’s problems. I’ll provide page citations from the book or sources to back up my claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For convenience, I’ve abbreviated “The Case for Christ” as “CFC”, and my review series, “Problems With the Case for Christ”, as “PWTCFC”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Book Summary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Case for Christ (CFC) is Christian apologist literature. The back cover describes it as the author’s journey from atheism to Christianity. The book contains a series of interviews with professors and document analysis examining the validity of Christian claims about Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Would I recommend this book?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Succinctly, no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CFC is not well researched; it is a propaganda piece. Its reasoning is haphazard, and many claims rely solely on “the bible says so”. Most arguments offer weak evidence; many assertions provide none. This book is perfect for Christians or anyone wanting to be convinced of Christian claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

General Issues With “The Case for Christ”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Deceitful Author<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Strobel claims to be an “Objective, atheistic reporter.” While that may have been true once, he wrote CFC as a pastor at Willow Creek Community church. Given his position, this book was never intended to be objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a pastor, Strobel has a clear intent to persuade. This is evident in his selective use of debates he moderated at the church – skewed towards his viewpoints. His biased research methodology (discussed later) and tendency to draw conclusions for the reader further reveal his intent to persuade rather than inform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The “Eyewitness Evidence”<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

CFC opens with a case for the reliability and importance of eyewitness testimony, but there are several issues with Eyewitness testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, eyewitness testimony is unreliable\u2014multiple witnesses of the same events often contradict each other. Human memory is fallible, and humans can remember “facts” that did not happen. Strobel overlooks human memory error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, eyewitness testimony can be fabricated. Eyewitnesses in court swear to tell the truth, but there are no guarantees. Eyewitnesses can be coerced, misremember, or even lie. In fact, CFC’s introduction describes how a defendant lies about a case to get a lighter sentence due to police coercion. Despite this, Strobel never addresses testimony fabrication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout CFC, Strobel emphasizes eyewitness testimony heavily. Unfortunately, eyewitnesses of Jesus have been dead for over 2000 years. All “eyewitness” accounts today are bible stories. This could be compelling if the bible was a reliable information source. Strobel attempts to establish biblicial reliability first, but his case falls apart by chapter 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only Interviews Apologists and Christians<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

CFC aims to persuade the reader that Christianity is correct. Strobel only interviews apologists and Christians. Rather than examining evidence objectively, CFC only offers a pro-Christian viewpoint. This deliberate choice highlights Strobel’s intent: persuasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eagerly Persuaded Author<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Strobel is easily persuaded. He rushes through weak arguments instead of challenging them, and ignores evidence against them. He shows how compelling he finds the arguments by breaking narration to present evidence for the claim he is examining – ignoring counterarguments against it. This creates the illusion of strong claims from weak ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Style of Narration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

CFC is narrated in the first person. This makes it feel like you’re speaking alongside Strobel, drawing the same conclusions. An objective book would present facts neutrally, not as personal testimony. This highlights Strobel’s intent to persuade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takes the Bible as Fact<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The bible is not evidence for its own claims. External sources referencing Christ, such as Tacitus and Josephus, are regarded by scholars as later Christian interpolations. I cover this in more detail when reviewing Chapters 2 and 3. Strobel attempts to build a case for biblical reliability, but it falls apart by chapter 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lack of Evidence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Most arguments in CFC rely on authority. Strobel’s experts make claims and refer to the bible for evidence. Sometimes they simply say “the evidence”, but their source is still the bible. For example, one expert insists Paul is very reliable\u2014but his sole source is the bible. This is circular reasoning; the bible is not evidence for its own claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I make claims in my review, and I provide sources to back up my claims. If a source is missing or incorrect, let me know. I’ll update the source or my knowledge, whichever is wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This section has no sources because it is my opinion about the book.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PWTCFC: Chapter 1 Why this? My parents gave me “The Case for Christ” and asked me to read it. I agreed, though I’ve never seen evidence for any god. I’ll review each chapter separately to highlight it’s problems. I’ll provide page citations from the book or sources to back up my claims. For convenience, I’ve … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Problems With The Case for Christ”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[25],"class_list":["post-76","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-challenging-apologist-literature","tag-the-case-for-christ"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":793,"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76\/revisions\/793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughts.need.management\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}