There are some people who think the divinity of Jesus is merely a man-made legend or that His ressurection never happened. Then there are those who think the concepts of Christianity were derived from mythical stories. Others even believe that Jesus never lived, which is a bit peculiar when you consider the large number of people who call themselves Christian.

I just finished reading this compelling, non-fiction book that discusses the validity of the New Testament in regards to Jesus's life, death, and ressurection. The book is called The Case For Christ and it was written in 1998 by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune with a journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School. The back of the book reads:

quote:

Is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God?

Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princteton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields.

Strobel challenges them with questions like How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure.

I ask that you please read this book with an open, inquistive mind because it is NOT biased whatsoever. Everything revealed in Strobel's investigation is pure logic and fact. Remember, Strobel was in fact an atheist prior to the time he conducted his investigation. I am challenging you to read this book and then afterwards tell me what your thoughts are. Have your thoughts changed at all about Jesus and Christianity, or do you still think it is all heavily flawed?

quote:

Also, I don't think Christianity was the product of one person or anything like that. I would imagine that it is something that has just grown and grown over time, with different ideas and concepts being added in and the rest molded around those new ideas. The Councils of Nicea are evidence enough of that. The first Council came up with the first uniform church doctrine. From what I remember of my history classes, the Council even decided that Jesus was, in fact, God (as opposed to simply being separate, yet similar to God). That's a fairly big part of Christian belief right there.

You do have a point there. I would believe that the divinity of Jesus was a possibly made up concept if it were not for the numerous references to him in the Old Testament as the "Son of Man" or a "divine" figure. Here are a few verses that pertain to the coming of the Messiah:

Side note: "Messianic prophecy is the collection of over 100 predictions (a conservative estimate) in the Old Testament about the future Messiah of the Jewish people. These predictions were written by multiple authors, in numerous books, over approximately 1,000 years. Messianic Prophecy is so dramatic today, because with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (both of which have been proven to exist prior to the time Jesus walked on the earth) you can be assured that these prophecies were not “conspired” after-the-fact." -messianic prophecy

(Isaiah 7:13-14) "Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." ("Immanuel" means "God is with us")

Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Daniel 7:13-14: “There before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven . . . He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

quote:

I can imagine that if someone were to change something, the Bible would not "flow" as much as it does or perhaps you would find ideas that are either paganistic or potentially harmful to one's emotional or physical health.

From what I've read, the people doing the changing were actually fairly religious and wanted to correct what they saw as "errors" in the Bible. I really wish I had my old papers on the Bible. Unfortunately, they're in a box somewhere...

Also, I don't think Christianity was the product of one person or anything like that. I would imagine that it is something that has just grown and grown over time, with different ideas and concepts being added in and the rest molded around those new ideas. The Councils of Nicea are evidence enough of that. The first Council came up with the first uniform church doctrine. From what I remember of my history classes, the Council even decided that Jesus was, in fact, God (as opposed to simply being separate, yet similar to God). That's a fairly big part of Christian belief right there.

Again, I don't have my notes or references, so I can't really back up the claims I'd like to make. It's just as well, actually, since I'm not exactly a Biblical historian.

I understand that yeah the Bible could have gone through a lot of "biased" changes or that the people who wrote it in the first place may have altered some things but those ideas just do not make sense to me. The concepts and teachings within the Bible, aside from worshipping God, are very good, moral things to live by. I can imagine that if someone were to change something, the Bible would not "flow" as much as it does or perhaps you would find ideas that are either paganistic or potentially harmful to one's emotional or physical health.

And just considering how the Bible describes Heaven, I doubt somebody would create a religion where you would not be able to have sex for eternal life. According to the Bible, when God's children go to Heaven, He wants to make sure He eliminates everything from their minds that could potentially cause problems. I mean, maybe there are some people who would create that idea but I am just saying with all the emphasis people place on sex, I think they would be unhappy to hear something like that.

quote:

I am curious to know what you think about the parts of Jesus's life where he performed his different "miracles" and especially how several people saw Him alive again after he clearly died. How come this didn't sway you?

Eyewitness accounts given mere hours after an event can be inaccurate. In this case, it's been roughly 2000 years.

My skepticism arises mostly from the fact that the Bible is not an original document. I doubt if anyone even knows the entire history of the stories of the Bible. They've been rewritten, translated, redacted, and probably injected with a lot of bias from the people doing all of that.

And then there's the fact that out of the four canonical Gospels, only two (Matthew and John) are attributed to people who actually traveled with Jesus and saw miracles firsthand. Mark and Luke are attributed to people who were disciples of the apostles and never met Jesus himself. This, of course, supposes that the people the Gospels are attributed to actually wrote them. At any rate, the first Gospel (Mark) is generally thought to have been written between 65 and 70 AD, more than thirty years after Jesus is said to have died.

There's just too much uncertainty for accounts of Jesus' miracles to convince me. His resurrection, however, has posed a tougher problem. The last time I had a discussion about it with someone, they pointed out that even the Romans acknowledged Jesus' body was missing, which lent credence to the idea that he actually rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, leaving no mortal body behind. However, I maintain that lack of evidence isn't evidence. It'll take more than a missing body to prove Jesus was resurrected.

Also, I don't know much about the OT prophecies, so I'll have to look into them before I get back to you about that.

quote:

A lot of people ask why Christianity exists if Jesus wasn't divine, and I usually answer with a similar question: why are there Mormons if Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet?

I've found that religions don't necessarily need to be true to attract followers; they just need to be convincing.

This is very true. A lot of people join religions without even considering the real facts/history about them. Being an "ex" mormon myself (I was born into it) I can see how that religion is very convincing. Unfortunately, not enough people ever question what they're doing to make sure they are not being misled. There are so many problems, or contradictions, with religions such as the Mormon church. It sort of angers me at times when I see churches placing Christ's name on their buildings and not practicing His doctrine.

Clpo13, aside from that though, I am curious to know what you think about the parts of Jesus's life where he performed his different "miracles" and especially how several people saw Him alive again after he clearly died. How come this didn't sway you?

And also, there are several prophecies in the OT that speak of the coming Messiah. Considering that Jesus fulfilled around 300 of the prophecies, does that affect your thoughts at all? (The chances of someone fulfilling just 8 of these prophecies is 1 out of 10 to the 17th power.)

Either the prophets of the OT were really good at predicting the future, or they must have had some divine intervention.

I read The Case for Christ a while back, but it didn't really sway me. It seemed that a lot of what Strobel was focusing on was simply proving that Jesus existed. I don't deny that, and I also don't deny that he was a charismatic leader who threatened the status quo of the Jewish religion at the time of his life. But I still have a hard time accepting the divinity bit, and Strobel's book wasn't enough to convince me of anything like that.

A lot of people ask why Christianity exists if Jesus wasn't divine, and I usually answer with a similar question: why are there Mormons if Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet?

I've found that religions don't necessarily need to be true to attract followers; they just need to be convincing.

I will admit that I do not know a whole lot about pagan religions but what I do know has never really affected me, or in other words, hasn't been able to sway my beliefs from Christianity. I haven't been a real Christian until the beginning of this year so I actually have had the chance to explore different ideas. However for me, nothing has made more sense, nothing has been clearer, than Christianity.

I suppose it is more of an opinion than a fact in regards to which religion is the most "inspirational," but I don't necessarily understand how religions such as the Norse one, can last only 300 years in growth and still be called more "inspirational" than a religion that has lasted for a little less than 2000 years (growthwise). I understand that a lot of the old pagan religions ended by a sword or gun but why? Why should the conquering by another group of people or culture "kill" a religion or belief if it is supposedly valued highly? Why are people so quick to switch their ideals? And what could make Christianity or Islam so different that causes people to want to die for their God instead of letting other people "smother" their faith? Does this mean the people are just plain crazy or could it be there really is a God of love?

As a personal note, I don't just believe in Christ and the Bible because of what I have researched this far. It has more to do with a personal conviction based on things I have experienced in my life that no other religion nor scientific fact could explain except Christianity. Could it be coincedence? Considering the numerous times this has happened to me, I would believe otherwise.

quote:

However, to me it is fairly obvious that most of ancient mythology revolves around paganism while Christianity does not. I am trying to sound as unbiased as possible when I say this, but throughout history pagan religions or ideals have had the reputation of dying out rather quickly. It's just a fact. I think this is because they lack too many answers or because they simply don't have any hard evidence to back them up. [Strobel actually refers a little to mythical stories in his book that are identical to Christ's story.] When I learn about such stories, I look at them like man-interpretations of where humanity came from. It is not because of my beliefs, I am not going to ignore a religion just because it is not Christianity. But, when I weigh in the facts, I have yet to find a religion or belief as inspirational and unique as Christianity.

This was the only problem I had with what you said, as I have a great respect for pagan religions. I still carry many of my pagan beliefs with me, and I find that if you hold this opinion (mainly the one of them not being as inspirational or unique as Christianity) then you're sorely mistaken, and very undereducated on the faiths. Even a more popular faith such as the Norse history has great inspirational and unique properties to it, moreso than Christianity I believe. I would also like to note, that the only way they die out fast is from the end of a sword or gun.

ChaosSplintered:
It's all good Let me know if you have any other questions. I am not an expert but I will try to answer them as best I can.

Shade:
I hope I can answer your questions thoroughly. If I end up going off on a tangent I apologize.
As far as the mythical tales go, I would have to say they actually strengthen my beliefs in Christ. Since I don't know all the facts, I could not present to you when and how certain mythological stories from other ancient cultures came about. However, to me it is fairly obvious that most of ancient mythology revolves around paganism while Christianity does not. I am trying to sound as unbiased as possible when I say this, but throughout history pagan religions or ideals have had the reputation of dying out rather quickly. It's just a fact. I think this is because they lack too many answers or because they simply don't have any hard evidence to back them up. [Strobel actually refers a little to mythical stories in his book that are identical to Christ's story.] When I learn about such stories, I look at them like man-interpretations of where humanity came from. It is not because of my beliefs, I am not going to ignore a religion just because it is not Christianity. But, when I weigh in the facts, I have yet to find a religion or belief as inspirational and unique as Christianity. And to answer your last question, as much as it may be possible that God could have sent other saviors, I just don't think God would want to do that. It is confusing enough to have people constantly disagreeing about every little thing, from religion to politics and to ethics. Honestly, I believe God just wanted to be straightforward by sending His Son to die for ALL humanity, whether they be a Jew, Roman, White, Black, Man or Woman. If God sent saviors to separate cultures or races I could imagine they would have a highly congruent moral code to that of what Jesus taught. But I am sure most people would agree, there has never been a more influential man in ALL known history than Jesus Christ.

Jen, do the "mythical stories" that some claim Christ is derived from strengthen or weaken your belief in him? Do you look at these stories in a different light, as perhaps different culture's prophetic stories of Christ, or maybe a different interpretation of God? Do you think it is possible, Bible aside, that God could have sent other saviours to humanity as "God" of those people, instead of just the Jews?

[I don't want to put a disclaimer on this post, but none of these questions should imply at all my personal opinions.]

D'Oh. I always get those two books confused. (I've read The Case for a Creator. So whenever I hear "The Case for Christ", my mind thinks of "The Case for a Creator".) I read the Wikipedia article, and didn't realize I had scrolled in to another book. XD My apologizes for that.

Anyway, I'll look around and see if I come up with any more questions.

Hmm, that is a rather interesting claim ChaosSplintered. However, what Strobel is trying to prove does not necessarily need science to justify it. His primary focus is on the validity of the New Testament, or in other words on whether the accounts for Jesus's life can be trusted as true, accurate details. It isn't directly in regards to evidence on whether the earth was created by Intelligent Design or not. Also, it was not necessary for Strobel to interview those who oppose the idea of Christianity because he actually quotes statements made by other authoritative skeptics that he attempted to use against those he interviewed. However Strobel has written another book called "The Case For A Creator" which does deal with science. I personally have not read this book yet but I am sure Strobel has included some valid and supporting facts. I am only suggesting, but maybe you might like to read it

I've made it one of my "books to read", eventually, however, I find this quite disturbing:

Critics of this book accuse it of bias, which they assert is contrary to the book's own claims of being neutral and scientifically rigorous.[5][6] Paul Doland commented that Strobel portrays himself as a skeptic who would ensure a balanced perspective on the issue, but no scientists who oppose Intelligent Design were interviewed in the book[5] and that the book claims to investigate scientific evidence for a creator, but most of the interviewees have their doctorates in philosophy or theology, rather than science.[5] The book was the recipient of a 2005 ECPA Christian Book Award in missions and evangelism.[7]

(Copied from Wikipedia.)

How would you respond to those two claims?