adminComment(0) The glass castle: a memoir Synopsis: The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to " determine if. The case for Christ: a journalist's personal investigation of the evidence for. Jesus / Lee Strobel Was Jesus Really Convinced That He Was the Son of God?. The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of. God." The book consists.

Case For Christ Pdf

Language:English, Dutch, Arabic
Country:Equatorial Guinea
Published (Last):10.07.2016
ePub File Size:18.77 MB
PDF File Size:15.41 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Uploaded by: LUCI

Lee Strobel has written four books in a series, The Case for Christ, The. Case for Faith, The Case produced as a PDF for the reader to view. Three particularly. Editorial Reviews. Review. The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really. Editorial Reviews. From the Back Cover. Who Was Jesus?A good man? A lunatic ? God? There's little question that he actually lived. But miracles? Rising from.

Clean prose and clear thinking are evident throughout, and Purtill has frequently transposed Lewis's arguments into an American key. Thus, for example, Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon successfully illustrates the discussion of miracles, and the "Playboy or Playgirl philosophy" the discussion of Christian living.

In this respect Purtill makes a significant contribution as an apologist in his own right, as well as a sensitive interpreter of his British predecessor. Both Lewis and Purtill, therefore, contribute to the maior questions about the apologetic task raised above. In my opinion, however, it is an attitude which oversimplifies the nature of the New Testament and misunderstands the intention of biblical scholars.

He was either telling the truth, or he was insane, or he was a liar. A similar attitude pervades the chapter on miracles and history. There Purtill explains Lewis's position with equal simplicity: "In other words, proponents of the view that Christ's cures were psychosomatic Those chiefly responsible for "undermining the old orthodoxy" are "divines engaged in New Testament criticism.

Jesus did not understand the signal and thought: He is driving me away. He went and stood a brick upright to serve as an idol and he bowed to it. Jesus said to him: This is the tradition that I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.


And the Master says: Jesus performed sorcery, incited Jews to engage in idolatry, and led Israel astray. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin b. Although the second anecdote is garbled and polemical, it's striking how these Talmudic anecdotes correspond to the allegations of Christ's enemies in the Gospels. Notice how they grant the supernatural abilities of Jesus, but chalks that up to witchcraft. It documents Christian worship extending back to the 1C. Among other things, it mentions that Christians worshipped Jesus as God or a god, the Latin is ambiguous.

These were Christians who refuse to honor Roman civic religion, on pain of death and torture. So for them, the one God was inclusive of Jesus. Moore, eds. Although the Alexamenos graffito is fairly late, it predates the Council of Nicea by a wide margin, and so it's a useful witness to early Christian belief in the crucified God.

The Gospel titles 1. It's often alleged that the Gospels are anonymous. Even if the Gospels were formally anonymous, each Gospel has internal evidence consistent with traditional attributions.

But to my knowledge, there are no anonymous Greek manuscripts of the Gospels. All our extant manuscripts of the Gospels have named authors. And there's uniformity to the titles. The same Gospels are always attributed to the same authors.

Some scholars think the titles are editorial additions. But that's a postulate that raises further questions: i Christians scribal activity wasn't centralized. There was no command-and-control to coordinate the activity of scribes. They acted independently of each other.

So it's very hard to explain the uniformity of attribution if all four Gospels originally circulated anonymously. As I understand the process, a scribe copies a preexisting copy. Either that's read aloud, and he copies what he hears, or else he has a copy in front of him which he transcribes.

He copies what he sees or hears. If our extant manuscripts have titles, that's because because the copies they copied also had titles.

The Case For Christ: Evidence for the Resurrection

So the process is regressive. Our extant copies bear witness to earlier copies that no longer exist. Earlier copies that also had titles.

That process repeats until it terminates in the Ur-text or autograph. Either the Ur-text was anonymous or entitled. If it was anonymous, then the title had to be added by scribes later in the transmission process. But since we have multiple streams of transmission, and scribes worked independently of each other, it's hard to explain the uniformity if the titles are editorial additions.

If the Gospels were originally anonymous, and titles were only introduced later into the process of transmission, surely there'd be considerable diversity in the authorial attributions. Scribes wouldn't know what other scribes did. Scribes wouldn't be aware of most other copies in circulation.

So they couldn't imitate each other even if they wanted to. Theoretically, all our manuscripts could go back to four individual copies that had titles, even though the autographs were anonymous. But isn't that antecedently quite unlikely?

What's the likelihood that all our surviving manuscripts of Matthew to back to a single copy, all our surviving manuscripts of Mark go back to a single copy, as well as Luke and John? So the simplest, most plausible explanation is that our extant manuscripts have uniform authorship because scribed copied earlier manuscripts with the same titles, in a repeated process that traces all the way back to the autographs.

Yet after Matthew, Luke, and John were written, it would be necessary for them to have names, to differentiate one Gospel from another.

So even if ex hypothesi the autograph of Mark was originally anonymous, we'd expect the autographs of Matthew, Luke, and John to be entitled. For more on i-ii , cf. Pitre, The Case for Jesus Image , n As one scholar notes: The clearest case is Luke because of the dedication of the work to Theophilus , probably a patron. It is inconceivable that a work with a named dedicatee should have been anonymous. The author's name may have featured in an original title, but in any case would have been known to the dedicatee and other first readers because the a author would have presented the book to the dedicatee.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Eerdmans, rev.

Case for Christ Chapter 3

Assuming that traditional authorship is correct, what does that tell us about Gospels individually? Mark i Mark's family hailed from the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora Acts , so he might well be a native Greek speaker. Probably bilingual. So he might well have been able to read and write. And the Gospel of Mark is written in rustic Greek.

Her home was one of the founding house-churches.

That would give Mark access to many eyewitnesses to the ministry of Christ, including apostles residing in Jerusalem. So he had a wide range of informants at his disposal.

This is a neglected argument in Christian apologetics. Matthew 1. Assuming traditional authorship, this Gospel was written by one of the twelve disciples.

He had extensive firsthand knowledge of Christ's public ministry, both in and outside Jerusalem. All the stuff about the Sadducees and halakhah make sense if Matthew was written in the 50ss, but little sense after the fall of Jerusalem, when the Sadducees lost their power base, when Judaism had to reinvent itself in the wake of the temple's destruction, making the priesthood irrelevant, when the headquarters of Christianity shifted from Jerusalem to gentile urban centers throughout the Roman Empire.

The problem: There are no records or documents. I agreed. In fact, in and there was a steady stream of news accounts about Muslim extremists repeatedly staging commando raids and slaying virtually entire villages, including women and children, in Algeria.

The entire world was taking notice. First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would there be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people?

Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few. So the fact that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about.

As a journalist, this was still hard to fathom. Later, of course, as Christianity developed, this incident became more important, but I would have been surprised if this had made a big splash back then.

Maybe so, but this was difficult to imagine for a journalist who was trained to sniff out news in a highly technological age of rapid and worldwide communications. This left one other area I wanted to inquire about. And to me, it was the most fascinating of all. The study questions below are also printed in this free PDF study guide to Session 5.

Access the PDF now. Consider the following deduction: If it can be shown that Jesus really did return from the dead, then it can be concluded that Jesus really is who he claimed to be: Do you agree or disagree? Some skeptics claim that although Jesus might have been crucified, he never really died. Instead, he merely fainted on the cross or was drugged, and later escaped as part of a conspiracy. Give reasons for your explanation.

Which is the weakest piece of evidence or makes the least amount of sense? In your opinion, what are the odds that Jesus really survived his crucifixion? Give reasons for your answers. Did you know that Jesus was so anguished in the garden that his sweat became like drops of blood?

How does this medical fact affect the credibility of the biblical account?

Read the accounts of the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb. What questions do they raise or answer for you? Some skeptics suggest that if Jesus was really dead and buried, then the idea of an empty tomb is impossible. So they conclude that either Jesus never really died or the tomb was never found empty. What do you think?

Recent Blog Posts

Was the tomb really found empty? Why or why not? Do you agree with it? No secular historian mentions it. Do you agree with the reasons historian Gary Habermas gives that this creed is the earliest and one of the best authenticated passages in Scripture? How pivotal is this creed to your assessment of whether Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion?

The apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians Whether you believe, disbelieve, or are wrestling with doubts, Jesus is alive today and is willing to meet you wherever you are.And another papyrus, this one from AD 48, indicates that the entire family was involved in the census.

The matter was not as precisely pinned down as I would like. Give reasons for your answers.

Audio Preview

While tradition can preserve living memory, tradition is one or more steps removed from living memory. Some skeptics claim that although Jesus might have been crucified, he never really died. It's a philosophical and theological mistake for apologists and evangelical scholars to eliminate inspiration from consideration. These were Christians who refuse to honor Roman civic religion, on pain of death and torture.

Apologists sometimes reach for non-Christian sources to deflect the claim that the NT is a biased source, but that's an ill-conceived objection see above , and we shouldn't back away from using the NT as our major source.

Access the PDF now. For serious crimes—and banishment was a possibility only in such cases—ordinary people were either executed or deported to the mines as state slaves.