Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by mandalor3960
The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel
1.0
“The Case for Christ” is a book that extends into too many topics to bombard you with the feeling that Jesus and the New Testament are historically true. I had read the first twenty pages of the book when I realized that I wish I had not started it, knowing that I would not garner anything beneficial but brainwashing. I will avoid rereading this book as to avoid a second baptism of brainwashing, and so I will not have to reread "The Case Against The Case for Christ", a book that cleansed me from my first reading of “The Case for Christ”. Having finished this book, I feel inclined not to read the Bible or any Christian book out of my disgust for theology.
I rate my books on my reception of it, meaning how well the book entertains me. This book is a non-fictional book. I normally rate a non-fiction book based on my enjoyment from reading it and the validity of the contents. This book was easy to read (but I was still dying to finish it) but I do not agree with the contents of the book. My only benefit was reading this was that I procured further knowledge on how theologians convince people with rhetoric. I would not reread this book for reminding myself of how theologians use rhetoric, since I find it dangerous to immerse myself again in the rhetoric, willfully allow myself to be manipulated, and then realize the manipulation. Only through allowing myself to be manipulated can I understand the potency of theologians.
My general mood from this book is a two star rating (probably because of the easy reading level of this book) with certain moments of intense disliking, typical of one star-rated moments. I read “Mere Christianity” with extreme disliking the entire time which convinced me that it was a one star rating. For this book, I cannot say that I had the same feeling while reading. However, this is a book that when I glance at or ask myself, “Did I like it?”, I would quickly say no. I need to remind myself that my life is short and I cannot waste my time reading things I do not consider good. Texts like this are written with good rhetoric to be pleasurable while reading, disguising it’s maliciousness.
Notes
Page 25- The reasoning that it is OK that the author of John wrote after the author of Matthew and Mark seems like a less valid account.
Page 31- The Daniel verses are from the NIV. NRSV is the standard for academic and scholarly work. Tsk tsk.
Page 32- “As you can see, there’s all sorts of material in the Synoptics about the deity of Christ that then merely becomes more explicit in John’s gospel”. It’s not explicit enough to prove the Trinity…
Page 47- If the early Christian community monitored itself for accuracy, why are the Synoptics still not accurate to each other. There is a claim that they could be inaccurate by up to 10% to 40%. I stopped carrying about the validity of this book and started speed-reading without care. One star definite at this point.
Pages 49-51- There are more concrete contradictions than these mentioned. An apologetic goes out of his way to obscure this.
If I ever think that the stories of Jesus are true because the oldest manuscripts are numerous and accurate to each other, I must remind myself that the old Hebrew writings of the Kingdom of David do not have archeological support.
Chapter Two- Surprised that I find myself convinced that the Bible is accurate. Must read counter arguments.
I died of laughter on page 69 when Metzger writes that variations in the text are “rare”.
Page 121- Strobel writes that he is going to confront the rebuttal evidence of the Jesus Seminar but interviews an individual who isn’t part of the Jesus Seminar. The irony.
Page 179- Up to this point I was feeling like this book would earn a two star rating because it is alright and nothing’s disgruntled me in a while. Then the book tries to debunk why God has created Hell and why that’s justified. Nope. One star rating. I cannot agree and I’m going to have to rid myself of that brainwashing that’s been done with smooth rhetoric.
Page 191- The disrespect that this Jewish-converted –Christian has to Eastern religions sickens me. Maybe if he were not a junky and presumably shell-shocked from the war, he would have become Buddhist. Instead, he turns to Christianity which coincidently answers his preexisting distaste with Judaism. Please.
I rate my books on my reception of it, meaning how well the book entertains me. This book is a non-fictional book. I normally rate a non-fiction book based on my enjoyment from reading it and the validity of the contents. This book was easy to read (but I was still dying to finish it) but I do not agree with the contents of the book. My only benefit was reading this was that I procured further knowledge on how theologians convince people with rhetoric. I would not reread this book for reminding myself of how theologians use rhetoric, since I find it dangerous to immerse myself again in the rhetoric, willfully allow myself to be manipulated, and then realize the manipulation. Only through allowing myself to be manipulated can I understand the potency of theologians.
My general mood from this book is a two star rating (probably because of the easy reading level of this book) with certain moments of intense disliking, typical of one star-rated moments. I read “Mere Christianity” with extreme disliking the entire time which convinced me that it was a one star rating. For this book, I cannot say that I had the same feeling while reading. However, this is a book that when I glance at or ask myself, “Did I like it?”, I would quickly say no. I need to remind myself that my life is short and I cannot waste my time reading things I do not consider good. Texts like this are written with good rhetoric to be pleasurable while reading, disguising it’s maliciousness.
Notes
Page 25- The reasoning that it is OK that the author of John wrote after the author of Matthew and Mark seems like a less valid account.
Page 31- The Daniel verses are from the NIV. NRSV is the standard for academic and scholarly work. Tsk tsk.
Page 32- “As you can see, there’s all sorts of material in the Synoptics about the deity of Christ that then merely becomes more explicit in John’s gospel”. It’s not explicit enough to prove the Trinity…
Page 47- If the early Christian community monitored itself for accuracy, why are the Synoptics still not accurate to each other. There is a claim that they could be inaccurate by up to 10% to 40%. I stopped carrying about the validity of this book and started speed-reading without care. One star definite at this point.
Pages 49-51- There are more concrete contradictions than these mentioned. An apologetic goes out of his way to obscure this.
If I ever think that the stories of Jesus are true because the oldest manuscripts are numerous and accurate to each other, I must remind myself that the old Hebrew writings of the Kingdom of David do not have archeological support.
Chapter Two- Surprised that I find myself convinced that the Bible is accurate. Must read counter arguments.
I died of laughter on page 69 when Metzger writes that variations in the text are “rare”.
Page 121- Strobel writes that he is going to confront the rebuttal evidence of the Jesus Seminar but interviews an individual who isn’t part of the Jesus Seminar. The irony.
Page 179- Up to this point I was feeling like this book would earn a two star rating because it is alright and nothing’s disgruntled me in a while. Then the book tries to debunk why God has created Hell and why that’s justified. Nope. One star rating. I cannot agree and I’m going to have to rid myself of that brainwashing that’s been done with smooth rhetoric.
Page 191- The disrespect that this Jewish-converted –Christian has to Eastern religions sickens me. Maybe if he were not a junky and presumably shell-shocked from the war, he would have become Buddhist. Instead, he turns to Christianity which coincidently answers his preexisting distaste with Judaism. Please.