The Rest of the Story, A Review of "The Case for Christ" by Jeffery Jay Lowder

In Lowder's update of "The Rest of the Story", he seems to look down upon the idea that the post-mortem appearances of Christ were legends or hallucinations. I thought this was exactly the theory he believed in, according the articles and reviews I have read from him. Any chance on him coming out with a statement regarding his beliefs about the resurrection? I'm a bit confused by him , now.......

The Confused Man
p.s. I also find it odd that he says that the discussions of alternate theories are incomplete, saying that one particular book ("Double Cross") was not discussed. But it isn't even out yet, so how can he blame Strobel for not mentioning it? And does anybody know the theory those guys (authors of Double Cross) propose? I can't find any info on it.....

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback to Jeffery Jay Lowder's The Rest of the Story ("http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. As it happens, however, Lowder is currently involved in a job change and a transcontinental move. He might not feel that he has time to respond, but perhaps he will. In the meantime, I'd like to make a few comments.

This article is, of course, a review of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. It isn't likely that Lowder intended to lay out his own beliefs in this particular article. I disagree, however, that you can necessarily assume on the basis of this article that Lowder looks down on the legend or hallucination theories when it comes to the alleged postmortem appearances of Jesus (who was NOT the Christ, in my opinion). Lowder points out that those are not the only options which might explain the alleged postmortem appearances, therefore the fact that legend and/or hallucination might not adequately explain those alleged postmortem appearances doesn't mean that the only other option is that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead.

Lowder:
Habermas and Strobel only consider the following explanations: legend, the hallucination theory, and Jesus' resurrection. But those are not the only options. Even if we agree that legend and the hallucination theory are failures, there is at least one other, non-ad hoc alternative explanation besides Jesus' resurrection.[39] Hence, Habermas's inference to the best explanation is, at best, incomplete.

About his own opinion, Lowder does say this:

Lowder:
In a previous version of this book review, I argued that Jesus' post-mortem "appearances" were inconclusive evidence for the resurrection, given textual indicators of a progression in Christian belief from spiritual resurrection to physical resurrection. However, I am no longer confident that the "spiritual resurrection" interpretation is a plausible one. As I wrote in my detailed reply to Craig's arguments for the empty tomb story, I think the issue of spiritual vs. physical resurrection is much more complex than critics typically acknowledge, and I lack the linguistic and theological expertise to assess that debate.[38] Hence, I shall grant, for the sake of argument, the assumption that all of the authors of the New Testament understood Jesus' resurrection in a thoroughly physical way (i.e., revivification of Jesus' corpse).

All he is saying here is that he is no longer confident that the explanation involving the progression of a spiritual resurrection into a physical resurrection is a plausible explanation, although there are textual indicators of such a progression.

Exactly what he DOES believe about the alleged Resurrection is, on the basis of this article, an unknown.

Regarding Double Cross, the fact that the book itself might not be out yet (and Lowder did say it was "forthcoming") doesn't stop someone from thinking of and exploring other theories explaining the so-called Resurrection. Certainly almost anyone should be able to think of possible explanations for the so-called Resurrection other than three: legend, hallucination, or actual. In any case, if we are to believe the biblical accounts, a person who can pass through walls has not been resurrected to physical life as we know it.


--Don--

[jlowder]

Originally posted by Don Morgan:
Regarding Double Cross, the fact that the book itself might not be out yet (and Lowder did say it was "forthcoming") doesn't stop someone from thinking of and exploring other theories explaining the so-called Resurrection. Certainly almost anyone should be able to think of possible explanations for the so-called Resurrection other than three: legend, hallucination, or actual. In any case, if we are to believe the biblical accounts, a person who can pass through walls has not been resurrected to physical life as we know it.

Don did an excellent job of summarizing the main points I would have made, if I had directly responded to the question. I have only one point to add. I was not criticizing Strobel because he failed to discuss a book that has not yet been published. Rather, my point was simply that there are other non-ad hoc alternative explanations besides the ones considered by Strobel. One doesn't (or shouldn't) need a defense of these alternatives in print in order to think of alternatives.

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[Jaydoh]

Rest of the Story (1999) by Jeffery J. Lowder


I too read Lee Strobel's book "Case for Christ", and was dissapointed that Strobel didn't interview anybody with a differing opinion.

Though one could find many (too many?) debates on such subjects - it does take some of the power out of Strobel's 'case'.

But sadly, the book was strong, and open minded compared to this 'review' done by Lowder. One cannot hope to have a solid argument whilst quoting people out of context - and beware, Lowder does that in spades in this rebuttal.

Strobel is a very good writer, and I think he could have made "The case for paint drying" and entertaining read. That doesn't make his book any more valid - but he has writing skills.

Lowder is just flat out wrong, and unstudied on some of his attacks on this book - even going as far as to side with the 'Jesus Seminar'. I know the enemy of my enemy is my friend - but only to a point.

Lowder attacks some of the perceived leaps of logic in Strobel's book, but does so by making many of his own! He is in my opinion, even more guilty of writing in a way, in which he condemns Strobel for.

Was Strobel to write a book that had a critic's debate, or rebuff after every point which was made? That would be silly.

Could Strobel's book present a more balanced look? Definitely.

The Lowder 'article', instead of being informative - was a biased, deceitful piece.

[Peewee]

"E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-"

I think it's totally cool that you do that.

I don't necassarily agree with all your beliefs, but I do appreciate the time you put in, and the openness of the forum.

THANX!

[-DM-]

Peewee:

Jeffery Jay Lowder has informed me that he does not want to take the time to respond to generalized, unsupported criticisms. If you would care to state some specific criticisms, criticisms supported with evidence and/or argument, then he would likely respond.

If you haven't already done so, you might want to read the following critiques of Strobel's work:
Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.shtml) by Paul Doland
Objections Sustained! (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/index.shtml) by Kyle Gerkin.


-DM-

[Jaydoh]

does not want to take the time to respond to generalized, unsupported criticisms
-DM-

I guess he only likes making them!! :D

Actually, the more I thought about this - the more I realized what an unending circle something like this can be, and one needs at some point to just respect others opinions.

What I mean is:

Strobel writes without any debate or reply - then Lowder criticizes what Strobel wrote without any debate - then I write about what Lowder wrote about what Strobel wrote.....and on, and on....

It's all good I guess.

[PillFedora]

This weekend, I had the chance to sit in on a sattelite telecast by Lee Strobel, and I was one of the lucky people to have my question answered by Lee Strobel personally. My question was simply: "The fundamental flaw with the design argument is that it presupposes the existence of a designer, how is it more logical to say "God" rather than "I don't know" when the question "Why?" arrises from the "evidence" you presente?". He then went on to answer that it does not presuppose the existence of a designer, which was followed by more of what he'd already said in his presentation.

I was angry he avoided, but not too shocked because the simple answer to my question was "It's not." Arguing for God from the design argument (or any derrivation of the design argument), commits the fallacy of begging the question.

Strobel does what people have been doing for centuries--explain the unknown with magic.

[Solo]

Strobel does what people have been doing for centuries--explain the unknown with magic.

Let's just say there are philosophically much more sophisticated views of God than Mr Strobel's.

[jojoducky]

Which issue(s) raised by Strobel do you think is(are) the most critical for Christians? Which do you think is(are) the most difficult to resolve? If you were advising someone who is struggling with one of these issues, what parts of the book’s presentation would you find most helpful? What parts do you find the least satisfying? Could you add any insights or advice?

[Believer Matthew]

I am brand new to this site. I just want to make it completely clear that I do not look down on, make fun of, or call stupid, anybody who is not of my faith. Imediate family, extended family, and many friends of mine consider me a fool for following and believing Christ. I respect their well thought opinions, but I beg to differ with well thought BELIEFS of my own.
Anyway, I just read "The Rest of the Story (1999)" by Jeffory J. Cowder, and immediately noticed a few illogical arguments. First, he claims that the earliest New Testament source(which he says is Mark) does not mention the resurection. However, Mark is not the earliest New Testament source. Paul's letters to the Corinthians were written before Mark, and they do indeed mention the resurection (1 Corinthians 15:5). Furthermore, although Mark does not directly make reference to the resurection he tells of an empty tomb and a boy yelling " He is risen" (Stobel 319). Then, Cowder claims 1Corinthians does not allude to the Resurrection-this is rediculous. If one reads 1 Corinthians it is clear Paul witnessed a resurrected Christ.
Next, Cowder makes refference to the greek word for appearence-ophthe. Ophthe can be considered either a physical or a non-physical appearence. This does not rule out a physical appearence. So, if all Biblical sources, especially eye witness accounts(Paul), point to a physical appearence what are we to believe? I would say we are to believe that Christ walked on earth after he had been crucified.
Of all the figures of established world religion, Christ is the only one to claim to be God. Even more amazing, he is the only one to die for all humankind. I believe this because I feel it in my heart, but reason leads me to the exact same conclusion as emotion.
I sincerely hope all who read this, and all who don't, have a really good day. You are all good people because God made you good, I refuse to believe any differently.

[jlowder]

First, he claims that the earliest New Testament source(which he says is Mark) does not mention the resurection.

This is incorrect. I neither say that Mark is the earliest New Testament source nor that Mark does not mention the resurrection. What I actually wrote in the original version of my review (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html) was, "And Mark, the earliest gospel, does not contain any appearance stories."

Then, Cowder claims 1Corinthians does not allude to the Resurrection-this is rediculous. If one reads 1 Corinthians it is clear Paul witnessed a resurrected Christ.

The idea that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 does not allude to the Resurrection is indeed ridiculous. I never stated otherwise.

Next, Cowder makes refference to the greek word for appearence-ophthe. Ophthe can be considered either a physical or a non-physical appearence. This does not rule out a physical appearence.

You are correct; ophthe does not rule out a physical appearance. I never said otherwise. In fact, what I wrote was, "'ophthe' can describe either a physical appearance or a nonphysical vision." In other words, ophthe is compatible with both physical and non-physical appearances.

Also, BTW, please see the revised version of my review (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html) -- one of the sections that was revised is the very paragraph where I discuss the appearances.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[DearOldDad]

Jeff Lowder's review of The Case for Christ: Lowder states that there are no stories about the appearance of the risen Christ earlier than the later gospels, specifically, that there is no mention in the earliest gospel, that of Mark. I looked into this criticism and - maybe I'm confused - but Mark clearly states that "when Jesus was risen... he appeared first to Mary Magdalene...." (Mark 16:9) How is this NOT an appearance story? If minutiae are indeed used to circumstancially support the overall credibility of an argument, then this seems to undermine Lowder's credibility.

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding Jeff Lowder's review of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html). E-mail notification has been sent to Jeff Lowder. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from him. In the meantime, I'll offer a few comments.

---

Note that the verse to which you refer is Mk 16.9 (which is followed by other verses which also allege appearances of Jesus). The footnotes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy, both highly respected authorities in this field, provide some useful information regarding this verse and the verses which follow in this ending of Mark:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible (emphasis mine):

16.9-20: Nothing is certainly known either about how this Gospel originally ended or about the origin of vv. 9-20, which, because of the textual evidence as well as stylistic differences from the rest of the Gospel, cannot have been part of the original text of Mark. Certain important witnesses to the text, including some ancient ones, end the Gospel with v. 8. Though it is possible that the compiler of the gospel intended this abrupt ending, one can find hints that he intended to describe events after the resurrection: for example, Mk 14.28 looks forward to an account of at least one experience of the disciples with Jesus in Galilee after the resurrection, while the friendly reference to Peter (16.7) may anticipate the recounting of the otherwise unrecorded moment of the reconciliation between Peter and his Lord (compare Lk 24.34; 1 Cor 15.5). If accounts such as these were originally part of Mark's Gospel, the loss of them took place very shortly after the Gospel was written, under circumstances beyond present knowledge. Many witnesses, some ancient, end the Gospel with vv. 9-20, thus showing that from very early Christian times these verses have been accepted traditionally and generally as part of the canonical Gospel of Mark. A variety of other manuscripts conclude the Gospel with the shorter ending, either alone or followed by verses 9-20, thus indicating that different attempts were made to provide a suitable ending for the Gospel. The longer ending may have been compiled early in the second century as a didactic summary of grounds for belief in Jesus' resurrection, being appended to the Gospel by the middle of the second century. On the Christian belief in continuing unrecorded memories about Jesus in the first century see Lk 1.1-2; Jn 20.30; 21.25; Acts 20.35 n.; 1 Cor 15.3; also compare Mt 28.20; Jn 16.12-33; Rev 1.12-16 n.; 2.18.---

Keep in mind that the longer ending of Mark includes verses detailing some questionable claims which, according to Metzger and Murphy, "lack New Testament parallels":

Mark 16.17-18:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues' they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them ...-Don-

[Layman]

Jeff Lowder's review of The Case for Christ: Lowder states that there are no stories about the appearance of the risen Christ earlier than the later gospels, specifically, that there is no mention in the earliest gospel, that of Mark. I looked into this criticism and - maybe I'm confused - but Mark clearly states that "when Jesus was risen... he appeared first to Mary Magdalene...." (Mark 16:9) How is this NOT an appearance story? If minutiae are indeed used to circumstancially support the overall credibility of an argument, then this seems to undermine Lowder's credibility.

DOD,

Obviously Paul provides ample evidence of earlier accounts of resurrection appearances of Jesus to various Jews (at least one opponent whom was an opponent of Christianity). But it is correct that most scholars, whether conservative or liberal, conclude that verses 16:9-20 were not original to the text. Though here is one person (http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent) who argues that it is original.

On the other hand, even without 9-20, the end of Mark makes it clear that the disciples of Jesus experienced resurrection appearances: "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you."

I happen to believe that the original ending of Mark was longer, but is unfortunately now lost to us. I argue my case here (http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/Mark_Ending.html).

[-DM-]

Obviously Paul provides ample evidence of earlier accounts of resurrection appearances of Jesus to various Jews (at least one opponent whom was an opponent of Christianity).The validity of your assertion depends on what one accepts as "ample evidence." I certainly don't accept that Paul provides ample evidence of earlier accounts of post-Resurrection appearances given that his tally of the alleged appearances is different than the others, and the others are different from each other, thus making it look as if the information is untrustworthy at best if not fictional:

MT 28:1-18 The order of Resurrection appearances was: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, then the eleven.
MK 16:9-14 It was Mary Magdalene, then two others, then the eleven.
LK 24:15-36 It was two, then Simon (Peter?), then the eleven.
JN 20:14 - 21:1 It was Mary Magdalene, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven disciples again.
1CO 15:5-8 It was Cephas (Peter?), then the "twelve" (which twelve, Judas was dead?), then 500+ brethren (although AC 1:15 says there were only about 120), then James, then all the Apostles, then Paul.

Further, the alleged appearance to Paul seems to have been anything but a physical, bodily appearance. And even at that, there is again a discrepancy in the details:

AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion heard the voice but saw
no one.
AC 22:9 They saw a light but did not hear a voice.

AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion stood.
AC 26:14 They fell to the ground.


-DM-

[jlowder]

Jeff Lowder's review of The Case for Christ: Lowder states that there are no stories about the appearance of the risen Christ earlier than the later gospels, specifically, that there is no mention in the earliest gospel, that of Mark. I looked into this criticism and - maybe I'm confused - but Mark clearly states that "when Jesus was risen... he appeared first to Mary Magdalene...." (Mark 16:9) How is this NOT an appearance story? If minutiae are indeed used to circumstancially support the overall credibility of an argument, then this seems to undermine Lowder's credibility.

It appears you read the old version of my book review, located at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html. In that version of the review, I wrote, "And Mark, the earliest gospel, does not contain any appearance stories. Only the later gospels (Matthew, Luke, and John) include any appearance stories." I never stated that there are no appearance stories earlier than the later gospels. In fact, I explicitly discussed 1 Corinthians 15, which does mention alleged post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

(For what it's worth, a revised version of my Strobel review is available at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html. The revised version includes a new discussion of the appearance stories.)

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[Layman]

The validity of your assertion depends on what one accepts as "ample evidence."

No doubt the acceptance of a proposition does depend on what the words of that proposition mean.

I certainly don't accept that Paul provides ample evidence of earlier accounts of post-Resurrection appearances given that his tally of the alleged appearances is different than the others,

The fact remains that Paul knows of several resurrection appearance traditions decades before the Gospel of Mark was written. How does the fact that the earlier accounts vary from the later accounts mean that the earlier accounts do not exist? I do not see the logic in that.

and the others are different from each other, thus making it look as if the information is untrustworthy at best if not fictional:

The point at issue was whether there were resurrection appearances in Christian tradition before Mark. There obviously were. Paul proves this. Whether they were identical or not is hardly the issue.

MT 28:1-18 The order of Resurrection appearances was: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, then the eleven.
MK 16:9-14 It was Mary Magdalene, then two others, then the eleven.
LK 24:15-36 It was two, then Simon (Peter?), then the eleven.
JN 20:14 - 21:1 It was Mary Magdalene, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven disciples again.

None of these accounts purported to give a "tally." And as you note, Mk. 16:9-14 is a later addition. Likely an attempt to harmonize Luke and Matthew.

1CO 15:5-8 It was Cephas (Peter?), then the "twelve" (which twelve, Judas was dead?), then 500+ brethren (although AC 1:15 says there were only about 120), then James, then all the Apostles, then Paul.

Yes, Cephas is Peter. The "Twelve" in Paul's time was more of an institution than a list of specific members. By the time the gospels were written the Twelve as an institution had pretty much disappeared, and the focus was on individual members of the Twelve as close associates of Jesus. Acts 1:15 does not say that there were only 120 Jesus followers at that time. That's simply how many there were at that time for that meeting in Jerusalem. Jesus no doubt had garnered followings in Galilee as well.

To the extent Paul's list overlaps with later narratives he follows their sequence. Peter first, then the inner circle, then broader appearances, then himself. His omission of the women is easily explained as not valuing (either himself or by the broader culture) the testimony of women or being concerned with giving women too much authority. The gospels' ommissions of James is easily explained as being of little interest to the nonJerusalem Christians or because of a concern over giving James too much authority at a time when Judaizers, similar figures, and/or James himself were in some tension with the more hellenized churches.

Nothing about these disparities suggests they are fictitious accounts. They simply show a diversity of sources and/or interests.

Further, the alleged appearance to Paul seems to have been anything but a physical, bodily appearance.

Even Lowder and Carrier have retreated from the "spiritual" resurrection theory. It's widely agreed it was a material body that Paul says he saw.

And even at that, there is again a discrepancy in the details:

AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion heard the voice but saw
no one.
AC 22:9 They saw a light but did not hear a voice.

AC 9:7 Those present at Paul's conversion stood.
AC 26:14 They fell to the ground.


First, you ignore the fact that the best evidence of the resurrection appearance to Paul is Paul's own statements on the issue. So we have a first hand account. Are you really suggesting that Paul did not convert to Christianity? Or that he experienced nothing?

Second, you ignore the fact that these supposedly differing accounts come from the same source. So they hardly represent the existence of multiple traditions conflicting with each other. At most, they show that the author of Acts protrays Paul as telling slightly different versions of the same story to different audiences.

Third, seeing a light is hardly seeing someone. I've never understood how that is supposed to be a big conflict. Nor the standing. In one Paul mentions that his companions fell, in the other he simply omits the fact (We can presume that they, like Paul, got up off the ground). As for the "hearing," the traditional answer has been that Luke meant that they heard something in the first account but did not understand what was being said in the second account. The term akouo is used to mean both. E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright think that Luke was avoiding repition by small alterations pursuant to a hellenistic literary convention of the time. Personally I favor a bit of the traditional answer matched up with the hellenistic literary tradition of variance. No one I know seriously suggests that this means that Luke was quoting from three completely different sources about Paul's conversion. In any event, whatever its value as an argument against inerrancy, it's wortheless as an argument that Paul did not convert to Christianity following his experiencing a resurrection appearance. And its laughable as an argument that prior to the Gospel of Mark there were not resurrection appearnces in early Christianity.

Finally, we are back where we began. The notion that resurrection appearance traditions did not arise among Christians until after the Gospel of Mark was written is erroneous. Paul was aware of quite a few of them, including his own. That his list does not match later narratives is of no consequence regarding this basic argument and is of little concern overall.

[-DM-]

The fact remains that Paul knows of several resurrection appearance traditions decades before the Gospel of Mark was written. How does the fact that the earlier accounts vary from the later accounts mean that the earlier accounts do not exist? I do not see the logic in that.There are two points here:
1) In 1CO 15:5-8 Paul is relating hearsay evidence of the existence of one "resurrection appearance tradition," not of "several resurrection appearance traditions."
2) (And this is the main point for me), the believability of those traditions is called into question by the fact that they have for me what seem to be at least some of the earmarks of fiction.

None of these accounts purported to give a "tally."Whether that is what was intended to purport or not is an unknown. My take on it is that they intend to purport exactly that. I also feel that a book which was allegedly inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it in terms of getting the details straight.

Yes, Cephas is Peter.Yes, I know that is the traditional viewpoint. Some may wonder, however, why it is that so many different names are used to identify one individual.

The "Twelve" in Paul's time was more of an institution than a list of specific members. By the time the gospels were written the Twelve as an institution had pretty much disappeared, and the focus was on individual members of the Twelve as close associates of Jesus.This is a handy apologetic "explanation," but one whose validity cannot be tested.

Acts 1:15 does not say that there were only 120 Jesus followers at that time. That's simply how many there were at that time for that meeting in Jerusalem. Jesus no doubt had garnered followings in Galilee as well.Ditto my last comment above.

To the extent Paul's list overlaps with later narratives he follows their sequence. Peter first, then the inner circle, then broader appearances, then himself. His omission of the women is easily explained as not valuing (either himself or by the broader culture) the testimony of women or being concerned with giving women too much authority.Ditto. On the other hand, your apologetic in this instance is at variance with what Christian apologists tend to say about why it was that the alleged first visitors to the empty tomb were women.

The gospels' ommissions of James is easily explained as being of little interest to the nonJerusalem Christians or because of a concern over giving James too much authority at a time when Judaizers, similar figures, and/or James himself were in some tension with the more hellenized churches.Ditto.

Nothing about these disparities suggests they are fictitious accounts. They simply show a diversity of sources and/or interests.No, these disparities do not SHOW that the accounts are fictitious, but they tend to add to my suspicion that such might be the case.

Even Lowder and Carrier have retreated from the "spiritual" resurrection theory. It's widely agreed it was a material body that Paul says he saw.A light and a voice do not certainly equate in my mind with a physical bodily appearance, and that is regardless of what Lowder and Carrier may have "retreated" to.

Are you really suggesting that Paul did not convert to Christianity?What Paul converted to would better be called "Paulianity" than "Christianity" so far as I am concerned. As you know, traditional Christianity would likely have been quite a bit different were it not for the destruction of the Temple and the more-Jewish element of the Church ~70 AD.

Or that he experienced nothing?Hardly. What I am suggesting is that, based on these inconsistent verses, what it was that Paul experienced is a question, and in any case quite unlike what Thomas and some of the others allegedly experienced.

Second, you ignore the fact that these supposedly differing accounts come from the same source.The fact that they are in the same book does not guarantee that they come from the same original source.

So they hardly represent the existence of multiple traditions conflicting with each other.In spite of your assertion, that is nevertheless a good possibility inasmuch as many books of the Bible demonstrate multiple authorship and/or additions/redaction by others.

At most, they show that the author of Acts protrays Paul as telling slightly different versions of the same story to different audiences.Your assumption is exactly that, an assumption, yet you state it with certainty as though there were no other possible explanation when, in fact, there are several other possible explanations: multiple authorship; redaction, editing, additions by someone other than the primary author; confusion on the part of the primary author; etc. Given that we have no complete original manuscript of any book of the Bible, we do not know with any certainty the text of the original and cannot come to conclusions with any real certainty about what, "at most," the author(s) might have had in mind to portray.

Third, seeing a light is hardly seeing someone.Definitely not "someone" (which is one of my points).

I've never understood how that is supposed to be a big conflict.It isn't. But in the one case, they heard a voice and in the other they did not. That, to me, is a fairly big difference.

Nor the standing. In one Paul mentions that his companions fell, in the other he simply omits the fact (We can presume that they, like Paul, got up off the ground).Yes, that is a possibility. On the other hand, it is also a possibility that these two accounts conflict with regard to this detail.

As for the "hearing," the traditional answer has been that Luke meant that they heard something in the first account but did not understand what was being said in the second account. The term akouo is used to mean both. E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright think that Luke was avoiding repition by small alterations pursuant to a hellenistic literary convention of the time. Personally I favor a bit of the traditional answer matched up with the hellenistic literary tradition of variance. No one I know seriously suggests that this means that Luke was quoting from three completely different sources about Paul's conversion. In any event, whatever its value as an argument against inerrancy, it's wortheless as an argument that Paul did not convert to Christianity following his experiencing a resurrection appearance. And its laughable as an argument that prior to the Gospel of Mark there were not resurrection appearnces in early Christianity.Of course, I do not use it as an argument that Paul did not abandon Judaism and convert to something else (in my opinion, a religion essentially of his own making), but I must say that I think your explanation, above, traditional though it may be for the most part, should not be necessary--and the effort to explain would likely not be taken--were it not assumed as a starting point that the Bible is somehow "the word of God" and a sufficiently reliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus that there must therefore be some fairly rational explanation.

Finally, we are back where we began. The notion that resurrection appearance traditions did not arise among Christians until after the Gospel of Mark was written is erroneous.I am only aware of the one "tally" offered by Paul in 1CO 15.5-8. I may have forgotten, of course, but are you aware of others in order to justify that he was aware of traditions, plural?

Paul was aware of quite a few of them, including his own.Where are those evidences located?

Thanks,
-DM-

Oops! I almost forgot entirely. "Acts" is an anonymous book. According to Metzger, the tradition that Luke was the author began in the latter part of the second century. "It is a striking fact that the Greek style of the earlier part of Acts differs from the latter part of the book" [pp. 90-91, The Nature and Origin of the New Testament by merle Rife] which raises the question of the possibility of multiple authorship insofar as I am concerned. As you probably know, J. H. Ropes concludes that the differening versions of extant manuscripts of Acts result from additions and amplifications made during the late first or early second century in order to improve the style and add "religious commonplaces," and that these modifications gained widespread acceptance for the book. Others, such as Harnack, conclude that two separate sources are involved, at least in parts of Acts.

[Layman]

There are two points here:
1) In 1CO 15:5-8 Paul is relating hearsay evidence of the existence of one "resurrection appearance tradition," not of "several resurrection appearance traditions."

Since very nearly all of history is hearsay, I'm not sure what you seek to gain by stating the obvious.

I thought the question was whether there existed resurrection appearance traditions prior to Mark? Have you changed the subject? Apparently so.

There are several different appearances attested to by Paul. Six by my count. Moreover, Paul had good occasion to learn of these as he actually met and discussed Jesus with at least two of the named witnesses -- Peter and James. Additionally, since we know Paul had enemies out there seeking to undercut his authority, he had very good reasons not to claim traditions that did not in fact exist. Yes, he could have been called on them had he made them up. Not that we have any reason to think he made anything up on this score in any case.

2) (And this is the main point for me), the believability of those traditions is called into question by the fact that they have for me what seem to be at least some of the earmarks of fiction.

And what literary studies have you done to learn what the earmarks of fiction were for a first centuey letter writer like Paul?

Whether that is what was intended to purport or not is an unknown.

If you have no reason to believe they intended to give a complete recounting of every appearance then why did you characterize their statements as such? Seems to me if you do not know whether they intended to list every single witness (and had the requisite knowledge base) then you shouldn't insist that they so intended.

My take on it is that they intend to purport exactly that. I also feel that a book which was allegedly inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it in terms of getting the details straight.

I'm not trying to speak for a perfect and ominpotent God or how he would have inspired others to write the accounts. I'm looking at what we know about the writings and their respective circumstances in writing.

Yes, I know that is the traditional viewpoint. Some may wonder, however, why it is that so many different names are used to identify one individual.

It's not just the "traditional viewpoint," it's the overwhelming position of critical scholarship. I suggest you read Allison, Dale C, Peter and Cephas : One and the Same, Journal of Biblical Literature 111 Fall 1992, p 489-495, for enlightenment on the subject:

Ancient writers, who in this were no different from modern writers, frequently used synonyms to avoid certain types of repitition, including the repetition of proper names. In the Testament of Jacob the hero is sometimes 'Jacob,' sometimes 'Israel,' sometimes 'Jacob-Israel'--even in the same paragraph. In Jos. Asen 22:2 the narrator informs us: 'And Jacob heard about Joseph his son, and Israel went to Egypt..... So too Mark 14:37: 'He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter: 'Simon are you asleep?' The variation here is purely stylistic (cf. John 21:15-19)...."

Ibid., pages 491-92.

Further, the terms Cephas and Peter both are appropriately rendered stone or rock. They were "both" apostles entrusted with missions to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8 & Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9). The coincidences continue to pile up. Dale Allison does a good job of ripping Ehrman to pieces on this one.

This is a handy apologetic "explanation," but one whose validity cannot be tested.

I am not sure what makes an explanation apologetic. I think it's fairly supported by the evidence. There is a definite tragectory from Paul to Mark to Matthew and Luke of focusing on the "Twelve" to individual disciples and "the Eleven." It's also supported by the presentation of the early Jerusalem Church in Acts and their desire to bring their inner circle back up to twelve, even though Jesus was ascended. When you open your eyes and see the obvious symbolic meaning of TWELVE to Jews (as in the Twelve Tribes being the complete and intended Hebrew people), it's the best explanation of the evidence.

Ditto my last comment above.

That's a lot easier than explaining why the statement is wrong.

Ditto. On the other hand, your apologetic in this instance is at variance with what Christian apologists tend to say about why it was that the alleged first visitors to the empty tomb were women.

Again, easier than actually doing some research and responding. Wave your hand, label something apologetic (while at the same time admitting it contradicts apologetics!), and you just have to say "ditto." Nice and neat. And completely unpersuasive.

Ditto.

I'm beginning to think that actually taking into account the literary intent and historical circumstances of each document is a bit too sophisticated for the kind of inquisitio. . . inquiry you have in mind.

No, these disparities do not SHOW that the accounts are fictitious, but they tend to add to my suspicion that such might be the case.

I can't speak as to your suspicions. But given your obviuos bias, I'm not surprised by them.

A light and a voice do not certainly equate in my mind with a physical bodily appearance, and that is regardless of what Lowder and Carrier may have "retreated" to.

Yet Paul believed in a material resurrected body. Why do you think that is?

Though I'm happy to see you accept Acts as a historically accurate and worthy at acceptance at face value.

What Paul converted to would better be called "Paulianity" than "Christianity" so far as I am concerned. As you know, traditional Christianity would likely have been quite a bit different were it not for the destruction of the Temple and the more-Jewish element of the Church ~70 AD.

Paul was a Jewish element of the church. But if you are saying that his succesful missionary to the Gentiles means we have a different kind of Christianity today than we might have had Christianity been only a Jewish affair, I'd agree with that. Not sure why that means we can't call it Christianity. Of course, if you want to tell 2 billion people that they are practicing "Paulinity" rather than Christianity, feel free. I think it will just lead to pointless tangents like this one though.

Hardly. What I am suggesting is that, based on these inconsistent verses, what it was that Paul experienced is a question, and in any case quite unlike what Thomas and some of the others allegedly experienced.

Since Jesus had already ascended by then, I am sure that Luke would agree with you that what happened to Paul was not the same thing that happened to Thomas. Of course, Thomas was the only one to demand a physical inspection, so what happened to him is different than what happened to everyone else. Not sure what your point is.

The fact that they are in the same book does not guarantee that they come from the same original source.

Of course, but I see nothing to indicate independent sources. Unless of course you mean that each speech was given at a different location. I think his source was Paul or perhaps some of Paul's other associates. What do you think his source were?

In spite of your assertion, that is nevertheless a good possibility inasmuch as many books of the Bible demonstrate multiple authorship and/or additions/redaction by others.

Nothing about the text indicates alterations from the final edition of the author's work. Of course, even if there were later alterations why would that prove the original event never happened?

Your assumption is exactly that, an assumption, yet you state it with certainty as though there were no other possible explanation when, in fact, there are several other possible explanations: multiple authorship; redaction, editing, additions by someone other than the primary author; confusion on the part of the primary author; etc. Given that we have no complete original manuscript of any book of the Bible, we do not know with any certainty the text of the original and cannot come to conclusions with any real certainty about what, "at most," the author(s) might have had in mind to portray.

Is this the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-don't-even-stay-around-to-see if-any-of-it-sticks method of argument? I suggest you buy Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament to see if any of these wild accusations have any evidential basis at all.

Definitely not "someone" (which is one of my points).

If it was not someone then how did Paul know it was Jesus?

It isn't. But in the one case, they heard a voice and in the other they did not. That, to me, is a fairly big difference.

If seeing the light and not seeing someone is not a conflict, why did you bring it up? I guess we can leave this one behind.

Yes, that is a possibility. On the other hand, it is also a possibility that these two accounts conflict with regard to this detail.

Given common authorship, I have an opinion on which explanation is the more likely.

Of course, I do not use it as an argument that Paul did not abandon Judaism and convert to something else (in my opinion, a religion essentially of his own making), but I must say that I think your explanation, above, traditional though it may be for the most part, should not be necessary--and the effort to explain would likely not be taken--were it not assumed as a starting point that the Bible is somehow "the word of God" and a sufficiently reliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus that there must therefore be some fairly rational explanation.

I expressly said that we should not assume as a starting point that the Bible is somehow the Word of God. You are the only one doing that here.

I am only aware of the one "tally" offered by Paul in 1CO 15.5-8. I may have forgotten, of course, but are you aware of others in order to justify that he was aware of traditions, plural?

Yeah, there are six different appearance accounts in that tradition recited in 1 Cor. 15.

Oops! I almost forgot entirely. "Acts" is an anonymous book. According to Metzger, the tradition that Luke was the author began in the latter part of the second century.

I'd like to see that quote from Metzger. As far as I know, Metzger is open to the possibility of Lukan authorship. Perhaps what you mean is that the title, "Acts of the Apostles" did not attach itself to the manuscript tradition until then. As for Acts being "anonymous," that can be a misleading term. Certainly its original recepients were aware of the author's identity. And his name was likely attached to the first manuscripts as was the custom in private Greek libraries. At that time in the Hellenized world, private libraries were common among the rich. R.F. Strout, LQ, 1956, 7. Labeling books by their author was an innovation of the Greeks. “Before placing a book-roll in the library it would be tagged for ready reference with a title and the author’s name. In all likehood Luke’s volumes were so tagged by Theophilus since this was the common custom.� E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, at 65.

"It is a striking fact that the Greek style of the earlier part of Acts differs from the latter part of the book" [pp. 90-91, The Nature and Origin of the New Testament by merle Rife] which raises the question of the possibility of multiple authorship insofar as I am concerned.

I'm sure Acts had different sources for the first part of his book than he did the second part. It seems quite obvious because the first part of the book takes place in Jerusalem for the most part and the author was not present for it. He likely relied on Jewish and Palestinian sources for his material. The second part of the book, however, took place in the larger Hellenized world and the author took part in many of them. Even if we discount authorial participation it is self evidence that his sources for Paul's missionary trips would be different, or at least a different origin, than would the account of the early Jerusalem Church. So I'm not sure what your point is here. I take the idea of multiple sources seriously, just not as an something to be applied in an ad-hoc manner to undermine the historicity of its accounts.

As you probably know, J. H. Ropes concludes that the differening versions of extant manuscripts of Acts result from additions and amplifications made during the late first or early second century in order to improve the style and add "religious commonplaces," and that these modifications gained widespread acceptance for the book. Others, such as Harnack, conclude that two separate sources are involved, at least in parts of Acts.

No doubt the Western Text of Acts is an amplificiation of the text. Some think by its original author, which is possible. But most conclude through later redactions. But this is nothing new and our present translations do not use the Western Text.

[-DM-]

Since very nearly all of history is hearsay, I'm not sure what you seek to gain by stating the obvious.The point is not so much that this is hearsay or that I expect to somehow gain because it is hearsay, but rather that this one presentation of a hearsay "tally" of alleged post-Resurrection appearances is just that: one, singular hearsay tradition the way that I count, not several/plural traditions, keeping in mind that you originally said, "Obviously Paul provides ample evidence of earlier accounts of resurrection appearances" and later, "Paul knows of several resurrection appearance traditions." You see this one account as a presentation of plural accounts of post-Resurrection appearances, whereas I see it as a singular account. But I certainly see your point and it now looks to me as if our disagreement was largely semantic. You are correct that Paul is talking in one account about several previous appearances whether this represents one tradition or many traditions.

I thought the question was whether there existed resurrection appearance traditions prior to Mark?It was. It was in my mind a question of whether there were traditions (plural) expressed in Paul's one "tally" or a tradition (singular) expressed in Paul's tally, keeping in mind that you said, "Paul knows of several resurrection appearance traditions." I was thinking of a tradition as encompassing a list of appearances, such as those inconsistent lists that I cited; you were thinking apparently of each separate appearance representing a tradition so that more than one appearance in a list apparently represents to you plural traditions.

Have you changed the subject? Apparently so.This sounds a bit smart-alecky to me.

There are several different appearances attested to by Paul. Six by my count.One tradition encompassing several alleged appearances by my count. What it seems to boil down to is that we are talking past each other depending on whether we are talking about traditions or alleged appearances. I'll grant you that Paul is talking about more than one appearance, and if you do look at each as a tradition (which I do not), then there are also several traditions. I don't want to quibble on and on about that.

Moreover, Paul had good occasion to learn of these as he actually met and discussed Jesus with at least two of the named witnesses -- Peter and James. Additionally, since we know Paul had enemies out there seeking to undercut his authority, he had very good reasons not to claim traditions that did not in fact exist. Yes, he could have been called on them had he made them up. Not that we have any reason to think he made anything up on this score in any case.These are good points (IMO).

And what literary studies have you done to learn what the earmarks of fiction were for a first centuey letter writer like Paul?Not a whole lot, but some. One such that I still have in my now much-pared-down library: The Historical Approach to the Bible by Howard Teeple, which has a section on literary methods. Another still in my library: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Robert M. Grant, which also goes into literary criticism to some extent. At one time I had a library of several hundred books on the subject of Christianity; I read most of those that were meant to be read (some were reference books); my library now consists of only a few. The point is that I have done some reading on the subject of literary study and criticism, as I am sure you have. There are many characteristics of the books of the Bible which lead me to believe that they might well be fictitious, and these alleged post-Resurrection appearances are suspect so far as I am concerned given the almost insurmountable inconsistencies in the story beginning with the visitors to the allegedly empty tomb. You need not agree, of course.

If you have no reason to believe they intended to give a complete recounting of every appearance then why did you characterize their statements as such?I did not say that I had no reason to believe that they intended to give a complete recounting of every appearance, of course. What I said was, "Whether that is what was intended to purport or not is an unknown." The fact that the intent is unknown does not necessarily mean that either one of us has no reason to believe something or other about the intent. My statement about the intent being unknown was in response to your assertion stated as if it were fact: "None of these accounts purported to give a 'tally'"--a "fact" of which you cannot be certain; although you may believe it to be a fact, it isn't.

Seems to me if you do not know whether they intended to list every single witness (and had the requisite knowledge base) then you shouldn't insist that they so intended.I don't know what they intended and neither do you. The difference between us is that I state it as "my take on it" and you state it as if it were fact.

I'm not trying to speak for a perfect and ominpotent God or how he would have inspired others to write the accounts.I know that. But I am speaking for what I think that such a "God" would and would not do given that some people certainly do think of the Bible as somehow the "word of [such a God] God" and the fact is that I would be surprised if you don't think of the Bible as somehow "the word of God"--whether you are trying to speak for that God or not.

I'm looking at what we know about the writings and their respective circumstances in writing.You are looking at what you think you know about those matters, as am I.

It's not just the "traditional viewpoint," it's the overwhelming position of critical scholarship.Yes, I know that. It is also the "traditional viewpoint."

I am not sure what makes an explanation apologetic.For me, any "explanation" that is based on an ad hoc how-it-might-have-been scenario is obviously an apologetic. Any assertion that goes beyond the evidence may be considered an apologetic. Your statement, "The 'Twelve' in Paul's time was more of an institution than a list of specific members. By the time the gospels were written the Twelve as an institution had pretty much disappeared, and the focus was on individual members of the Twelve as close associates of Jesus" seems to fall into that category so far as I am concerned given that it is stated as if it were fact and goes beyond the evidence so far as I am concerned.

I think it's fairly supported by the evidence.I don't doubt that you do. I don't disagree that such is a possibility, but I don't think that we can know this with any real certainty from our present vantage point. I don't feel that the evidence is as strong, obviously, as you do.

That's a lot easier than explaining why the statement is wrong.Had I asserted that you statement was wrong, I would explain why I think it is wrong. Inasmuch as I did not assert that it is wrong, I don't need to explain why I think it is wrong. I asserted instead that it is a handy apologetic explanation, and I have stated what I mean by that as well as why I don't think that we can know what you seem to think you know. Of course, I also realize that you merely stated that you think it the best explanation. I can accept that, although I remain agnostic about whether this is the explanation, or merely an apologetic to "explain" away yet another one of many such biblical problems.

Again, easier than actually doing some research and responding.I have done plenty of research. I have read many different apologetic "explanations" about the inconsistencies in the accounts of the events surrounding the visits to the tomb, the empty tomb, and the subsequent events. One of the interesting things to me about such accounts is that two different apologists sometimes have far different apologetic "explanations" to the point that, in some cases, they could not possibly both be correct. In any case, your explanation, "His omission of the women is easily explained as not valuing (either himself or by the broader culture) the testimony of women or being concerned with giving women too much authority" and my statement "your apologetic in this instance is at variance with what Christian apologists tend to say about why it was that the alleged first visitors to the empty tomb were women" had to do with what I learned in my adult Bible study days about why it is that the "fact" that the first visitors to the allegedly now-empty tomb were women served to validate the empty tomb story, the idea being that if the story were fabricated, the Gospel writers would have seen to it that the first visitors were men.

Wave your hand, label something apologetic (while at the same time admitting it contradicts apologetics!), and you just have to say "ditto." Nice and neat.Again, this seems a bit smart-alecky to me.

And completely unpersuasive.That doesn't surprise me, of course.

I'm beginning to think that actually taking into account the literary intent and historical circumstances of each document is a bit too sophisticated for the kind of inquisitio. . . inquiry you have in mind.Definitely smart-alecky, I would say, especially since neither of us knows with any real certainty the literary intent of each document, although we probably both have pretty good ideas of what we believe the intent to be.

I can't speak as to your suspicions. But given your obviuos bias, I'm not surprised by them.And what about your obvious bias?

Yet Paul believed in a material resurrected body. Why do you think that is?Regardless of what Paul allegedly believed, a "light" is not "someone," at least not in my book. Further, were there an actual physical person visible to Paul, that physical person, that someone, should have been visible to those with Paul.

Though I'm happy to see you accept Acts as a historically accurate and worthy at acceptance at face value.Either you misunderstand or you are again being a bit smart-alecky given that you should know that I do not accept Acts as historically accurate nor worthy of acceptance at face value.

Paul was a Jewish element of the church.Not nearly so much so as some of the others, as you know.

But if you are saying that his succesful missionary to the Gentiles means we have a different kind of Christianity today than we might have had Christianity been only a Jewish affair, I'd agree with that. Not sure why that means we can't call it Christianity.You may call it Christianity. I said only that "it would be better called Paulianity ... so far as I am concerned." Certainly you and "2 billion people" need not agree, but that doesn't change my opinion.

I see nothing to indicate independent sources.See my previous P.S. (which only very, very briefly touches on the subject).

Nothing about the text indicates alterations from the final edition of the author's work.See my previous P.S.

Of course, even if there were later alterations why would that prove the original event never happened?It wouldn't, and I didn't say that it would. The point is rather that multiple sources and/or later additions and/or alterations might explain such inconsistencies.

Is this the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-don't-even-stay-around-to-see if-any-of-it-sticks method of argument?It is an attempt to show that there are other possible and plausible explanations, and that is all. In other words, assertions stated as if they were fact, such as "At most, they show that the author of Acts protrays Paul as telling slightly different versions of the same story to different audiences"--are anything but fact.

I suggest you buy Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament to see if any of these wild accusations have any evidential basis at all.Seems smart-alecky to me.

If it was not someone then how did Paul know it was Jesus?He didn't. The fact that he thought it was Jesus does not acquaint to "know."

If seeing the light and not seeing someone is not a conflict, why did you bring it up?Because it is part of the verses quoted. The primary inconsistency has to do with the fact that, in one accounting, they heard a voice and in the other they heard nothing.

I guess we can leave this one behind.Smart-alecky.

Given common authorship, I have an opinion on which explanation is the more likely.We both have opinions on the explanation, but common authorship is not a given.

I expressly said that we should not assume as a starting point that the Bible is somehow the Word of God. You are the only one doing that here.I do not assume that. On the other hand, if you do not assume that the Bible is somehow "the word of God," then you must consider the Bible as just another book that is falsely or incorrectly purported by some others to be somehow "the word of God." In that case, on what would you base your religious conviction?

there are six different appearance accounts in that tradition recited in 1 Cor. 15.True. But are there six different appearance traditions in the one account? As mentioned previously, we began with a different way of looking at the meaning of the words.

I'd like to see that quote from Metzger.Here it is: "Like the four Gospels, Acts is an anonymous book. The tradition attributing the third Gospel and Acts to Luke, the companion for a time of Paul (Col 4.14; compare 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24), begins in the latter part of the second century and remains constant thereafter." [p. 160, introductory material to Acts in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, Oxford University Press, New York]

-DM-

P.S. As O'Reilly might say, "I give you the last word."

[RJD1959]

As a committed Christian, I read Mr. Lowder's critique of Lee Strobel's book entitled "The Case for Christ". We should all agree that truth is the ultimate goal of our faith whether it be a secular or religious faith that we profess. I noted with interest the many comments made on who Mr. Strobel did not interview. Surely, this is a reasonable comment. However, I wanted to share an insight into a possible reason why Mr. Strobel avoided many in the Jesus Seminar. I read and heard some of the findings in this seminar and frankly considered it lacking in credibility and sincere scholarly rigor. While I openly admit that I am no biblical scholar but I cannot get past the appearance that this group had an agenda. It is undeniable. Some of the allegations made in this seminar with no supporting evidence was borderline offensive to anyone with intellegence. I was totally lost when I heard one of the purported scholars talk with certainty about all of Jesus' brothers and sisters based on some references to "Jesus' brother James" and other comments of the like. I wonder if these same scholars were transplanted 2000 years into our future would they conclude that there is one large family of black people due to the fact that they culterally used the expression "brother" to refer to other black men. It is all over literature and other sources...I am sure, if they used the same logic and intellectual rigor demonstrated in the Jesus Seminar...they would come up with this incorrect conclusion. Even though a rudimentary search of idioms of the day would confirm this type of dialogue and refute the point....it is maddening to me why some purported scholars would try to pawn off simple minded conclusions like this. I can easily see why Mr. Strobel avoided people who had this type of affiliation. They have no credibility by mere association. Aside from this, I appreciate Mr. Lowder;s efforts and will look with interest for his future opinions....though different they may be. Take care and God Bless.
Rich

[-DM-]

It is all over literature and other sourcesProvide the examples and sources, and your point would hold some weight.

I am sure, if they used the same logic and intellectual rigor demonstrated in the Jesus Seminar...they would come up with this incorrect conclusion.If you are sure that the conclusion is incorrect, then provide your evidence and/or argument and your opinion would hold some weight. (Note: I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, but in many cases they did provide evidence and/or argument and you provide none. Thus your assertions are, at this point, empty assertions.)

Even though a rudimentary search of idioms of the day would confirm this type of dialogue and refute the pointThen please provide the results of YOUR rudimentary search, the search results that are behind your assertion.

I can easily see why Mr. Strobel avoided people who had this type of affiliation.IF Strobel wants to convince others of the validity of his position, then he needs to interview and answer (in his books) those who hold a different position--just as he does on his TV show "Faith Under Fire."

-DM-

[-DM-]

More on Strobel:

---

Objections Sustained! (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/) (2001) by Kyle Gerkin (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/)

A more thorough and detailed critique of Lee Strobel's The Case For Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. This review actually ranges across almost all the issues between Christians and atheists, and Gerkin directs readers to all the relevant sections of the Secular Web, making this an excellent introduction to our website and arguments for unbelief.

---

The Rest of the Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html) (1999) by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/)

I review Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. I conclude that "Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story."

---

Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html) (2003) by Paul Doland (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/)

Doland writes: I have read Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith. The book's stated goal is to investigate the "toughest objections to Christianity." Strobel made a list of eight objections that he considers the strongest objections to Christianity, and attempts to answer the questions by interviewing noted Christian authors and apologists. In my view, the answers provided by the Christians Strobel interviewed have serious logical faults and therefore do not adequately answer the objections Strobel raised.

[Editor's note: Doland's original critique was published in the Secular Web Library in 2001. This is an extensively revised and expanded version.]

---

Free Advertising Isn't the Point (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel2.html) (2000) by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/)

Lowder responds to Strobel's comments about Lowder's review on the "Bible Answer Man" radio show.

---

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[[scigirl]]

[A previous post by scigirl in another forum. -DM-]

scigirl
Secular Web Regular
Member # 3457
posted January 19, 2002 11:28 PM

I read "The Case for Christ" where I found the following interesting tidbit. According to Mr. Strobel, the early church had several documents that described the life of Jesus. However, several of them were contradictory to the idea that Jesus was the perfect son of God. For instance, one of them talked about Jesus being married.

So guess what the Church did--they threw them out because they didn't fit with their idea of Jesus. How convenient. Les handwaves and says something like, "Well, the early church just knew in their hearts who Jesus was, so they assumed the contradictory gospels were false."

I draw a different conclusion. We know that the early church had some greed issues, and we know that they did try to falsify some artifacts in order to obtain more followers (ie more money).

Example from our library here: (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html)
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause. Strobel also uses faulty logic: Any similarities between the Gospels prove that they are true. Any differences between the Gospels equally prove they are true, because if they were exactly the same they would seem contrived. So he starts with an original premise (the Gospels are all true) and uses one or the other argument to show how every piece of evidence proves the gospels.

These examples alone makes me think the entire NT should be excluded as evidence. And therefore, case dismissed.

scigirl

[CoolDad]

I just read 2 sections of your review of Lee Strobel's book The Case for Faith.

You referred to comment in the book about there always being doubts about God in a christian's mind, and you asked how much belief (or doubt) is enough or too much? I think you didn't understand the difference between belief and faith. It's not what you believe. but how you act that determines whether most people would define you as an atheist, agnostic, or believer. It is also not so much how much I believe as it is in what I believe. If I expect tissue paper to support me 10 feet above a fire, no one will say I didn't believe enough when I fall through the paper into the fire. And, no one will be impressed with the strength of my belief if I walk on a solid concrete floor above the fire. Some will notice my lack of faith if I refuse to walk on the same solid floor.

This note doesn't get into the issues of everyone occasionally failing to act in line with their beliefs, hypocrisy, or other issues that appropriate when discussing belief, faith, trust, fear, agnosticism, etc. I would be happy to go further in these areas if desired.

I try to live my life in a way that makes sense and is successful based on my understanding of the world we live in. Often that involves relying on others' wisdom when I don't understand all of the related factors. Sometimes I make mistakes, misunderstand, or ignore what I know or believe. The success of my life will depend on what (and who) I choose to rely upon and how I act with this foundation.

Feel free to move this to an appropriate thread. I just didn't see one.

[-DM-]

I just read 2 sections of your review of Lee Strobel's book The Case for Faith.Whose review? (There is more than one in the Secular Web Library.)

We need that information in order to notify the author of your feedback.

-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[ruindyng]

Recently I had been asked, by a Christian friend of mine, to read The Case for Christ. I have been poring over this book and find that I have to agree with Lowder. This is a book designed by someone intent on propping up the Case for Christ rather than skeptically investigating it.

Please help me here. Under the heading of "Evidence of the Missing Body" I find Lowder stating, "Strobel questioned theologian William Lane Craig. "In preparing for my interview with Craig," Strobel writes, "I had gone to the Internet sites of several atheist organizations to see the kind of arguments they were raising against the Resurrection" (p. 294, my italics),. . ." I cannot find this statement on pg 294 as that is the index. The chapter in The Case for Christ, The Evidence of the Missing Body, begins on pg 205. The statement quoted by Lowder is on pg 218. What happened? Is this a general mistake or have there been revisions to this book? Either way it might be a good idea to have the references updated. Thank you for your time.

[-DM-]

ruindyng:

Jeffery Jay Lowder has been notified of your feedback.

Regards,
-Don-

[hallq]

Many of Strobel's books have been published in two formats: normal and "pocket" form. I suspect Lowerder is citing the version with a larger number of smaller pages.