House Martins, Swallow And Other...
Animals & Nature0 min ago
For The Curious About Christianity.
14 Answers
https:/
Lee Strobel is the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune.
Invest 45 minutes of your life listening to his investigation into the truth about Christ.
Abandon your worldview and make a decision like a juror based solely on the evidence.
But please don't simply post adverse comments without considering the evidence.
If you don't have 45 minutes to spare, then lots of other categories to vent your spleen.
Use a notebook to check out the names of the experts quoted.
I think you will find it rewarding if you give it a fair hearing.
Lee Strobel is the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune.
Invest 45 minutes of your life listening to his investigation into the truth about Christ.
Abandon your worldview and make a decision like a juror based solely on the evidence.
But please don't simply post adverse comments without considering the evidence.
If you don't have 45 minutes to spare, then lots of other categories to vent your spleen.
Use a notebook to check out the names of the experts quoted.
I think you will find it rewarding if you give it a fair hearing.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mibs, ah, you managed to access it after all. I’ve watched about 20 minutes of it. Here is a man who says he’s a rational, hard-hitting journalist and claims his motivation for investigating Christianity was to discredit it by exposing the dastardly truth. However, the first thing he says is that Jesus must have been who he is purported to be because he said he was. That together with his unexplained acceptance of the resurrection as evidence just about seals his fate because I see no evidence of investigation there whatsoever. I do, however, see evidence of a lucrative bit of money-making. Next!
" Abandon your worldview and make a decision like a juror based solely on the evidence. "
To begin with a jury listens to both sides not just the defence. Why were the comments disabled? Perhaps because his argument is so weak he couldn't accept any criticism.
His whole theory, or as you would prefer evidence, is based on the length of time a legend takes to get established. He said he thinks, (note thinks, not, has been proved) that a legend usually takes a long time to get established. Because the myth of the crucifixion was established quickly he sees it as proof that it's true, this is extreme naivety. He also states the whole religion of Christianity is based on the Resurrection but seeing he can't prove that actually took place his whole argument falls to pieces. He spoke of medical and historical data that proved that Christ died before the spear pierced his side, where is this evidence? who collected it and how?
He presented not one shred of evidence, his "irrefutable proof" is nothing more than a collection of ideas, thoughts and assumptions. He also laughs at his own jokes.
You will eventually realise Theland that the last part to be converted to Christianity is the hip pocket, naomi is correct, the only evidence there is a lucrative bit of money-making.
To begin with a jury listens to both sides not just the defence. Why were the comments disabled? Perhaps because his argument is so weak he couldn't accept any criticism.
His whole theory, or as you would prefer evidence, is based on the length of time a legend takes to get established. He said he thinks, (note thinks, not, has been proved) that a legend usually takes a long time to get established. Because the myth of the crucifixion was established quickly he sees it as proof that it's true, this is extreme naivety. He also states the whole religion of Christianity is based on the Resurrection but seeing he can't prove that actually took place his whole argument falls to pieces. He spoke of medical and historical data that proved that Christ died before the spear pierced his side, where is this evidence? who collected it and how?
He presented not one shred of evidence, his "irrefutable proof" is nothing more than a collection of ideas, thoughts and assumptions. He also laughs at his own jokes.
You will eventually realise Theland that the last part to be converted to Christianity is the hip pocket, naomi is correct, the only evidence there is a lucrative bit of money-making.
10ClarionSt - So sorry to upset you.
Also sorry to have missed somehow your thoughtful considered and critical appraisal of the relevant evidence.
You obviously know more than the many Phd's on both sides of the debate, and so I really beg you to share your wisdom with us lesser mortals at least so we can collectively admire your scholarship.
I suspect you are an atheist, and look forward to you backing up the other intellectuals on here who disagree with me, by bringing your fresh insights to the debate.
Of course, I realise that brevity appears to be your forte, you can express so much with so few words.
Quite an enviable talent.
You could teach Naomi a thing or two about the economy of words.
Well done!
Also sorry to have missed somehow your thoughtful considered and critical appraisal of the relevant evidence.
You obviously know more than the many Phd's on both sides of the debate, and so I really beg you to share your wisdom with us lesser mortals at least so we can collectively admire your scholarship.
I suspect you are an atheist, and look forward to you backing up the other intellectuals on here who disagree with me, by bringing your fresh insights to the debate.
Of course, I realise that brevity appears to be your forte, you can express so much with so few words.
Quite an enviable talent.
You could teach Naomi a thing or two about the economy of words.
Well done!
Theland - “... I think you will find it rewarding if you give it a fair hearing.”
I gave it a fair hearing. Oh dear. That's 2,790 seconds of my life that I'll never get back. Complete billshuttery from start to finish. Even down to the Hollywood style music that prefaced this utter pile of nonsense.
At 17:50 - “... Is it [The New Testament Bible] based on historical reality?... I had to accept the New Testament for what it undeniably is – which is a set of historical writings...”
He shouldn’t have accepted it as a set of historical writings. A hysterical set maybe. But not historical. Mr Strobel seems like a really nice chap. I'm sure he is. But he's also a partisan, flim-flammer; ergo, not a credible source of information.
I gave it a fair hearing. Oh dear. That's 2,790 seconds of my life that I'll never get back. Complete billshuttery from start to finish. Even down to the Hollywood style music that prefaced this utter pile of nonsense.
At 17:50 - “... Is it [The New Testament Bible] based on historical reality?... I had to accept the New Testament for what it undeniably is – which is a set of historical writings...”
He shouldn’t have accepted it as a set of historical writings. A hysterical set maybe. But not historical. Mr Strobel seems like a really nice chap. I'm sure he is. But he's also a partisan, flim-flammer; ergo, not a credible source of information.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
Crosswords47 mins ago
Crosswords62 mins ago
News74 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.