The "Case" for Christ

For my birthday, one of the things I got from my grandmother was Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ (No, I'm not linking because I'm not endorsing the purchase of this book. Get over it.). Apparently, she thinks I need to be convinced of Jesus's existence because I let her read one of my Spong books. Foolish me. Now, don't get me wrong, I love my grandmother and she's a great woman. She's just very Southern - proper, Jesus loving, Sunday dinner-cooking, you get the idea.

I am horifically appalled that Strobel was an investigative reporter. Someone needs to review his investigations - hopefully no one ever went to jail for his investigations because they need a full pardon. I've read some reviews and an incredible analysis of his "arguments" so I'm not going to go totally in depth about it.

Let me sum up:

Strobel attempts to "prove" that Jesus was the son of God by "investigating" and interviewing authorities in the field. Which would be fine and dandy if he had interviewed anyone who didn't already believe what he was trying to prove. He talks about people and groups who don't believe - but he never actually talks to them. I have a major problem with this. Also, he "proves" that the New Testament is real and the truth by saying that the oral tradition that was the norm in Jesus's time was accurately transcribed into the books of the New Testament because the people would have memorized the exact way the events took place. Now, anyone who's ever taken an intro to Psychology course knows the problem with that statement. Scores of studies have proven (actually proven in a scientific way) that the human memory is incredibly faulty and unreliable. And he throws around big names like John Douglas (of FBI behavioral analysis fame) to make him seem credible, but to people who know who he's talking about he just sounds like an even bigger idiot. FYI - John Douglas would never try to profile someone in the manner that this idiot does.

Needless to say, I'm exchanging the book at Barnes & Noble.