Customer Reviews: Read 66 more reviews...
 A much needed addition to debate on historical Jesus November 21, 2008
I enjoyed Mr. Strobel's book very much, but other reviewers have already covered many of the important points. I'd just like to add that my favorite chapter was Chapter 2, in which Mr. Strobel answers the charge that "The Bible's portrait of Jesus can't be trusted because the church tampered with the text." Specifically he takes on the abominable Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar guys. That chapter alone was worth the price of the book.
Ehrman and others who make up the Jesus Seminar get a lot of air time on the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, and every so ofter are quoted on Larry King Live or CNN. I used to take their work seriously until I began looking into the scholarship a bit more. In fact, these people are more interested in making money by selling sensational books and becoming famous for doing so than in advancing serious research into the historical Jesus.
Unfortunately, a number of people who can't see the weaknesses in the arguments of Ehrman et al.have their faith weakened or destroyed in the process.
Readers who enjoy reading Mr. Strobel might also like to look at a book by Luke Timothy Johnson, "The Real Jesus." Johnson also gives the Jesus Seminar a much-deserved thrashing.
Jesus--He's the Real Thing! And what a case! November 2, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Lee Strobel's profile of Jesus Christ is divided into three parts, the historical, the Freudian, and the fantastic--
1. Examining the Record; 2. Analyzing Jesus; and 3. Researching the Resurrection.
In "Part 1: Examining the Record," Strobel tells how God came to Earth to become the real Jesus. See if you can follow this, it's tough, even for me.
In heaven, during my prehistoric days as a choirboy, Dad always called the second person of the Trinity, "Ben" (which is a Hebrew word meaning Son). Meanwhile, on Earth, a prophet had said that the messiah, when he was born, would be named "Immanuel." Instead, Joseph and Mary called him "Jesus," and here's why: because you cannot make a nickname out of it. Even YAHVEH later conceded that "Jesus" was a good choice. A Messiah whom everyone called "Benny Christ" or "Manny of Nazareth" would not have caught on as well as "Jesus."
The "Son of God" while on Earth called himself "the Son of Man," in order to express his solidarity with the first "Son of Man," the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:1-47:6); but Jesus was *actually* the son of a *woman*, i.e., he was the firstborn son of the Virgin Mary, "the Mother of God," but the *spirit* of the Son of God did not have Mary as an actual literal mother, only his body did. Does. Here's a convenient way to remember it: on 21 March, 1 BCE, shortly after a visit to Mary's house by a male angel named GABRIEL ("the Annunciation"), Mary ran away to Judaea, during which time Jesus' body was fathered by THE HOLY GHOST ("the Conception"); neither of whose spirits, however, was Jesus' *true* father, who was YAHVEH, who is not Jesus' literal spiritual or biological father because "Father" is just a figure of speech used to denote the inscrutable mystery of the holy Trinity, the first of whom is Yahveh, or God the Father, who is actually more like Jesus' senior twin brother, and the holy Ghost, more like a close personal friend who, as a surrogate biological father, donated a single spermatozoid without ever having any actual intimate bodily contact with Jesus' biological mother, who was Mary. Is Mary. None of whom should be confused with Gabriel, who was just a handsome, well-spoken messenger (although, in my opinion, a jerk); nor with Joseph, who never really understood what was going on; nor with Mary's virgin body, which played essentially the same innocent role in all of this as a divinely commandeered FedEx truck. And on the night of December 24/5, out popped the baby Jesus.
In "Part II. Analyzing Jesus," Strobel explains how Jesus, while growing up, had a complicated family situation both upstairs and down. In the New Testament (and this remains a spiritual mystery even to the Church's most eminent theologians, including Mr. Strobel), the Gospels of Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' biological descent NOT as the son of Mary, but as the son of a man, Joseph of Nazareth; whose family tree was itself a twisted one: Scripture reports that Joseph, a carpenter's apprentice, was begotten by two different biological fathers, Jacob Ben-Eleazar and Eloi Ben-Levi. The reason for this seeming contradiction or ambiguity of Scripture is that Joseph's mother, a Ms. Matthat "Mattie" Matthan, was never herself sure who Joseph's real father was. But Jacob and Eloi were the two Nazareth men to whom Joseph as a boy bore the closest physical resemblance; and at the time of Joseph's conception, Mattie was involved with them both (although not at the precise same moment). The holy Ghost therefore reports both theories about Joseph's paternity, without necessarily endorsing either candidate, and without giving us any more information than necessary (Matt. 1:15-16, Mark 15:34, Luke 3:22-23).
Mr. Strobel helpfully explains how Joseph's lifelong confusion about his *own* dual paternity prepared the man spiritually to understand the complex psychological predicament of his divine stepson, Jesus, who grew up with at least three possible "Father" figures: 1. Yahveh, 2. the holy Ghost, and 3. Joseph of Nazareth. And Joseph was therefore able to console his divine stepson whenever the boy was teased by such cruel, childish remarks as "Go away! You can't play games with us, you bastard son of a cuckolded carpenter's apprentice"--which is something Jesus heard all the time, while growing up, from religious bullies.
I know you will forgive me if I say nothing of Jesus' genealogy on the mother's side, because that's an area that the Bible doesn't get into. For sundry and weighty reasons, the holy Ghost chose not to mention Mary's family history; one of which is that its disclosure would be poorly received by the Vatican. (But I can tell you this: for a couple of Jewish Lesbian mothers, Mary's parents never once dissuaded her from heteronormativity, so long as she remained chaste.)
In "Part 3. Researching the Resurrection," ....
Sorry, but I cannot yet tell you about Part III of this wonderful book, because I got distracted by "I Love Lucy" re-runs, and put down Strobel's book, and forgot to finish it. But Parts I and II are really good, I recommend them.
- L.
 A heavy read September 13, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
It took me a long time to finish this book, not because it isn't good but because it's full of heavy content that can't be taken in large bites. I think it might have been easier to read without the slightly contrived "I interviewed this expert and this is where he sat and this is what he was wearing" style. It is nevertheless an excellent rebuttal of all the shoddy liberal scholarship that masquerades as theology these days.
the case for the REAL JESUS September 8, 2008
Lee has done it again and written a consise book about his investigations into attacks again Christians about JESUS
thanks Lee job well done
 Disingenuous August 29, 2008
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
This is the second Lee Strobel book I have read. It is clear, as many people have pointed out, that even though Lee presents himself as a seeker who is earnestly trying to find the truth, this is a facade.
As a thinking Christian, I have been troubled by many of the issues Lee brings up in his books. I have yet found no simple answers. Yes, research has shown that Mithras was basically an A.D. Religion. But other mystery religions are not so easily dismissed.
The fact that Lee interviews one side, and declares them the winner, is disingenuous to me. A true investigative journalist would interview both sides, and then decide. It is even clear from his "thoughts", as he is interviewing people, that he already has decided the outcome.
One specific example that irritates me: Was Isaiah 7:14 a messianic prophecy? "A young woman(virgin) will conceive and bring forth a son...". Anyone who has studied the context of this prophesy knows that this was specifically intended for the IMMEDIATE future. Not for Jesus born 700 years later. There's no way around this(unless you believe in dual prophecy). Michael Brown responds to the challenge by saying "No one knows what this prophecy exactly meant". Yet Lee Strobel accepts this explanation!!!! HUH?!! How in the world could you accept this explanation, if you were truly undecided. The only way is, you already have your mind made up.
Bottom line is, you can be for or against something. But please be upfront, and don't pretend to undecided, when in fact, you are not.
|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.