LEE STROBEL HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ARCHEOLOGY AND SCIENCE IN THE NAME OF FAITH?
FROM “THE CASE FOR CHRIST”, THE BEST-SELLING BOOK BY LEE STROBEL
STROBEL’S LIE:
Archaeology has never unequivocally contradicted the Bible.
THE TRUTH:
Even if that were true there would still be items that are in contradiction to a
more or less degree of probability. It would mean you believe in the Bible not
because of the credibility of its message but because you want to. This egoism
is not Christianity. Archaeology is subject to interpretation and the Christians
who say it supports the Bible are taking advantage of that and are reluctant to
tell you that. There are thousands of archaeologists who hold that archaeology
has proved the Bible wrong at least in some things.
STROBEL’S LIE:
An account that contains no contradictions is contrived so the gospels with
seeming contradictions are true.
THE TRUTH:
Then after saying that the book proceeds to argue that there are no
contradictions in or between the gospels.
STROBEL’S LIE:
Blomberg’s view that nobody ever wrote history in the gospel times without
trying to convey some ideology across is approved.
THE TRUTH:
The reason it is approved for it is undeniable that the gospels were written to
draw people to faith in Jesus and it is trying to say that despite this they are
reliable for propaganda usually contains a large dose of deceit, selective
reporting and half-truth.
Lots of books were not written for ideological ends. The gospels themselves
contain portions that are not ideological.
STROBEL’S LIE:
The book solves the contradiction between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew
and Luke by saying that that they did not always mean literally that x was the
son of y and preferred to focus on the historically important members of the
bloodline which was why they left ones out.
THE TRUTH:
So we are to believe that Matthew and Luke agreed with one another without any
evidence that they actually did? It is easier to believe that they contradicted
instead of listening to all these solutions which are just speculation. The
solutions ignore the fact that genealogies are to prove the unbroken nature of
the bloodline. What is the point of giving a list with half the people left out
and which means one relationship literally and another figuratively?
STROBEL’S LIE:
There were two Quirinius because Luke says that Jesus was born when Quirinius
when governor of Syria which means 6AD according to the historian Josephus.
Matthew says Jesus was born before Herod died in 4BC. So both Josephus and
Matthew are right because there were two of them.
THE TRUTH:
Christians need to pretend there is no contradiction. One solution is that there
were two Quiriniuses. Another is that Quirinius reigned twice. The Case for
Christ says there is a coin that indicates that there were two. It doesn’t prove
it though. Obviously neither Luke or God knew that there were two! The fact of
the matter is that Luke would have said which one he meant. When Luke picked
Quirinius instead of Herod as a time marker it shows that Quirinius did not
reign at the time of Herod. There was no point in using Quirinius as a time
marker if he reigned twice so Luke would have told us what reign it was. There
is no doubt that Luke and Matthew did contradict one another regarding the time
of the birth of Jesus and the age of Jesus which means that Luke lied about the
care he took in researching. If Matthew remembered a Jesus who was about 34 when
he died and Luke has one who was 24 then that is a very serious difference
because age differences of that scale were very noticeable in those times and
would be a serious indication that one of these men was largely inventing his
material. This would cast suspicion on all the gospellers for nobody should have
needed to do all this inventing unless Jesus were either non-existent or very
unimportant and obscure both of which positions contradict the gospels. The idea
that Josephus was the one that was wrong is just pure desperation to salvage the
gospels.
STROBEL’S LIE:
The book agrees that the London Papyrus backs up the ridiculous story of the
census in Luke in which people had to travel to their ancestral home to be
enrolled.
THE TRUTH:
The papyrus simply says that people have to stay where they are living now to be
enrolled. Luke made up the census as an excuse to get Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem which was not their home, but the home of their distant ancestors, to
be able to say Jesus was born there.
STROBEL’S LIE:
The Gospel picture of Pilate as a weak and easily scared leader who reluctantly
put Jesus to death matches the secular accounts which speak of how ruthless and
psychopathic he was for his protector Sejanus fell from power in 31AD meaning
that Pilate had to be nicer to people after that.
THE TRUTH:
There is no evidence Pilate was that dependant on Sejanus and that there was no
other protector. If Pilate indulged in criminal activity he would have went down
with him or after Sejanus was out of the way. A leader who was that easily
bullied would have been sacked on the spot especially one that wanted to save
Jesus from crucifixion though Rome didn’t tolerate men who claimed to be the
Messiah and would not suffer them to live.
STROBEL’S LIE:
Blomberg is right to say if the New Testament had lied the enemies of
Christianity would have made sure everybody knew about it.
THE TRUTH:
Yamaunchi in the same book states that big opposition to new cults does not
start until a few generations down the line. I say that the sect of the
Christadelphians which is small has survived since the 1840’s despite the errors
it makes in Bible interpretation and the opposition of the Churches. If a world
dictator took a liking to this faith and made it the official religion of his
empire, it would be a lot bigger. If it hadn’t been for Constantine enforcing
Christianity and making it the official faith of the Roman Empire the faith
could have died out.
STROBEL’S LIE:
The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they were never
attributed to anybody else in the early Church despite being anonymous.
THE TRUTH:
Irenaeus in 180 AD was the first to say the gospels were believed to belong to
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. His attribution was as good as any so it was
accepted readily. There had to have been disputes over authorship for confusion
had to happen.
STROBEL’S LIE:
Early in the second century, Papias stated that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teaching
and Mark the works of Jesus as Peter reported them.
THE TRUTH:
Hearsay. We don’t even know if the Matthew and Mark writings mentioned are our
gospels. And the way Papias spoke of them makes it likely that they were not and
were merely collections of the oral teaching of Jesus.
STROBEL’S LIE:
Mark and Luke were unknown characters and Matthew as an ex-tax collector would
have been the apostle that was most unpopular next to Judas so when the gospels
were attributed to them the ascriptions must have been accurate.
THE TRUTH:
Mark and Luke could have been popular characters in the early Church. If they
were thought to have been secretaries to the apostles that would mean their
names might have been put to gospels they never wrote. To assume that the
ascriptions are accurate because they were unpopular is madness for nobody knows
if they were unpopular or not. Moreover, if it were known that the apostles did
not write Mark and Luke, two new candidates had to be found and so Mark and Luke
could have been guesswork. There is simply no reason to believe that any gospel
was written by the person whose name was put on it. If Luke for example really
wrote Luke then why didn’t he say so for he was the one that claimed to have
been doing historical research and interviewing witnesses? What had he to hide?
Matthew and John could have been unpopular for all we know. We know Paul
complained a lot about being unpopular. It didn’t stop people forging traditions
and writings in his name (2 Thessalonians 2). Even the New Testament has
writings attributed to Paul that he had nothing to do with. Christianity opposed
popular people so it could have been amenable to attributing books of unknown
origin to obscure or unpopular Church figures. It was the perception or illusion
of a person being trusted by the apostles that mattered not how well known or
popular they were.
STROBEL’S LIE:
John is so different from the other three because he knew what was in them and
didn’t want to repeat it and therefore he ended up using a pile of new material.
THE TRUTH
Speculation. There is no evidence that John knew the other gospels well. It is
most likely that he did not for the books would have been hard to acquire and
his gospel can be explained as John largely making it all up. The way Jesus
talks is so different in style from the gospels. The difference in style is very
obvious.
STROBEL’S LIE:
The book claims that the miracles of Apollonius are dubious because Philostratus
wrote to please the Empress and too long after the events and because she paid
him.
THE TRUTH:
Philostratus writing to please the Empress does not automatically mean he lied.
He got his material from sources that claimed to be witnesses of Apollonius. If
what Strobel says about Philostratus makes him unreliable, then the gospellers
are unreliable for they were written to please Jesus who was not even around
then and were also collections of stories about Jesus. There is no evidence that
Philostratus lied for money. How does Strobel know that the gospellers were not
well paid for churning out their books? Damis was a writer who claimed to be an
eyewitnesses to the miracles of Apollonius and his work was used by
Philostratus. At least this Messiah had an eyewitness who wrote things down.
Jesus had none or at least none that we can be sure of which is just as bad.
The view that Philostratus was writing just to please her is pure speculation.
There is nothing to indicate that he ever admitted that. So much for good
Christians like Strobel not judging people unjustly!
STROBEL’S LIE:
The Book of Q, the hypothetical first version of the gospel story from which
most of our gospels were developed has Jesus saying he did miracles so the
miracles of Jesus have the best possible witness.
THE TRUTH:
Jesus did say there were miracles that showed him to be the Messiah but there is
no reason to believe the saying was really from Q for it could have been from an
Agrapha or oral tradition. And the bit where he says this does not clearly state
that Jesus did the miracles directly. Jesus could have pointed to miracles that
happened independently of him as signs that somebody special was in the world.
For example, people could have been rising from the dead in Syria and he could
take that as evidence. He could say that he does miracles all over the world
though he is in Israel. And why shouldn’t he? God is in Heaven and yet the Bible
claims he divided the Red Sea?
STROBEL’S LIE:
The Gospel of John has spoken about real places like the Well of Jacob so it is
entirely real history.
THE TRUTH:
Still doesn’t mean the story is true. The Case for Christ believes that the John
gospel was edited by somebody after John wrote it (page 24). A gospel that may
have been improved by its editor and not by the prophet who wrote it is hardly
impressive when it is right about anything.
