Status
Available
Call number
Series
Publication
Zondervan (2014), Edition: Reprint, 112 pages
Description
Christian Nonfiction. Religion & Spirituality. Self-Improvement. Nonfiction. HTML: Who was in the manger that first Christmas morning? Some say he would become a great moral leader. Others, a social critic. Still others view Jesus as a profound philosopher, a rabbi, a feminist, a prophet, and more. Many are convinced he was the divine Son of God. Who was he really? And how can you know for sure? Consulting experts on the Bible, archaeology, and messianic prophecy, award-winning legal journalist Lee Strobel searches out the true identity of the child in the manger. If Jesus really was God in the flesh, then there ought to be credible evidence, including: Eyewitness Evidenceâ??Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted? Scientific Evidenceâ??What does archaeology reveal? Profile Evidenceâ??Did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God? Fingerprint Evidenceâ??Did Jesus uniquely match the identity of the Messiah? The Case for Christmas invites readers to consider why Christmas matters in the first place. Somewhere beyond the traditions of the holiday lies the truth. Your customers will find this little booka timely product, perfect as a gift or for use in ministry during the Christmas season or any other time of th… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member monototo
I found the first half of this book to be especially poor, with sweeping statements and flawed reasoning. The second half - especially regarding the historical evidence was slightly more palatable but (unsurprisingly) descends into evangelical tripe.
LibraryThing member lillieammann
Although I accept the identity of Jesus Christ on faith, it was interesting to read all the historical evidence of His birth, life, death, and resurrection.
LibraryThing member DubiousDisciple
This little book is excerpted from an earlier 1998 book by Lee Strobel: The Case for Christ. Like others of the series, Strobel’s MO is to interview other believing scholars and present his findings as a sort of scientific approach to uncovering the truth about Jesus.
Let me start by saying that
Strobel got on my wrong side right away with a blatant misquote of the Gospel of John:
John, who begins his gospel by eloquently affirming the incarnation—that is, “the Word,” or Jesus, “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” on the first Christmas.
At least Strobel knew where to drop the quotation marks! But the reference to “the first Christmas” is misleading and untrue to John’s Gospel. John wants nothing to do with the virgin birth, instead pointing out multiple times that Jesus’ father was Joseph. Conservative Christians may read the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and then read the incarnation story in John, and naturally try to overlay the two, but this would insult John. John’s theology is one of eternal pre-existence, not of a miraculous birth, and John clearly describes the moment of incarnation at the Jordan river … not at birth.
Strobel never does provide proof of the virgin birth, but rather attempts an indirect route, disproving the debunkers. Luke tells the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth, so Strobel stokes Luke as a careful historian, pointing out many places where Luke has been proven accurate, and uses that to deflect a major problem in Luke’s report: That governor Quirinius and King Herod seem to serve simultaneously, though Herod died ten years before Quirinius arrived as governor. Strobel’s “proof” that Luke’s account is historical: a coin dated to 11 B.C., bearing Quirinius’s name. Perhaps there were two governor Quiriniuses? But the rumor is absolutely not true; there exists no such coin, and Strobel should have done his homework. Strobel also neglects to mention the obvious: we know precisely who governed Syria in the years surrounding Herod’s death. It was Quintilius.
Strobel jumps into the argument over whether Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth or whether the original Hebrew says only that a child will be born to a young woman. It’s a fun argument, but totally irrelevant, because just a few verses later, Isaiah makes it clear that he’s not predicting an event hundreds of years in the future, but in his own lifetime.
Strobel’s best attempt is to argue for an early writing of the Gospels and traditional authorship, then deduces that these authors surely would not misrepresent the story so quickly after Jesus lived, because there would be others around to correct them. He manages to uncover one reasonable scholar (Blomberg) who agrees with this dating. The vast majority of Bible scholars do not.
Strobel concludes that everything in the scripture about the Messiah has been fulfilled, and this proves Jesus’ identity. I am growing so tired of hearing this. Any knowledgeable Jew would be totally baffled by this claim, because Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the prophecies important to them! He didn’t gather the Jews back to Jerusalem, he didn’t rebuild the Temple, he didn’t reestablish the Jews as God’s favored people, he didn’t bring world peace, he didn’t unite the entire world in worship of one God, the list goes on. Perhaps we believe Jesus will come back and do all these things someday, but can we quit saying Jesus fulfilled the prophecies? He most assuredly did not … not in the political way the Old Testament expected.
I’m starting to get argumentative, so this is probably a good place to close. Can we just leave things to faith which belong in the realm of faith?
Let me start by saying that
Show More
I’ve never found much inspiration in Strobel’s “The Case for …” series. It feels to me like he demeans the beauty and mystery of Christianity by trying to bring it down to earth, proving the unprovable. But when I noticed this little book attempting to prove the Christmas story, my curiosity won out. There are many valid arguments against the two conflicting birth stories in the Bible, and nothing whatsoever that I could think of as evidence for treating them literally, so I couldn’t resist.Strobel got on my wrong side right away with a blatant misquote of the Gospel of John:
John, who begins his gospel by eloquently affirming the incarnation—that is, “the Word,” or Jesus, “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” on the first Christmas.
At least Strobel knew where to drop the quotation marks! But the reference to “the first Christmas” is misleading and untrue to John’s Gospel. John wants nothing to do with the virgin birth, instead pointing out multiple times that Jesus’ father was Joseph. Conservative Christians may read the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and then read the incarnation story in John, and naturally try to overlay the two, but this would insult John. John’s theology is one of eternal pre-existence, not of a miraculous birth, and John clearly describes the moment of incarnation at the Jordan river … not at birth.
Strobel never does provide proof of the virgin birth, but rather attempts an indirect route, disproving the debunkers. Luke tells the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth, so Strobel stokes Luke as a careful historian, pointing out many places where Luke has been proven accurate, and uses that to deflect a major problem in Luke’s report: That governor Quirinius and King Herod seem to serve simultaneously, though Herod died ten years before Quirinius arrived as governor. Strobel’s “proof” that Luke’s account is historical: a coin dated to 11 B.C., bearing Quirinius’s name. Perhaps there were two governor Quiriniuses? But the rumor is absolutely not true; there exists no such coin, and Strobel should have done his homework. Strobel also neglects to mention the obvious: we know precisely who governed Syria in the years surrounding Herod’s death. It was Quintilius.
Strobel jumps into the argument over whether Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth or whether the original Hebrew says only that a child will be born to a young woman. It’s a fun argument, but totally irrelevant, because just a few verses later, Isaiah makes it clear that he’s not predicting an event hundreds of years in the future, but in his own lifetime.
Strobel’s best attempt is to argue for an early writing of the Gospels and traditional authorship, then deduces that these authors surely would not misrepresent the story so quickly after Jesus lived, because there would be others around to correct them. He manages to uncover one reasonable scholar (Blomberg) who agrees with this dating. The vast majority of Bible scholars do not.
Strobel concludes that everything in the scripture about the Messiah has been fulfilled, and this proves Jesus’ identity. I am growing so tired of hearing this. Any knowledgeable Jew would be totally baffled by this claim, because Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the prophecies important to them! He didn’t gather the Jews back to Jerusalem, he didn’t rebuild the Temple, he didn’t reestablish the Jews as God’s favored people, he didn’t bring world peace, he didn’t unite the entire world in worship of one God, the list goes on. Perhaps we believe Jesus will come back and do all these things someday, but can we quit saying Jesus fulfilled the prophecies? He most assuredly did not … not in the political way the Old Testament expected.
I’m starting to get argumentative, so this is probably a good place to close. Can we just leave things to faith which belong in the realm of faith?
Show Less
LibraryThing member David.Alfred.Sarkies
This is a short book written by the journalist Lee Strobel. While his main book, the Case for Christ (which I have not read) no doubt deals with what he has written here more extensively, this is still a very good and well written book outlining Strobel's investigation of who Christ was and the
Show More
legitimacy of his claims. In fact, after reading this book I have developed a healthy respect for Strobel as it is clear that being a sceptic, he did not simply brush off Christianity but instead chose to investigate it fully to see whether the claims that it made where true. There are many people in the world who form opinions about a subject and simply discount all evidence to the contrary. Somebody who is willing to investigate a claim, and then be willing to change their views on a subject, to me, is a person worthy of respect. Show Less
LibraryThing member clamagna
I read this one a few years ago and also gave a copy to a coworker who was unsure about what she believed, but was interested in exploring faith in God. Lee Strobel was a journalist who did not believe in Jesus. He writes that he was not driven by feelings and that, as an investigative journalist,
Show More
he was “far more interested in facts, evidence, data, and concrete reality.” After his wife became a Christian, he embarked on an investigation in the same way he investigated claims as a reporter - the see whether they were true or hoaxes. What he uncovered changed his life and he is now a believing Christian. His longer book, The Case for Christ, has been adapted to film. This one is shorter and focuses on the baby in a manger, born to a virgin all those years ago. It’s under 100 pages - consider giving it a read… you might even be able to finish it by Christmas! Have you been exploring any Christmas reads? Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1998
Physical description
6.69 inches
ISBN
0310340594 / 9780310340591
UPC
025986340599