The Case for Christmas
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Lee Strobel, with his training in hard-hitting investigative reporting, and from his background of hardened atheist turned committed Christian, does an excellent job in his writings of selecting the most persuasive arguments against aspects of faith and marshalling an array of facts from a wealth of sources to refute them. In this neat little volume, Strobel takes from his more wide-ranging studies the essential details of his treatment of criticisms of the biblical accounts of the Incarnation, and produces a convincing case for the truth and accuracy of the scriptural record.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
26 reviews
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
Simple Case
9 Dec 2007
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Lee Strobel's little bitty book, The Case for Christmas, does a good job at its intended purpose, which is to evangelize to non-Christians and skeptics. Like his other books, he presents counter arguments to those skeptics who do not really know Christianity. If you have read his other books, you have read everything in this book, too. The Christmas story itself is almost a minor topic. A Christian with the most basic knowledge of the Bible will not find much here. That is the weak point of the book for me, he just barely scratched the surface when there was potential for so much more.
Brother Lee does a good job of defending an early date for the Gospels (to support their credibility as eyewitness accounts). While he makes the case for the Synoptics, he leaves John at a later date, maybe 90 AD. Yet, when he talks about historical accuracy, he rightfully shows John is reliable, and one example he made was John 5:1-15, the story of the Pool of Bethesda, that pool with five porticoes. This place was not known in modern times until it was excavated by archeologist. It was just as John described.
That much is good, but Lee could have taken the next step. John talks about these pools in the present tense. The historian Josephus mentions that this northern district, where the pools were located, was incinerated early in the revolt by Cestius, in October of 68 C.E. (Jewish Wars 2.250). He also says that in May of 70 C.E., the Romans breached the first wall in the northern part of the city and destroyed it, in the district which he said had been previously destroyed "by Cestius" (Jewish Wars 5.302). Josephus tells that the entire city of Jerusalem, by order of Caesar, was razed to the foundations when the Romans overtook the Jews (Jewish Wars 7:1).So, if the Roman army destroyed the pools and porticos along with the rest of Jerusalem, than John's use of the present tense, . . . there IS a pool . . ., requires a pre-70 C.E. dating for John.
As for his comment on selecting December 25th as the birth date of Christ, that Pope Julius I declared it so in 385 AD to challenge the pagan celebration of the Roman god Saturnalia, that old argument is just too weak. The date was celebrated much earlier. The Nativity Feast was established by the early Church. Its origin goes back to the time of the Apostles. In the Apostolic Constitutions (Section 3, 13) it says, "Brethren, observe the feastdays; and first of all the Birth of Christ, which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month." In another place it also says, "Celebrate the day of the Nativity of Christ, on which unseen grace is given man by the birth of the Word of God from the Virgin Mary for the salvation of the world." Sextus Julius Africanus also says December 25 is Christ's birthday, mentioning in his Chronographiai (221). In the second century St Clement of Alexandria also indicates that the day of the Nativity of Christ is December 25. In the third century St Hippolytus of Rome mentions the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, and appoints the Gospel readings for this day from the opening chapters of St. Matthew. I could site more, but I have made my "case."
In summary, less fluff about the people he interviewed and more historical meat would have been nice.
Brother Lee does a good job of defending an early date for the Gospels (to support their credibility as eyewitness accounts). While he makes the case for the Synoptics, he leaves John at a later date, maybe 90 AD. Yet, when he talks about historical accuracy, he rightfully shows John is reliable, and one example he made was John 5:1-15, the story of the Pool of Bethesda, that pool with five porticoes. This place was not known in modern times until it was excavated by archeologist. It was just as John described.
That much is good, but Lee could have taken the next step. John talks about these pools in the present tense. The historian Josephus mentions that this northern district, where the pools were located, was incinerated early in the revolt by Cestius, in October of 68 C.E. (Jewish Wars 2.250). He also says that in May of 70 C.E., the Romans breached the first wall in the northern part of the city and destroyed it, in the district which he said had been previously destroyed "by Cestius" (Jewish Wars 5.302). Josephus tells that the entire city of Jerusalem, by order of Caesar, was razed to the foundations when the Romans overtook the Jews (Jewish Wars 7:1).So, if the Roman army destroyed the pools and porticos along with the rest of Jerusalem, than John's use of the present tense, . . . there IS a pool . . ., requires a pre-70 C.E. dating for John.
As for his comment on selecting December 25th as the birth date of Christ, that Pope Julius I declared it so in 385 AD to challenge the pagan celebration of the Roman god Saturnalia, that old argument is just too weak. The date was celebrated much earlier. The Nativity Feast was established by the early Church. Its origin goes back to the time of the Apostles. In the Apostolic Constitutions (Section 3, 13) it says, "Brethren, observe the feastdays; and first of all the Birth of Christ, which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month." In another place it also says, "Celebrate the day of the Nativity of Christ, on which unseen grace is given man by the birth of the Word of God from the Virgin Mary for the salvation of the world." Sextus Julius Africanus also says December 25 is Christ's birthday, mentioning in his Chronographiai (221). In the second century St Clement of Alexandria also indicates that the day of the Nativity of Christ is December 25. In the third century St Hippolytus of Rome mentions the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, and appoints the Gospel readings for this day from the opening chapters of St. Matthew. I could site more, but I have made my "case."
In summary, less fluff about the people he interviewed and more historical meat would have been nice.
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
reccomendation
27 Oct 2008
Format:Hardcover
if you're going to buy this, you might as well buy the Case for Christ instead. It has ALL the content in this book and Case for Easter and then some. Much more bank for your buck
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Good, but...
28 Dec 2010
Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase
I felt that the author did his homework and made a sincere effort to do research, however I also got the feeling that a lot of his research landed on the cutting room floor. The interviews with various scholars all left me feeling that a great deal more was said than was presented. I felt that the author went into all of the interviews with a 'chip on his shoulder' (in fact, he pretty much came out and said so in a couple of places) and I feel strongly that that is NOT good reporting or investigative technique. At no point was the author rude or unpleasant, but his attitude was quite challenging, and that made me question the validity of the interview. On the other hand, he was scrupulously honest in admitting when the answers to his questions really made him see the other person's perspective or point, and that counts for a lot, IMO.
Overall, while I found this book to be very interesting, I felt that it was lost somewhere in the grey area between 'light reading' and 'scholarly writing'. It was written more towards the scholarly side, yet all the data and details weren't presented - it was 'dumbed down' a bit for the general reader. As someone whose tastes run more to the scholarly, I'd prefer it to have had a bit more 'meat', but I also recognize that the author was trying to appeal to a much wider audience, and can't fault him for that, just because of my personal tastes. In the end, I felt that the book protrayed the author as being too easily persuaded, due to the amount of informtion that was (most likely) presented at his interviews, but which didn't make it into the book. I'd recommend this for someone who wanted a little more than light reading, but didn't want to be bogged down with a heavy-duty scholarly tome.
Note on Kindle formatting: Very good. No issues noted.
Overall, while I found this book to be very interesting, I felt that it was lost somewhere in the grey area between 'light reading' and 'scholarly writing'. It was written more towards the scholarly side, yet all the data and details weren't presented - it was 'dumbed down' a bit for the general reader. As someone whose tastes run more to the scholarly, I'd prefer it to have had a bit more 'meat', but I also recognize that the author was trying to appeal to a much wider audience, and can't fault him for that, just because of my personal tastes. In the end, I felt that the book protrayed the author as being too easily persuaded, due to the amount of informtion that was (most likely) presented at his interviews, but which didn't make it into the book. I'd recommend this for someone who wanted a little more than light reading, but didn't want to be bogged down with a heavy-duty scholarly tome.
Note on Kindle formatting: Very good. No issues noted.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
