The Case For Christ
The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God." The book consists primarily of interviews between Strobel (a former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune) and biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger. Each interview is based on a simple question, concerning historical evidence (for example, "Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?"), scientific evidence, ("Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?"), and "psychiatric evidence" ("Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?"). Together, these interviews compose a case brief defending Jesus' divinity, and urging readers to reach a verdict of their own.
The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God." The book consists primarily of interviews between Strobel (a former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune) and biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger. Each interview is based on a simple question, concerning historical evidence (for example, "Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?"), scientific evidence, ("Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?"), and "psychiatric evidence" ("Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?"). Together, these interviews compose a case brief defending Jesus' divinity, and urging readers to reach a verdict of their own.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>The</strong> Resurrection Debate. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.<br />
Habermas, Gary, and J. P. Moreland. Beyond Death: Exploring the<br />
Evidence for Immortality. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1998.<br />
Morison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone? Grand Rapids: Zondervan,<br />
1987. Proctor, William. <strong>The</strong> Resurrection Report. Nashville:<br />
Broadman & Holman, 1998.<br />
14: THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE<br />
Are <strong>The</strong>re Any Supporting Facts That Point to the Resurrection? No<br />
witnesses watched Timothy McVeigh load two tons of fertilizerbased<br />
explosives into a Ryder rental truck. Nobody saw him drive<br />
the vehicle to the front of the federal building in Oklahoma City<br />
and detonate the bomb, killing 168 people. No video camera<br />
captured an image of him fleeing the scene.<br />
Yet a jury was able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that<br />
McVeigh was guilty of the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S.<br />
history. Why? Because fact by fact, exhibit by exhibit, witness<br />
by witness, prosecutors used circumstantial evidence to build an<br />
airtight case against him.<br />
While none of the 137 people called to the witness stand had seen<br />
McVeigh commit the crime, their testimony did provide indirect<br />
evidence of his guilt: a businessman said McVeigh rented a Ryder<br />
truck, a friend said McVeigh talked about bombing the building<br />
out of anger against the government, and a scientist said<br />
McVeigh's clothes contained a residue of explosives when he was<br />
arrested. Prosecutors buttressed this with more than seven<br />
hundred<br />
exhibits, ranging from motel and taxi receipts to telephone<br />
records to a truck key to a bill from a Chinese restaurant. Over<br />
e.ighteen days they skillfully wove a convincing web of evidence<br />
from which McVeigh was woefully unable to extricate himself.<br />
Eyewitness testimony is called direct evidence because people<br />
describe under oath how they personally saw the defendant commit<br />
the crime. While this is often compelling, it can sometimes be<br />
subject to faded memories, prejudices, and even outright<br />
fabrication.<br />
In contrast. circumstantial evidence is made up of indirect facts<br />
from which inferences can be rationally drawn. Its cumulative<br />
effect can be every bit as strong-and in many instances even more<br />
potent-than eyewitness accounts.
Change language