What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jesus Inquest: The Case for and Against the Resurrection of the Christ
Charles Foster thought he knew the familiar story of the resurrection of Jesus. He thought Christianity rested on sound historical foundations. But could he be wrong? Could Christianity be built on a terrible mistake or downright lie? As nagging doubts began to surface, Foster turned to countless Christian books to find comfort and proof. But all he found were more questions. What began as a personal quest for reassurance quickly turned into an in-depth examination of the most astounding historical claim of all time. He crawled through Jerusalem tombs, dusty libraries, and the recesses of his own mind in search of an answer. He turned the war in his head―the war between faith and doubt―into this heated, no-holds-barred debate, which presents the case both for and against the resurrection of Jesus. The Jesus Inquest takes you through medical evidence, Jewish burial practices, archaeological hypotheses, maps, ancient artifacts, the canonical and non-canonical gospels, biblical criticism, and much more, providing an unbiased examination of the facts of the case. A practicing trial attorney and University of Oxford academic, Charles Foster vigorously argues both sides of the issue, presenting information in compelling courtroom style and leaving no hard question unaddressed. The Jesus Inquest gives readers the tools necessary to debate the most remarkable and controversial event of world history―a debate so crucial and fascinating it cannot be ignored.
- GenresChristianityReligion
370 pages, Paperback
First published June 23, 2006
18 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
About the author
Charles Foster
173 books96 followersCharles Foster is a Fellow of Green Templeton College at the University of Oxford. He is a qualified veterinarian, teaches medical law and ethics, and is a practicing barrister. Much of his life has been spent on expeditions: he has run a 150-mile race in the Sahara, skied to the North Pole, and suffered injuries in many desolate and beautiful landscapes. He has written on travel, evolutionary biology, natural history, anthropology, and philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
Read
February 12, 2018The Jesus Inquest is without a doubt one of the most interesting books I've read in a long time. The premise is simple: present the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
I usually stay far away from books on apologetics, but this one was so original that I couldn't help myself. What makes it different is the structure that the author used. There is no convincing or proselyting in this work. The facts are presented, quite well, and the reader is left to make their own conclusion. It is the rare book that treats the reader like an intelligent, responsible adult that should be expected to draw their own conclusions based on evidence.
The book is presented as a debate between two characters: X and Y. X represents the non-Christian view, Y the Christian view. Both characters are a generalization of what non-Christians and Christians believe, specifically dealing with the resurrection. Their ideas are presented in debate form, not in conversational dialogue.
This book is well written and well researched. Both perspectives bring up issues that I had never heard discussed, which was surprising to me, because I thought I had heard every argument for and against the resurrection of Jesus that there was in the world. But Foster presented several issues that hadn't ever occurred to me. And they were shown through the lens of a lawyer, with critical eye toward what can be proven and what can't.
If you want to stretch your faith to the breaking point, this book will do it. There's also a few appendices dealing with the cause of the death of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin, and the Gospel of Peter. I can't overstate how interesting this book is. The Jesus Inquest is a classic.
I usually stay far away from books on apologetics, but this one was so original that I couldn't help myself. What makes it different is the structure that the author used. There is no convincing or proselyting in this work. The facts are presented, quite well, and the reader is left to make their own conclusion. It is the rare book that treats the reader like an intelligent, responsible adult that should be expected to draw their own conclusions based on evidence.
The book is presented as a debate between two characters: X and Y. X represents the non-Christian view, Y the Christian view. Both characters are a generalization of what non-Christians and Christians believe, specifically dealing with the resurrection. Their ideas are presented in debate form, not in conversational dialogue.
This book is well written and well researched. Both perspectives bring up issues that I had never heard discussed, which was surprising to me, because I thought I had heard every argument for and against the resurrection of Jesus that there was in the world. But Foster presented several issues that hadn't ever occurred to me. And they were shown through the lens of a lawyer, with critical eye toward what can be proven and what can't.
If you want to stretch your faith to the breaking point, this book will do it. There's also a few appendices dealing with the cause of the death of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin, and the Gospel of Peter. I can't overstate how interesting this book is. The Jesus Inquest is a classic.
March 2, 2011
This book provides a case for and against the resurrection of Christ. I have to admit, I found this book somewhat difficult to read. Not because I didn’t understand what the author was saying, but because it often annoyed me and made me think that he did not particularly think his audience was that intelligent. At least when he was X. This book took on a slight schizophrenic feel since the author was both X (against) and Y (for). At first I thought that would be an interesting way to treat the arguments, but after reading the book for a while, I found myself reading out of order. Since each chapter has subsections in it, I found myself skipping from X’s thoughts on one section to Y’s on the same section and then back to X’s.
There were some arguments made by X that I could see immediately were poor arguments. While I have studied a bit, I am not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination and was surprised to notice this. Interestingly enough, the author in his preface diminishes the work of Lee Strobel, but it was through, in part, to reading Lee Strobel’s work that I was able to pick out Mr. Foster’s X poorer arguments, arguments which were proven to be poor when Mr. Foster’s Y arguments were made. I will probably keep this book as a reference tool now that I have it, but I think there are probably better books out there for those who are looking. I would check out Lee Strobel.
There were some arguments made by X that I could see immediately were poor arguments. While I have studied a bit, I am not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination and was surprised to notice this. Interestingly enough, the author in his preface diminishes the work of Lee Strobel, but it was through, in part, to reading Lee Strobel’s work that I was able to pick out Mr. Foster’s X poorer arguments, arguments which were proven to be poor when Mr. Foster’s Y arguments were made. I will probably keep this book as a reference tool now that I have it, but I think there are probably better books out there for those who are looking. I would check out Lee Strobel.
May 27, 2024
A “BARRISTER” (LAWYER) LOOKS ANALYTICALLY AT BOTH PRO/CON ARGUMENTS
Author Charles Foster wrote in the Preface of this 2010 book, “The Christians say that Jesus rose from the dead… There are many important objections to the Christian case… I went to the Christian books for answers. I did not find what I needed. I felt that the Christians had been unfair to their opponents… To argue both sides was a big, fascinating, and worthwhile brief… I wondered what would happen if I picked up the non-Christian brief and argued it as fiercely as I could. I wondered what the end result would be and what the experience and the result would do to me. This book is a debate with myself. I was honestly not sure that the outcome would be… This has been a stern test of my objectivity, and of course I have failed it. The non-Christians will say that I have not put their case as fully and aggressively as it can be put. But I have tried; I really have… they will be more than matched in numbers … by the Christians who think that I have been pathetically equivocal in putting the Christian case and that it is demonic of men to have put the other side at all.”
He points out, “I think that there are real discrepancies between the gospel accounts. If that makes me a heretic, then I’m a heretic. I’d rather be faithful to what Scripture actually says than to some synthetic doctrine of verbal inerrancy. Efforts at harmonization seem to me to fail… The classic example relates to the number of times the cock crowed after Peter denied Jesus… I know that if I were a [lawyer] trying to establish the credibility of the various witnesses to the cock-crowing, I would love to have the witnesses disagree honestly… One of the most powerful arguments for the integrity of the early church is that they did not iron out the discrepancies… The discrepancies wholly take the wind out of the sails of those who… say that there has been significant later scribal addition to the basic texts.” (Pg. 21-22)
He observes, “The main elements of Matthew and Luke are plainly lifted straight from Mark. [A Christian] mustn’t pretend that he has for independent witnesses… Matthew’s and Luke’s dependence on Mark suggests that they had no independent tradition of the Passion in their own communities.” (Pg. 33-34)
Citing Matthew 27:52-53, he states, “‘the tombs were opened’… and many bodies of ‘the saints who had fallen asleep’ were raised… There’s not a word outside Matthew, needless to say, about this massive invasion of the dead. We’re not told what happens to them… Presumably after this … they just go obediently back and tuck themselves up in their graves to wait for the real resurrection of the dead at the end of time… Here we are plainly in the realm of fable, not fact.” (Pg. 35)
About whether John and the Synoptics disagree about whether the Last Supper took place on the Passover, he says of attempts to harmonize, “what if none of this convinces, and it has to be conceded that there is a discrepancy between John and the others?... anyone hoping for a systematic harmonization of the Gospels will be disappointed. It is impossible… [But] The discrepancies testify impressively to the integrity of the early church. They didn’t massage their sources. We can be sure that we’ve got more or less kosher documents.” (Pg. 57-58)
He acknowledges, “Earthquakes and opening tombs in Matthew. All this is, frankly, a bit of an embarrassment. I wish that Matthew hadn’t written these things. But he did, and something has to be said about it… it remains the case that the events Matthew describes in 27:51-53, as well as being without parallel in other early Christian sources, are without precedent in second-Temple expectation, and we may doubt whether stories such as this would have been invented simply to ‘fulfill’ prophecies that nobody had understood this way before. This is hardly a satisfactory conclusion, but it is better to remain puzzled than to settle for either a difficult argument for probable historicity or a cheap and cheerful rationalistic dismissal of the possibility. Some stories are so odd that they may just have happened. This may not be one of them, but in historical terms there is no way of finding out.” (Pg. 61-62)
He comments on Joseph of Arimathea, “Joseph fulfills an obvious Christian need in the Passion story … has caused some to think that Joseph is a literary creation… There are other doubts about Joseph that should bother anyone interested in the truth. Why, having been such a central player in the central act of this great drama, does he bow out so completely once Jesus is interred? We never hear of him again… We also have no real idea where Arimathea was… Look hard at Joseph, and you see nothing but mystery, contradiction, and question.” (Pg. 92-93)
He suggests, “Matthew doesn’t know where to stop. He’s an incurable lily-gilder… The [Roman] guard [at the tomb] is a blatant apologetic device… [Matthew] loves reporting conversations which he could never possibly have heard. The posting of the guard and the report of the guard contain plenty of examples. That’s fine if you set out to write fiction, but this is purporting to be reportage. If you believe Matthew, you can’t believe any of the other Gospels… If there was a guard there… how did the women expect to gain access? When the women arrive in the other gospels… the stone is already rolled back. The most ingenious harmonizers have failed to square this with Matthew’s story of the stone being rolled back as the women watch. Matthew is a festering thorn in the side of any apologist.” (Pg. 154-155)
He notes, “There is no known very early tradition of veneration of the tomb of Jesus, although tomb veneration was a very common form of religious devotion at the time. This, say the Christians, indicates that the tomb of Jesus was indeed empty: there was therefore nothing to venerate. Had he been in the tomb, they say, thousands of pilgrims would have beaten their way to his door. This contention rather flies in the face of the notion that resurrection was right at the heart of the Jesus movement, and it is wholly at odds with Christian practice ever since the supposed tomb was discovered. Go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem now: it is packed with believers…” (Pg. 165)
He explains, “All four canonical Gospels make women the first witnesses of the empty tomb…. This point has often been overstated by Christian apologists. It is not true that women could not be witnesses. They could be legal witnesses to matters within their knowledge if there was no male witness available. The gospel accounts, anyway, were not written as submissions to a court, so the legal position is rather otiose. Outside the law courts, the testimony of women was used regularly. Josephus cites women as his only witnesses on what happened inside Masada and at the battle of Gamala; Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan, says the female deacons were the highest-ranking representatives of the church that he could find to interrogate.” (Pg. 178)
He says of Paul’s account of the appearances in 1 Cor 15, “The most striking thing is how little correlation there is with the witnesses who are named in the canonical Gospels. There is, for example, no mention at all of the women… The Gospels mention no appearance to ‘more than five hundred…’: surely they would have mentioned such a dramatic appearance had it happened. Paul appears to suggest a special appearance to James; the Gospels know of no such appearance. Paul distinguishes mysteriously between an appearance to ‘the twelve’ and to ‘all the apostles’; this does not relate obviously to anything the Gospels have to say. And Paul gives a rigorous chronology: Cephas, THEN the twelve, THEN the ‘more than five hundred,’ THEN James, THEN all the apostles. This, again, is impossible to relate to the Gospels… Christian apologists are fond of saying, ‘Some of them were still alive… And Paul was suggesting that if they didn’t believe him, they could check with the witnesses themselves.’ But how realistic was this? No names were given. And even if they had been, would anyone in Corinth---the other side of a very dangerous sea---really bother to get on a boat and struggle all the way to Palestine?... It was a safe challenge for Paul to issue…” (Pg. 210)
He concludes, “The eastern Mediterranean … loved stories… But none of them claimed to be historically true in any sense whatsoever. Christianity does. It says that it is the true, prototypic myth. And the historical case for that assertion is very strong… By and large, even the most skeptical scholars agree that Jesus existed. Most presume that he met his death by crucifixion, in more or less the way described in the Gospels. All accept that attempts to harmonize every detail of the death and resurrection accounts are hopeless. Nobody emerges from a proper look at the Gospels still believing in verbal inerrancy.” (Pg. 280, 282)
While some Christian readers may find Foster’s often-sympathetic treatment of some skeptical arguments ‘off-putting,’ non-inerrantist Christians and liberal/progressive types will be greatly interested in this ultimately “faithful” book.
Author Charles Foster wrote in the Preface of this 2010 book, “The Christians say that Jesus rose from the dead… There are many important objections to the Christian case… I went to the Christian books for answers. I did not find what I needed. I felt that the Christians had been unfair to their opponents… To argue both sides was a big, fascinating, and worthwhile brief… I wondered what would happen if I picked up the non-Christian brief and argued it as fiercely as I could. I wondered what the end result would be and what the experience and the result would do to me. This book is a debate with myself. I was honestly not sure that the outcome would be… This has been a stern test of my objectivity, and of course I have failed it. The non-Christians will say that I have not put their case as fully and aggressively as it can be put. But I have tried; I really have… they will be more than matched in numbers … by the Christians who think that I have been pathetically equivocal in putting the Christian case and that it is demonic of men to have put the other side at all.”
He points out, “I think that there are real discrepancies between the gospel accounts. If that makes me a heretic, then I’m a heretic. I’d rather be faithful to what Scripture actually says than to some synthetic doctrine of verbal inerrancy. Efforts at harmonization seem to me to fail… The classic example relates to the number of times the cock crowed after Peter denied Jesus… I know that if I were a [lawyer] trying to establish the credibility of the various witnesses to the cock-crowing, I would love to have the witnesses disagree honestly… One of the most powerful arguments for the integrity of the early church is that they did not iron out the discrepancies… The discrepancies wholly take the wind out of the sails of those who… say that there has been significant later scribal addition to the basic texts.” (Pg. 21-22)
He observes, “The main elements of Matthew and Luke are plainly lifted straight from Mark. [A Christian] mustn’t pretend that he has for independent witnesses… Matthew’s and Luke’s dependence on Mark suggests that they had no independent tradition of the Passion in their own communities.” (Pg. 33-34)
Citing Matthew 27:52-53, he states, “‘the tombs were opened’… and many bodies of ‘the saints who had fallen asleep’ were raised… There’s not a word outside Matthew, needless to say, about this massive invasion of the dead. We’re not told what happens to them… Presumably after this … they just go obediently back and tuck themselves up in their graves to wait for the real resurrection of the dead at the end of time… Here we are plainly in the realm of fable, not fact.” (Pg. 35)
About whether John and the Synoptics disagree about whether the Last Supper took place on the Passover, he says of attempts to harmonize, “what if none of this convinces, and it has to be conceded that there is a discrepancy between John and the others?... anyone hoping for a systematic harmonization of the Gospels will be disappointed. It is impossible… [But] The discrepancies testify impressively to the integrity of the early church. They didn’t massage their sources. We can be sure that we’ve got more or less kosher documents.” (Pg. 57-58)
He acknowledges, “Earthquakes and opening tombs in Matthew. All this is, frankly, a bit of an embarrassment. I wish that Matthew hadn’t written these things. But he did, and something has to be said about it… it remains the case that the events Matthew describes in 27:51-53, as well as being without parallel in other early Christian sources, are without precedent in second-Temple expectation, and we may doubt whether stories such as this would have been invented simply to ‘fulfill’ prophecies that nobody had understood this way before. This is hardly a satisfactory conclusion, but it is better to remain puzzled than to settle for either a difficult argument for probable historicity or a cheap and cheerful rationalistic dismissal of the possibility. Some stories are so odd that they may just have happened. This may not be one of them, but in historical terms there is no way of finding out.” (Pg. 61-62)
He comments on Joseph of Arimathea, “Joseph fulfills an obvious Christian need in the Passion story … has caused some to think that Joseph is a literary creation… There are other doubts about Joseph that should bother anyone interested in the truth. Why, having been such a central player in the central act of this great drama, does he bow out so completely once Jesus is interred? We never hear of him again… We also have no real idea where Arimathea was… Look hard at Joseph, and you see nothing but mystery, contradiction, and question.” (Pg. 92-93)
He suggests, “Matthew doesn’t know where to stop. He’s an incurable lily-gilder… The [Roman] guard [at the tomb] is a blatant apologetic device… [Matthew] loves reporting conversations which he could never possibly have heard. The posting of the guard and the report of the guard contain plenty of examples. That’s fine if you set out to write fiction, but this is purporting to be reportage. If you believe Matthew, you can’t believe any of the other Gospels… If there was a guard there… how did the women expect to gain access? When the women arrive in the other gospels… the stone is already rolled back. The most ingenious harmonizers have failed to square this with Matthew’s story of the stone being rolled back as the women watch. Matthew is a festering thorn in the side of any apologist.” (Pg. 154-155)
He notes, “There is no known very early tradition of veneration of the tomb of Jesus, although tomb veneration was a very common form of religious devotion at the time. This, say the Christians, indicates that the tomb of Jesus was indeed empty: there was therefore nothing to venerate. Had he been in the tomb, they say, thousands of pilgrims would have beaten their way to his door. This contention rather flies in the face of the notion that resurrection was right at the heart of the Jesus movement, and it is wholly at odds with Christian practice ever since the supposed tomb was discovered. Go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem now: it is packed with believers…” (Pg. 165)
He explains, “All four canonical Gospels make women the first witnesses of the empty tomb…. This point has often been overstated by Christian apologists. It is not true that women could not be witnesses. They could be legal witnesses to matters within their knowledge if there was no male witness available. The gospel accounts, anyway, were not written as submissions to a court, so the legal position is rather otiose. Outside the law courts, the testimony of women was used regularly. Josephus cites women as his only witnesses on what happened inside Masada and at the battle of Gamala; Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan, says the female deacons were the highest-ranking representatives of the church that he could find to interrogate.” (Pg. 178)
He says of Paul’s account of the appearances in 1 Cor 15, “The most striking thing is how little correlation there is with the witnesses who are named in the canonical Gospels. There is, for example, no mention at all of the women… The Gospels mention no appearance to ‘more than five hundred…’: surely they would have mentioned such a dramatic appearance had it happened. Paul appears to suggest a special appearance to James; the Gospels know of no such appearance. Paul distinguishes mysteriously between an appearance to ‘the twelve’ and to ‘all the apostles’; this does not relate obviously to anything the Gospels have to say. And Paul gives a rigorous chronology: Cephas, THEN the twelve, THEN the ‘more than five hundred,’ THEN James, THEN all the apostles. This, again, is impossible to relate to the Gospels… Christian apologists are fond of saying, ‘Some of them were still alive… And Paul was suggesting that if they didn’t believe him, they could check with the witnesses themselves.’ But how realistic was this? No names were given. And even if they had been, would anyone in Corinth---the other side of a very dangerous sea---really bother to get on a boat and struggle all the way to Palestine?... It was a safe challenge for Paul to issue…” (Pg. 210)
He concludes, “The eastern Mediterranean … loved stories… But none of them claimed to be historically true in any sense whatsoever. Christianity does. It says that it is the true, prototypic myth. And the historical case for that assertion is very strong… By and large, even the most skeptical scholars agree that Jesus existed. Most presume that he met his death by crucifixion, in more or less the way described in the Gospels. All accept that attempts to harmonize every detail of the death and resurrection accounts are hopeless. Nobody emerges from a proper look at the Gospels still believing in verbal inerrancy.” (Pg. 280, 282)
While some Christian readers may find Foster’s often-sympathetic treatment of some skeptical arguments ‘off-putting,’ non-inerrantist Christians and liberal/progressive types will be greatly interested in this ultimately “faithful” book.
July 14, 2016
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain (1 Corinthians 15:13-14).
Throughout its existence, Christianity has been founded upon the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus did not die and/or was not raised from the dead, Christianity is just another fiction. But if Jesus did die and He was raised from the dead, then the claim that Jesus is Lord and that we ought to serve Him must be taken very seriously. Therefore, from the beginning until now, the validity of the claims of Jesus' death and resurrection have never lacked a challenger.
Charles Foster enters this fray with The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of the Christ. Foster, an English jurist, attempts to use the same rigorous mode of inquiry that is used before a court in order to weigh the arguments for and against the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The end result is one of the most comprehensive yet understandable analyses of the current state of arguments for and against Jesus' death and resurrection.
Arguments are made against the claims of Christianity through the guise of "X"; the Christian response is presented though the guise of "Y". The two sides are lined up against each other on whether Jesus really died on the cross or not, how Jesus was buried, the matter of the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, whether the early church believed in Jesus' physical and bodily resurrection, and the potential sources for the story of the resurrection. Appendices include further examinations into Jesus' cause of death, the Shroud of Turin, statistical analyses and the "Jesus Family Tomb," and the text of the Gospel of Peter.
Foster wonders if he puts the arguments of "X" forcefully enough; as a believer more sympathetic to "Y," I nevertheless believe that he has "X" and his character fairly well presented. The arguments presented are about as well done as can be, under the circumstances.
The presentation of the evidence goes a long way to show just how weak the case against Jesus' death and resurrection is-- one might be able to make a few challenges regarding the way the story is presented in the New Testament, but no credible, serious, and sensible counter-explanation can be provided to explain the emergence of the beliefs surrounding Jesus of Nazareth as the crucified and risen Son of God.
One must take care to remember that "X" is presented as a hot mess-- Foster is providing all kinds of counter-arguments, most of them inconsistent with each other. One does not do well to see the inconsistencies and thus write "X" off entirely. My one criticism of the book would be the fact that "X" will present the sensationalistic as well as the standard challenges to the Christian narrative without a whole lot of clear demarcation between the two. The claims of Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The Jesus Family Tomb do not belong in the same category as arguments about the vinegar as an opiate leading to a coma or arguments about the possibility of the wrong tomb (not that the latter are inherently any more accurate, but they are not as ridiculous). Considering the author's purpose, I don't know how it could be better handled, but I thought it was worth noting.
While Foster never comes out and says where he ultimately stands, his sympathies with "Y" are clear enough, as well they should be. The Jesus Inquest is an excellent resource for everyone, as it provides a good introduction to where the disputes about Jesus' death and resurrection have led and presents the arguments reasonably well.
*--book received as part of early review program
March 4, 2011
The Jesus Inquest by Charles Foster
The Case for and Against the Resurrection of the Christ
Charles Foster is a barrister in England (a barrister is a type of lawyer). In deciding to write about the authenticity for the death and resurrection of Christ, he decided to take an approach which felt most comfortable to him: that of a lawyer.
The Jesus Inquest is an interesting book in that it strives hard to be as objective as possible. Foster broke the book into 8 chapters, each dealing with a different element of the resurrection story. Within each chapter two viewpoints are expressed.
The first of which is person “X” who argues that against Christianity. “X” is a conglomeration of what Foster sees as the most popular elements against Christianity. So, “X” argues against Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
Person “Y” is a Christian who is arguing that the Christian Bible is true and the resurrection story can be believed. The style in which each side follows is similar in how an attorney might present a case in a court room. Thus, the arguments usually follow a rational line of thought and each side works to rebuttal each other or preemptively defend their viewpoint.
At 318 pages, this book is quite detailed in its arguments, some of which I was never aware of. It also appears to have more of a scholarly background than a book such as Lee Strobel’s A Case for Christ, and also approaches the topic with the intentions of being objective, which I appreciated. To fully understand an argument it does help to view it without the opposing view adding asides that distract.
One of the major weaknesses of the book, however, is that both “X” and “Y” have extremely similar voices, since they are written by the same author. After a chapter or two, it grows easy to foresee exactly how “Y” will rebuttal “X’s” arguments. Their arguments also follow similar structures, though their conclusions and use of data differ.
There are also many points of redundancies among arguments. Foster tries to avoid the worst of these by having “X” or “Y” note that the argument had already been covered and then include a footnote with the pages, but it is impossible to cover all redundancies, especially when one chapter concerns the burial and another the empty tomb.
All in all, this was an interesting read. Foster covers a lot of ground and I would have to say it is one of the most objective books I have read on the topic (which is a rather surprising considering it is published by a man who appears to be a Christian and it was published through a Christian publisher). It also deals with what some may see as specific points of interest, such as whether the tomb of Jesus has really been discovered or an examination of the Shroud of Turin (a section which I found particularly interesting since I have never engaged the subject before).
3/5 Stars
I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255
The Case for and Against the Resurrection of the Christ
Charles Foster is a barrister in England (a barrister is a type of lawyer). In deciding to write about the authenticity for the death and resurrection of Christ, he decided to take an approach which felt most comfortable to him: that of a lawyer.
The Jesus Inquest is an interesting book in that it strives hard to be as objective as possible. Foster broke the book into 8 chapters, each dealing with a different element of the resurrection story. Within each chapter two viewpoints are expressed.
The first of which is person “X” who argues that against Christianity. “X” is a conglomeration of what Foster sees as the most popular elements against Christianity. So, “X” argues against Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.
Person “Y” is a Christian who is arguing that the Christian Bible is true and the resurrection story can be believed. The style in which each side follows is similar in how an attorney might present a case in a court room. Thus, the arguments usually follow a rational line of thought and each side works to rebuttal each other or preemptively defend their viewpoint.
At 318 pages, this book is quite detailed in its arguments, some of which I was never aware of. It also appears to have more of a scholarly background than a book such as Lee Strobel’s A Case for Christ, and also approaches the topic with the intentions of being objective, which I appreciated. To fully understand an argument it does help to view it without the opposing view adding asides that distract.
One of the major weaknesses of the book, however, is that both “X” and “Y” have extremely similar voices, since they are written by the same author. After a chapter or two, it grows easy to foresee exactly how “Y” will rebuttal “X’s” arguments. Their arguments also follow similar structures, though their conclusions and use of data differ.
There are also many points of redundancies among arguments. Foster tries to avoid the worst of these by having “X” or “Y” note that the argument had already been covered and then include a footnote with the pages, but it is impossible to cover all redundancies, especially when one chapter concerns the burial and another the empty tomb.
All in all, this was an interesting read. Foster covers a lot of ground and I would have to say it is one of the most objective books I have read on the topic (which is a rather surprising considering it is published by a man who appears to be a Christian and it was published through a Christian publisher). It also deals with what some may see as specific points of interest, such as whether the tomb of Jesus has really been discovered or an examination of the Shroud of Turin (a section which I found particularly interesting since I have never engaged the subject before).
3/5 Stars
I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255
April 14, 2024
I found this to be a very informative and well researched book. The way Dr. Foster displays his information quite unique. His legal background is put to good use as he argues for and against the resurrection as the fictional lawyers "X" and "Y". And, the appendix materials are valuable additions to the text, as are the many, many footnotes. The author allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about the veracity of the resurrection and does a good job of trying to not insert his opinions to bias one side or the other.
I did have a couple of minor criticisms. "Y' always had the last say on each section of the argument and there was no opportunity for "X" to have a rebuttal. That seemed unfortunate and a bit unfair. Also, I think more substantial arguments could have been drawn in on behalf of "X's" position (e.g. who were the real authors of the gospels and epistles. And also, why was it not highlighted that after the apostle's expectations for a new kingdom of God in their lifetimes were dashed, they needed to find a new story for their cult to survive). On the whole, these are a bit trivial.
Appendix 4 on the Shroud of Turin was fascinating. I had not followed the more recent criticisms of earlier scientific studies on the Shroud and found this summary quite informative and thought provoking. Yes, it seems that there still are religious mysteries.
I did have a couple of minor criticisms. "Y' always had the last say on each section of the argument and there was no opportunity for "X" to have a rebuttal. That seemed unfortunate and a bit unfair. Also, I think more substantial arguments could have been drawn in on behalf of "X's" position (e.g. who were the real authors of the gospels and epistles. And also, why was it not highlighted that after the apostle's expectations for a new kingdom of God in their lifetimes were dashed, they needed to find a new story for their cult to survive). On the whole, these are a bit trivial.
Appendix 4 on the Shroud of Turin was fascinating. I had not followed the more recent criticisms of earlier scientific studies on the Shroud and found this summary quite informative and thought provoking. Yes, it seems that there still are religious mysteries.
June 24, 2019
Overall a fascinating read. I wish the author took more of a stand however as it was hard to discern an "opinion" either way. I'm not sure I was crazy about the courtroom "X" says this and "Y" said that style. It was a little bit too cute. I would have preferred: "in favor of" ... or "speaking against the resurrection..." style. The X and Y viewpoints made it feel somewhat contrived and I sometimes forgot (after putting the book down for a while) which one was supposed to be which. But having said that the research is meticulous with the bibliography and references being almost as interesting as the book itself. I'd like to see something along the lines of: "Clearly this guy existed so what the heck was going on with this resurrection stuff? And why did he choose a bunch of blue-collar" locals to build a new religion rather than some carefully chosen Navy Seal with academic chops? Those are the questions I would love to see answered.
November 4, 2024
Foster juxtoposes the gospels, advocates for both sides of the debate, presents their inconsistencies, critiques both sides. Some repetiion. Some tedium when he presents quotes of all four gospels relating to the question at hand. He takes myths, legends and debunks those most egregiously fradulent such as the church in France where Jesus is supposed to have spent his last days married to Mary Magdelene. He devouts significant space to those issues most deserving. The tomb outside Jeruselum where the tomb of Jesus and his family were ostensibly discovered. The pros and cons are presented. His appendix is superlative, especially the one on The Shroud. Being trained in medical ethics and practice, he has special qualifications. Worth reading, imo.
March 23, 2011
As Easter approaches, the thoughts of many, Christian and non-Christian alike, naturally turn to Christ's resurrection. The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of the Christ is an intriguing read for all.
The author, Charles Foster, a barrister (trial lawyer) and tutor of medical ethics at Oxford University, was dissatisfied with the books on the subject of Christ's resurrection available. For the most part, he didn't find their arguments adequate. He wanted to ask the tough questions and not gloss over the difficulties with the Gospel accounts and historical evidence, so he decided to do his own investigation and write a book that tackled those issues head on.
Using a courtroom format, Foster presents the case both for and against the resurrection. First X presents the case against, then Y presents the case for. Each argument is cross-referenced to the opposing argument so you can quickly turn to see the corresponding evidence for each side. He chose to use this format rather than inviting another person to represent the opposing case so that he could provide a more complete survey of the evidence. As he puts it:
"...there is no one who believes every single one of the possible objections to the Christian case. It is not logically possible. No one can believe, for instance, both that Jesus survived the cross and walked to India, and that he died in Jerusalem and was eaten by jackals on the municipal garbage tip." (xii)
By doing it this way, he's able to explore multiple different objections and theories. He feels confident that he competently represented the evidence against the resurrection:
"I am a barrister (a trial lawyer if you're in the U.S.): I am in the business of trying to prove things and convince people. I'm an intellectual prostitute, used to standing on metaphorical street corners with my gown hitched up, plying my mind and my mouth on behalf of whoever will pay. I am used to arguing points I find personally offensive. I find that I am more diligent in preparing and arguing those points than I am when I am arguing points with which I instinctively agree. That is a common experience among advocates: we are so worried that our own prejudices will get in the way that we overcompensate. I found that with this book. Anyway, I wondered what would happen if I picked up the non-Christian brief and argued it as fiercely as I could. I wondered what the end result would be and what the experience and the result would do to me." (xi)
I think Foster argues both sides quite convincingly! It really wasn't clear which one he comes down on until the epilogue. I definitely found myself squirming a bit at some of X's evidence. I think that paradigms on both sides of the issue will be shaken by the strong assertions and evidence presented here, and his dry British wit and thorough arguments make for absorbing and interesting reading. If you enjoy courtroom dramas or archeological mysteries, you'll enjoy this book.
We shouldn't be afraid to have our beliefs challenged or think we need to have pat answers for everything. As Foster says:
"I've learned that people like neat summaries. They tend to skim straight to the bottom line. I think that's depressing. I want people to learn to live with loose ends dangling. Life is messy, and so is history. I want people to make up their own minds, not have the conclusions spoon-fed to them. A spoon-fed conclusion isn't a conclusion worth having." (xii)
In the end, I feel like my belief in Christ's resurrection was strengthened by reading The Jesus Inquest. On the one hand, I have a better grasp of the arguments against it, and on the other, I have a more realistic view of some of the popular "proofs" for it. The answers aren't always as clear-cut as we'd like to make them, and it's okay to admit that.
I have one minor complaint to mention about the book's format: the fact that the notes are at the end rather than as footnotes. As you can imagine, there are copious notes, many with interesting further information. I kept a bookmark in the notes so I could flip back and forth easily, but it would've been so much simpler if they'd been in footnotes so they were easily accessible.
In closing, I want to share one of my favorite quotes from the book. This is from the chapter that addresses the issue of the similarity of certain aspects of Christianity to other ancient mythologies and religions. While speaking for the Christian side, Y says this:
"Christianity is a myth. But it is a true myth. It is not surprising that there are echoes of the Christian truths in the great myths of the world. As human beings grope toward the truth, they don't get nowhere; they get somewhere. As they strain their ears for divine music, they get faint, distant, broken melodies. But then Christianity comes, and suddenly the melodies are all there, played so clearly and so sweetly that it breaks the heart. For many of the listeners, the response will be: 'I've heard something like that before; I've been looking for this all my life.' That is why the ancient myths of men and the True Myth sometimes sound alike." (p. 278)
I found The Jesus Inquest to be a compelling and enlightening read. I highly recommend it!
Thanks so much to Thomas Nelson for the review copy of this book. All opinions expressed are my own.
Read more: http://homewithpurpose.blogspot.com/2...
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
The author, Charles Foster, a barrister (trial lawyer) and tutor of medical ethics at Oxford University, was dissatisfied with the books on the subject of Christ's resurrection available. For the most part, he didn't find their arguments adequate. He wanted to ask the tough questions and not gloss over the difficulties with the Gospel accounts and historical evidence, so he decided to do his own investigation and write a book that tackled those issues head on.
Using a courtroom format, Foster presents the case both for and against the resurrection. First X presents the case against, then Y presents the case for. Each argument is cross-referenced to the opposing argument so you can quickly turn to see the corresponding evidence for each side. He chose to use this format rather than inviting another person to represent the opposing case so that he could provide a more complete survey of the evidence. As he puts it:
"...there is no one who believes every single one of the possible objections to the Christian case. It is not logically possible. No one can believe, for instance, both that Jesus survived the cross and walked to India, and that he died in Jerusalem and was eaten by jackals on the municipal garbage tip." (xii)
By doing it this way, he's able to explore multiple different objections and theories. He feels confident that he competently represented the evidence against the resurrection:
"I am a barrister (a trial lawyer if you're in the U.S.): I am in the business of trying to prove things and convince people. I'm an intellectual prostitute, used to standing on metaphorical street corners with my gown hitched up, plying my mind and my mouth on behalf of whoever will pay. I am used to arguing points I find personally offensive. I find that I am more diligent in preparing and arguing those points than I am when I am arguing points with which I instinctively agree. That is a common experience among advocates: we are so worried that our own prejudices will get in the way that we overcompensate. I found that with this book. Anyway, I wondered what would happen if I picked up the non-Christian brief and argued it as fiercely as I could. I wondered what the end result would be and what the experience and the result would do to me." (xi)
I think Foster argues both sides quite convincingly! It really wasn't clear which one he comes down on until the epilogue. I definitely found myself squirming a bit at some of X's evidence. I think that paradigms on both sides of the issue will be shaken by the strong assertions and evidence presented here, and his dry British wit and thorough arguments make for absorbing and interesting reading. If you enjoy courtroom dramas or archeological mysteries, you'll enjoy this book.
We shouldn't be afraid to have our beliefs challenged or think we need to have pat answers for everything. As Foster says:
"I've learned that people like neat summaries. They tend to skim straight to the bottom line. I think that's depressing. I want people to learn to live with loose ends dangling. Life is messy, and so is history. I want people to make up their own minds, not have the conclusions spoon-fed to them. A spoon-fed conclusion isn't a conclusion worth having." (xii)
In the end, I feel like my belief in Christ's resurrection was strengthened by reading The Jesus Inquest. On the one hand, I have a better grasp of the arguments against it, and on the other, I have a more realistic view of some of the popular "proofs" for it. The answers aren't always as clear-cut as we'd like to make them, and it's okay to admit that.
I have one minor complaint to mention about the book's format: the fact that the notes are at the end rather than as footnotes. As you can imagine, there are copious notes, many with interesting further information. I kept a bookmark in the notes so I could flip back and forth easily, but it would've been so much simpler if they'd been in footnotes so they were easily accessible.
In closing, I want to share one of my favorite quotes from the book. This is from the chapter that addresses the issue of the similarity of certain aspects of Christianity to other ancient mythologies and religions. While speaking for the Christian side, Y says this:
"Christianity is a myth. But it is a true myth. It is not surprising that there are echoes of the Christian truths in the great myths of the world. As human beings grope toward the truth, they don't get nowhere; they get somewhere. As they strain their ears for divine music, they get faint, distant, broken melodies. But then Christianity comes, and suddenly the melodies are all there, played so clearly and so sweetly that it breaks the heart. For many of the listeners, the response will be: 'I've heard something like that before; I've been looking for this all my life.' That is why the ancient myths of men and the True Myth sometimes sound alike." (p. 278)
I found The Jesus Inquest to be a compelling and enlightening read. I highly recommend it!
Thanks so much to Thomas Nelson for the review copy of this book. All opinions expressed are my own.
Read more: http://homewithpurpose.blogspot.com/2...
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
January 8, 2011
The ages old controversy of whether Jesus Christ truly died on the cross was buried and resurrected is looked at through the eyes of a attorney with both sides given complete consideration in The Jesus Inquest- The Case For And Against The Resurrection Of The Christ by Charles Foster. Charles Foster, a lawyer, explorer, and medical ethics professor at the University of Oxford has fairly treated both sides of this age old question that so many of us ask ourselves "Could It Be True? or "Was It All A Hoax"?
Using a complete resources guide from historical records and archeological discoveries made recently Charles Foster has examined all the facts in the minutest detail and come up with his own conclusion. He may be the only man who could have treated both sides equally.
I will say that The Jesus Inquest is not an easy book to read no matter what side of the fence you claim to support, but that is the nature of reading material from an attorney. The flow tends to go back and forth and I would have preferred that the illustrations and photos were aligned with the topics they were discussing rather than in the center of the book, but alas that was not the case.
I myself found the book fascinating to read and learned a few things that I was not aware of. Of course with a topic of this explosive nature you are sure to have new claims come to the forefront all the time. As a believer I didn't need to read it, but as a believer I wanted to read all I can get my hands on as well. For those who aren't believers you may find some interesting facts reside within these pages that may or may not change your mind. The point is to be aware of everything before you make a claim on a position in one way or another. The Jesus Inquest will give you that knowledge and I hope you'll give it a serious consideration to reading what's contained within these wonderful pages.
I would love to go along with him on one of his many research quests! How exciting that would be! You'll find The Jesus Inquest - The Case For And Against The Resurrection Of The Christ by Charles Foster; Thomas Nelson Publishers at Amazon or at Barnes & Noble.
January 13, 2011
The Jesus Inquest by Charles Foster
Thomas Nelson, 2010
262 pages
Non-fiction; Christian
Read for ebook and British Books Challenges
4/5 stars
Source: Received a free egalley from Thomas Nelson via booksneeze.com in exchange for an honest review.
I hope I can review this book well because I am a very amateur scholar of Christianity. Additionally I am a Christian so arguments against the resurrection do not sway me although I was very interested to read what the specific arguments were against.
Each chapter is divided into two parts as X argues against the resurrection and Y follows up with a rebuttal in favor of the resurrection. Foster is a barrister in England and thought that this method would serve as a chance for X and Y to interact fairly.
The chapters trace the full resurrection sequence: death, burial, empty tomb, and post-resurrection appearances. Each calmly argues his position, which is one of the best parts. I feel like if you watched a debate between a diehard atheist and a true believer, it could get virulent but as a book, it was more low-key and I had time to digest and consult the footnotes.
I was very interested to see the points against the resurrection because as a believer, it's not something I really consider. Some of the arguments seemed ridiculous to me, ideas that were conspiracy theories and were complicated unlike the simplest solution (to me) of Jesus died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven. The story is simple because it's true.
Overall: A well-written exploration of the resurrection: for and against the rising of Jesus Christ. Recommended for the curious non-believer and believer alike.
Cover: I don't think this cover would encourage me to read this book as I don't really like the black and white with the yellow box on the front.
Thomas Nelson, 2010
262 pages
Non-fiction; Christian
Read for ebook and British Books Challenges
4/5 stars
Source: Received a free egalley from Thomas Nelson via booksneeze.com in exchange for an honest review.
I hope I can review this book well because I am a very amateur scholar of Christianity. Additionally I am a Christian so arguments against the resurrection do not sway me although I was very interested to read what the specific arguments were against.
Each chapter is divided into two parts as X argues against the resurrection and Y follows up with a rebuttal in favor of the resurrection. Foster is a barrister in England and thought that this method would serve as a chance for X and Y to interact fairly.
The chapters trace the full resurrection sequence: death, burial, empty tomb, and post-resurrection appearances. Each calmly argues his position, which is one of the best parts. I feel like if you watched a debate between a diehard atheist and a true believer, it could get virulent but as a book, it was more low-key and I had time to digest and consult the footnotes.
I was very interested to see the points against the resurrection because as a believer, it's not something I really consider. Some of the arguments seemed ridiculous to me, ideas that were conspiracy theories and were complicated unlike the simplest solution (to me) of Jesus died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven. The story is simple because it's true.
Overall: A well-written exploration of the resurrection: for and against the rising of Jesus Christ. Recommended for the curious non-believer and believer alike.
Cover: I don't think this cover would encourage me to read this book as I don't really like the black and white with the yellow box on the front.
January 16, 2011
I was curious to read what “evidence” author Charles Foster found both for and against the possibility of the resurrection of Christ.
Let me say up front that I am a Christian, an as such, have never questioned the possibility of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, after reading the short blurb about the contents of this book, my curiosity was along the lines of what arguments one could come up with against the resurrection. Therefore, I was not an opened-minded reader and having already decided on what I believe, there was no chance of “converting” my beliefs on this issue.
What I liked about this book was that the author offers arguments both for and against the resurrection…and I felt he did a good job trying to represent both points of view. That is not an easy task, especially if one already holds a belief, which this author seems to have held.
The premise that because the gospels don’t agree fact for fact about the occurrences leading up to Christ’s trial and the crucifixion and resurrection doesn’t surprise me nor instill any doubts. I understand that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were individuals and saw the occurrences with individual eyes, thoughts, ponderings, and viewpoints. So it naturally would occur that the gospels aren’t in complete and total agreement. The truth is that the basic information is the same among these books in the Bible, and I attribute any differences to the fact of the authors’ individuality.
It was an interesting read, although much of the time, the terminology was unfamiliar or “above my head.” I imagine a theologian wouldn’t have had the problems of slogging through a reading of this book as I did. I struggled to complete it.
Let me say up front that I am a Christian, an as such, have never questioned the possibility of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, after reading the short blurb about the contents of this book, my curiosity was along the lines of what arguments one could come up with against the resurrection. Therefore, I was not an opened-minded reader and having already decided on what I believe, there was no chance of “converting” my beliefs on this issue.
What I liked about this book was that the author offers arguments both for and against the resurrection…and I felt he did a good job trying to represent both points of view. That is not an easy task, especially if one already holds a belief, which this author seems to have held.
The premise that because the gospels don’t agree fact for fact about the occurrences leading up to Christ’s trial and the crucifixion and resurrection doesn’t surprise me nor instill any doubts. I understand that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were individuals and saw the occurrences with individual eyes, thoughts, ponderings, and viewpoints. So it naturally would occur that the gospels aren’t in complete and total agreement. The truth is that the basic information is the same among these books in the Bible, and I attribute any differences to the fact of the authors’ individuality.
It was an interesting read, although much of the time, the terminology was unfamiliar or “above my head.” I imagine a theologian wouldn’t have had the problems of slogging through a reading of this book as I did. I struggled to complete it.
February 3, 2011
I have just completed reading the "The Jesus Inquest", by Charles Foster. Foster has taken great strides to allow the reader to examine the Resurrection of Christ, debate. this text looks at both sides of the resurrection argument, and Foster utilizes Mr. X and Mr. Y to debate the sides. This text provides for many arguments on both sides of the debate and as a reader of this text, it only left me with a more convincing argument for the actual resurrection of Christ.
As I turned the pages and read the arguments for and against, I placed myself, or at least tried to place my self in the middle of the time. By dong so, I am convinced that the Bible is a true depiction of the events. In many cases both Mr. X and Mr. Y agree on points and in some cases agree to disagree. Also many skeptics and scholars alike agree that Christ did indeed exist. Where they differ is how He disappeared from the tomb. Obviously, the skeptics say that Christ's body to taken away by His disciples, the argument for the resurrection points towards the guards and the heaviness of the stone which covered the entrance to the tomb.
For most, this book will not change the minds of its readers, except that by faith and the teachings of the Bible, can Christians believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
Thank you Charles Foster for your study and expertise in putting this book together. It is a wonderful addition to a Christian Library with compelling arguments.
As I turned the pages and read the arguments for and against, I placed myself, or at least tried to place my self in the middle of the time. By dong so, I am convinced that the Bible is a true depiction of the events. In many cases both Mr. X and Mr. Y agree on points and in some cases agree to disagree. Also many skeptics and scholars alike agree that Christ did indeed exist. Where they differ is how He disappeared from the tomb. Obviously, the skeptics say that Christ's body to taken away by His disciples, the argument for the resurrection points towards the guards and the heaviness of the stone which covered the entrance to the tomb.
For most, this book will not change the minds of its readers, except that by faith and the teachings of the Bible, can Christians believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
Thank you Charles Foster for your study and expertise in putting this book together. It is a wonderful addition to a Christian Library with compelling arguments.
June 18, 2012
People have been discussing the resurrection of Jesus Christ for some time now. If you have, you have probably heard some very interesting and intelligent statements and you might have heard some that created the “?” to pop up over your head. Charles Foster is a barrister, the British version of an American lawyer and he seems to have a pretty good idea of how to argue a case from both sides.
In the very beginning of the book, he tells you that he will give the arguments concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ from both sides. He calls them X and Y. It seems as though he has amassed every fact possible for both the prosecution as well as the defense.
Each chapter contained both a representation from the prosecution against the resurrection and a defense of the resurrection. Both sides were presented well and gave us a valid view of both ways of thinking. This book should go into your library for further study if needed but be prepared to have your views shaken.
Booksneeze has supplied me with a copy of this book in return for my review.
In the very beginning of the book, he tells you that he will give the arguments concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ from both sides. He calls them X and Y. It seems as though he has amassed every fact possible for both the prosecution as well as the defense.
Each chapter contained both a representation from the prosecution against the resurrection and a defense of the resurrection. Both sides were presented well and gave us a valid view of both ways of thinking. This book should go into your library for further study if needed but be prepared to have your views shaken.
Booksneeze has supplied me with a copy of this book in return for my review.
February 17, 2011
In this book, The Jesus Inquest, author Charles Foster presents both sides of the debate for and against the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as both barrister X and Y. In the end he is more convinced that Jesus is real, that He did rise again, and that Jesus lives to offer forgiveness and hope to all who come to Him.
Interesting as the challenges were, I was not looking for, nor did this book do anything to challenge my faith - as I have a strong belief in my faith. However, it did reawaken questions I already harbored. The reason this particular book did not hold my attention as I had wished, was simple - I found it to be somewhat too clinical in nature, which would be perhaps more beneficial for someone involved in biblical studies. Read more...http://chrystalcorner.blogspot.com/20...
Interesting as the challenges were, I was not looking for, nor did this book do anything to challenge my faith - as I have a strong belief in my faith. However, it did reawaken questions I already harbored. The reason this particular book did not hold my attention as I had wished, was simple - I found it to be somewhat too clinical in nature, which would be perhaps more beneficial for someone involved in biblical studies. Read more...http://chrystalcorner.blogspot.com/20...
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews