# scientific proof of Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335 "2005-04-02T00:41:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![moveme17](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@moveme17](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moveme17)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/1 "2005-04-02T00:41:52Z")
after reading the mormon authenticity piece, I thought I’d offer the title of a book written by a former writer for the Chicago Tribune, and his 2 year search and findings trying to prove/disprove that Jesus was and is who He claimed to be. It’s called “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel. He always has a background in law, so his methods are very logical. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/2 "2005-04-02T01:39:54Z")
Oh, OK I’ll bite … Has anyone amoungst the teeming millions \*ever \*used the words “lawyer” and scientific proof" in the same sentence? ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/3 "2005-04-02T01:46:31Z")
> [@moveme17](#): > > He… has a background in law So did the Pharisees. I’m familiar with this book, so maybe I can save some folks some trouble. If you’re already a believer, this book could help you further reinforce or justify your belief. If you’re not a believer, and are looking for real evidence, skip this piece of work and stick with books by archaeologists, Biblical scholars, and other people who know what they’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/4 "2005-04-02T01:52:35Z")
[One review of the book](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/5 "2005-04-02T02:36:16Z")
The review states “there is at least one other, non-ad hoc alternative explanation besides Jesus’ resurrection” for “alleged post-mortem sightings of Jesus” other than “legend and the hallucination theory.” The footnote is: See, for example, the explanation proposed by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti in their forthcoming book, Double Cross: A Logical Approach to the Mystery of Easter. But I can’t find any evidence that this book was ever published. Does anyone know what this alternative explanation might be? ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/6 "2005-04-02T02:47:04Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > The footnote is: See, for example, the explanation proposed by Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti in their forthcoming book, Double Cross: A Logical Approach to the Mystery of Easter. > > But I can’t find any evidence that this book was ever published. > > Does anyone know what this alternative explanation might be? According to the latest word I can find from Cavin, the book still isn’t published. I don’t know if it’s not yet complete, or held up by the publisher, or what. However, you might try this source, if you can find it: “A Logical Analysis and Critique of the Historical Argument for the Revivification of Jesus”, paper presented at the 1995 Pacific Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association, by Robert Greg Cavin You’ll likely find a synopsis of an early version of the idea there. I would expect that the paper was published in the proceedings. However, I don’t know where you would find a copy, as these are usually only printed in large enough runs to meet the demand of those in attendance. The organization’s Web site does not go back farther than '97. Perhaps the member areas do, but I’m not a member. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/7 "2005-04-02T02:56:16Z")
Apparently, Cavin’s theory involves a Jesus twin. I can’t tell at the moment whether he proposes this in seriousness, or if he is attempting to demonstrate hypothetically that such a theory would be more probable than the hallucination or resurrection theories. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/8 "2005-04-02T06:49:33Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > Apparently, Cavin’s theory involves a Jesus twin. > > I can’t tell at the moment whether he proposes this in seriousness, or if he is attempting to demonstrate hypothetically that such a theory would be more probable than the hallucination or resurrection theories. But Jesus did not look like himself; maybe it was a fraternal twin. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/9 "2005-04-02T13:02:42Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > But Jesus did not look like himself; maybe it was a fraternal twin. A fraternal twin who was into piercings. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/10 "2005-04-02T14:24:36Z")
Although this thread was presumably started by a reference to the Staff Report on [Straight Dope Staff Report: What’s up with Mormonism?](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmormon.html), there’s no connection that I can discern between proof of the existence of Jesus and the origins of the LDS. Consequently, I’m moving this from Comments on Staff Reports to the Great Debates forum. And I’m changing the title slightly to make it more meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/11 "2005-04-02T17:09:47Z")
> [@Sample\_the\_Dog](#): > > Apparently, Cavin’s theory involves a Jesus twin. > > I can’t tell at the moment whether he proposes this in seriousness, or if he is attempting to demonstrate hypothetically that such a theory would be more probable than the hallucination or resurrection theories. Ah. Technically possible, but disappointing as an answer. Thanks for looking it up. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/12 "2005-04-02T17:13:51Z")
> [@moveme17](#): > > He always has a background in law, so his methods are very logical. ?? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/13 "2005-04-02T19:26:38Z")
We do have proof. \*\*John W. Kennedy \*\* tells us: > [@](#): > > No. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus actually existed. What you really mean is, “If we exclude all the evidence that Jesus existed, then there is no evidence that Jesus existed,” the same argument that lunatics use every day to try to prove that Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays. in this [Thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6013872#post6013872). He doesn’t say what that proof is, but there seems to be plenty of it… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/14 "2005-04-02T23:12:29Z")
We have better proof. Cecil sez so. 'Nuff said, case closed. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/15 "2005-04-02T23:48:55Z")
> [@moveme17](#): > > It’s called “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel. He always has a background in law, so his methods are very logical. It’s been a while since I read it, but I found it to be very transparent and easy to debunk. It’s not going to sway anybody who isn’t determined to believe. I thought that “The Evidence that Demands a Verdict” (which I read at about the same time) was better at avoiding “evidence” that could easily be demolished with just a little logic. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/16 "2005-04-02T23:55:16Z")
Like I said, it’s been a while, but here’s the jist of the book based on my recollection: “I went to see Dr. Mary Christian. She said that _yada, yada, yada_. Well, I was convinced.” (Everything after this is based on the assumption that this point has been proved, and need not be addressed anymore.) He continues throughout the book building his “case” thusly. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/17 "2005-04-03T00:24:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > We have better proof. Cecil sez so. 'Nuff said, case closed. 😛 😃 Fair enough. I’ve taken his word on most other things. In truth, I think it likely he did exist. But I am not able to prove it to my satisfaction. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/18 "2005-04-03T17:57:48Z")
Strobel is a hack lay apologist and evangelist with no background as a historian or a Bible scholar. His books are almost childishly easy to debunk. By the way, there is no genuine historical evidence that a single person ever claimed to have seen a physically resurrected Jesus so there’s no reason to speculate about explanations for events that cannot be proven to have ever occurred. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/19 "2005-04-23T07:35:40Z")
Strobel’s “case” was thoroughly but respectfully debunked by Earl Doherty in his book: _Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”._ See also Doherty’s exceptional book and website:[Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle](http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm) ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335/20 "2005-04-23T14:17:16Z")
Decent argumentation by Strobel, but no proof & little “evidence”. Strobel & McDowell are easy to refute in terms of proof/evidence. They do make decent reasons as to the validity of the Christian faith. Essentially, their best service is to show that Christian faith is not irrational and anti-factual. Somewhat better is Ian Wilson’s JESUS: THE EVIDENCE. I’d recommend that for a seeker/skeptic. Strobel & McDowell are more for Christians who need some reassurance. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-of-jesus/297335.md?page=2)