The Jesus Inquest: The case for and against the Resurrection of the
Christ
Charles Foster – Author
Thomas Nelson – Publisher
How does one prove the resurrection of Jesus
Christ, an event that happened (or did not happen) 2000+ years ago? Would there
be sufficient evidence to warrant either or case?
That was what I wondered when
I saw the book’s cover. So, as interesting topics go… this one hooked me from
the start.
One of Charles Foster’s (the author) many talents, aside
from being a great writer, is the fact that he is a Barrister, and he uses his legalistic-honed skills of cross-referencing, research and logical reasoning in a challenging
manner – both to take on the cudgels of the Pro- resurrection stance and the
Con-resurrection stance. If you’re
anything like me, the typical Christian/Catholic, you’d think this was a
foregone conclusion… that the story of the Resurrection lies on sound
historical foundations. Foster argues that such may not be the case – taking
the current debate issues as ‘X’.
Why focus on the Resurrection? It is what makes the life of Jesus the Messiah unique. Prove it's a well crafted institutional lie, and the Catholic belief will come crashing down like a highly stacked deck of cards.
In his arguments as 'X', Charles delves in a multi-pronged
attack – using biblical references, research, archaeological discoveries and
inferences to prove his points. He painstakingly explains his facts and evidences. A warning to anyone considering reading the book… these arguments
can be persuasive - so much so, that one may begin to wonder (or wander like lost sheep).
But here’s the good part… Foster then takes
the side of ‘Y’ – and defends the Resurrection story, tacking the issues raised by ‘X’
point for point, using similar biblical references, archaeological discoveries
and inferences. Here he argues or raises counterpoints to the facts, proving certain flaws in 'X's viewpoint.
All in all, this turns out to be a seemingly dramatic legal case happening in front of the reader - no mean feats when you consider that many of the personalities (witnesses called) involved have been long gone – and we are simply left with their writings, and for the most part - how we could interpret their works. More importantly, Charles does this without compromising either viewpoint, as expected of any Barrister.
I won’t spoil the experience for you. Instead
I’ll simply say that as a reader, I was left thinking, wondering and reflecting
in between chapters. At times, I admit to being lost in the arguments – wishing for illustrations or idiot boards. Foster’s
work, after all, comes with a lot of history… and for me, it came across as a crash course on Religious
points and counterpoints.
Despite this, our author starts his book with an apology; stating that he may
have not gone far enough when presenting one side or the other – and it would
be a curious matter to think 'what would a more zealous debater bring to the
table?' What would this debater do differently? What indeed?
I’m sorely tempted to recommend
this book to people I know advocating one side or the other, then make them meet and watch the sparks fly. I would possibly pay to see a
continuation of of this debate. Goes to show you how Foster’s book as ignited such curiosity and interest in me.
As for my belief… it remains steadfast. If
anything, I could adapt some of Charles’ stance or reasoning, should I find
myself in a similar debate. Funny thing is… likewise thanks to Charles, I can
also play the – 'ahem'… Devil’s advocate.
Overall, this was a great book… a must read – but be warned, it’s
not light or easy reading.
I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com
Comments