Sorry to break it for you but his book is horrible. He might have claimed he is a skeptic but he committed so many fallacies in his arguments I highly doubt he even knows what skepticism means. You want to watch a great review of Lee Strobel's fallacious reasoning? See links below.

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60-eK5sfwk

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IFMreGfj6U

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AaSHcFNkiE

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78dpoH3Zp_0

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jNsFFb5o1A

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNQWBwxEDHg

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH3FtRsgmm4

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVldwmg5Uek

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUtO8b-_Ea0

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdO7-daTKg

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKRXFovrnhk

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B9wzHcD_mM

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtwlBdlNJLo

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOrlXvV06ng

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk5IFRK3jzs

An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Conclusion
http://youtu.be/1qQ3U-YURag

People don't know that there is something more outside of themselves and their own lives. People want to dream about better lives , fantasy stories happening to us ,etc. Did does not mean that just because we love to dream and create fantasy worlds that those words must exist or do exist. I left Christianity and don't miss it at all what does that mean? You're not trying to argue that some subjective feeling someone experienced when they joined Christian church is some type of evidence for the existence of your God, are you?

OP is going to clarify these question so I thought it would be a good place to ask them. If I had a convincing source I wouldn't need to ask. Do you have a convincing source that he didn't smoke weed daily?

burden of proof? you either came up with this idea or heard it, only two options. So where did you hear it? If you came up with it, why are you putting the burden of proof on OP, other than trying to prove the very point of where the burden of proof should lie?

If so, a simple fairy in a teacup would have sufficed.

I can't believe both sides of any argument in this forum haven't realized that burden of proof is futile.

Its just like when one of you says prove it, and someone puts up a study. Then the studied is discredited, picked apart, slandered, refuted with other studies etc (other studies that themselves are subject to the same destructive skepticism). Does that really lead anywhere? Is there any study that we cannot do this too?

Burden of proof? Prove moses spread water, prove Jesus healed people, or even existed. There is no such thing as burden of proof and regs in the off topic section should really have realized that by now.

AAAAAAAnnnyways, I don't need burden of proof because I didn't come here with a thesis, I'm asking OP to clarify as they so graciously offered to do.

Edit: also if burden of proof needed to be invoked here it would be no more on me than on someone who felt Jesus never smoked any weed.

I think you make a valid point that bickering over burden of proof leads nowhere. You also seem to not grasp the very basic concept of on whom it lies, seeing as every statement you make is in oposition to it. Burden of proof lies on one who makes a claim. Therefore, prove all biblical claims? yes. Prove the counter to your claim? no, you made the claim. burden on you.

But this is not the spirit of the thread just an aside. Asking what OP believes about X is what he offered to do, so yeah take him up on it.

Without a convincing source you have no reason to ask because there is nothing to suggest that he did.

I don't need a convincing source to discard an assertion that he smoked weed every day, because the assertion that he smoked weed every day has no evidence to support it.

By this logic if I stated Jesus didn't smoke weed, that would prove he did, and it would be my burden to prove that he didn't.

Burden of proof is a tool cynics use to destroy proper communication and inquiry. Nothing can be proven, the cynic knows that.

IMO the proper position to hold when lacking any evidence in either direction is to just admit we don't know if Jesus smoked weed. You saying that he didn't doesn't as you say, prove he did.

Amen.

I think Marijuana originated out of China substantially predating Jesus' life. I don't know if he smoked marijuana, but I don't know of any evidence for or against.

Following the life of Jesus Christianity spread from Jerusalem throughout the surrounding countries. As Christianity increased in popularity several countries adopted Christianity as their state religion, including the Roman Empire. This is where things get sketchy (morally not historically). Many leaders used Christianity to carry out their own ends and political goals. Christianity was never meant to be a political force. This is evident in the life and example of Jesus himself. Jesus allowed himself to be murdered on the cross and made no effort to usurp religous authority or political authority during his life.

People who used Christianity to gain power and acheive political goals were Anti-Christian if we really look at what Jesus taught and lived.

Another huge turning point for Christianity was the Reformation. You can watch the 2003 movie "Luther" to get a rough idea of what this was about if you don't already know. Luther spear headed a movement away from the Catholic Church toward biblically based Christianity which laid the ground work for all Evangelical Christians today.

Christian history is a really interesting topic to get into I just don't know how much detail we should get into here. Tons of cool sources online if you want to read up no it. Even the wikepedia article is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

One argument that really interests me is the story of the 12 Apostles (followers) of Christ. Most of the closest followers of Christ were martyred or killed for their faith and preaching about Jesus (authenticity and historical support vary from apostle to apostle). Why would these men give their lives for a lie? Not just a lie but ideas that would be so unjewish and contrary to the prevailing religion/culture and thought of that time.
I will cite wikepedia not because its a great scholarly source but because it is neutral and I prefer it than citing a Christian source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)
scroll down to:
3.6 Deaths of the twelve apostles

I was wondering if there was anything against it but I was pretty sure there wasn't. I think with zero evidence for each side we need to assume that he smoked it. Hash and hemp was probably crazy abundant back then and with a lack of mass pharmaceuticals that we have today, weed would be the free go to plant to cure all types of ailments (pain, blood pressure, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, etc.). Also it fits Jesus and his friends personality as being chill good hearted and freethinking. I think we can all agree he tried it and he inhaled. So the likely explanation is that they left it out of the testimonies so people in the future wouldn't be able to suggest that he was just hallucinating and a stoner.

Yes and this is partly why I asked about the Jesus hating Christians thing. Even a pastor has more claimed authority than Jesus ever did. I've only heard of one man who claims zero authority and his name is J Krishnamurti. He was rumored to be the 2nd (3rd) coming of Christ, but he denounced this claim and all authority as well.

I agree, but I think you'll notice that is all its ever been used for, and thats all it can be used for. In other words, Jesus didn't use Christianity.

Yes I know what you are referring to, I didn't know the name 'reformation' though. That name is to big, broad, and emotional. The reformation wasn't total and this wasn't the year that Christianity's suppressive reign was lifted because the world was still yet to experience the destruction of the Mayans and Native cultures of the Americas in the name of Christ (India suffered the same fate).

I was hoping we could pin point the years in which the suppression started and ended but I appreciate the info.

How about the question about Moses damning off the nile?

WTF no.

The proper response when lacking any evidence is to say "There is zero evidence to support this conclusion" not "We don't know".

This is pedantic.

Saying "we don't know" isn't a sneaky way of saying "but hey it's possible amirite?! wink wink nudge nudge." The fact that we don't know directly implies some insufficiency of evidence. We have no evidence to suggest Jesus was either taller or shorter than 5 foot 5, so if faced with the question "Was Jesus taller than 5 foot 5" an adult can comfortably say "we don't know" and it's not some "wtf" answer. Same goes for the question "did Jesus smoke weed."

Please provide a single piece of historical evidence that the apostles died for their beliefs.

And as an aside, plenty of people have died for a lie. It isn't even close to a rare phenomenon. As a quick proof (from your point of view) any person who died for their religious beliefs from a non-Christian religion necessarily died for a lie.

I dont' think we disagree here, just the wrong point got emphasized. from my understanding there is no evidence either way, so it would be wrong to just say the claim (I didn't make a claim) has less validity than its opposite.

I won't need to show evidence to give validity to Jesus smoking weed, its automatically just as valid as the idea that he never touched it.

but thats theoretically and mathematically in reality its pretty obvious he was a chronic.

there is no such thing as evidence in the way you ask for it. Evidence can always be refuted, this is why we have judges.

Question: Did Abraham Lincoln use his nights to hunt what he perceived to be vampires?

Your Response: I don't know.

Are you kidding me?

This isn't the same comparison Jesus followers claim Jesus had mystical type superpowers. Abe was never talked about in that way. Maybe we could use buddha as an example.

And smoking weed isn't comparable to hunting vamps either..everyone accepts weed is real. Jesus smoking it isn't a stretch. Vampires generally aren't believed to be real.

No. You don't understand the burden of proof. When someone makes the claim "Jesus used marijuana" I am not responding with "Jesus did not use marijuana," I'm responding with "I don't believe you."

And no, its not automatically just as valid as an opposing idea. Unless, of course, you want to exclaim its valid to state that Jesus was, in fact, a champion break dancer (or some other piece of nonsense).

I never said anything about real vampires. I said "what he perceived to be vampires". People at the time of Lincoln did believe in vampires, and that's all that's needed to hunt them.

You said the same thing to me about the Nash eq etc.

I understand burden of proof perfectly....its your Jesus shield. Its what you as a cynic use as your bible. But you haven't stopped to ask if cynsism bends the world to create an outward bias.

What if I say Jesus didn't smoke weed....now you don't believe me that way? You don't believe he did and you don't believe he didnt'? Or you will just use your intuition to make a bias decision that you wont' let others make?

The burden of proof is on you to prove the burden of proof belongs in this conversation (hint it cannot be shown).

Given what I know about Abe and vampires, given that the time frame we are talking about is well within the realm of extensively recorded history, I would gladly adjust my response to something like "I seriously doubt it". If you asked me the same question about Jesus I would also say "I seriously doubt it."

I'm not sure why you cherry picked vampires to make a case, why didn't you find a more reasonable example? If someone asks me if alien life exists somewhere in the universe I feel completely comfortable saying "I don't know" without adding the fact that "there is no evidence to support that claim."

Anyways, the point is that you are being a nit by saying that "I don't know" is a wtf answer. I'm not really interested in arguing this with you though.

I would be happy with anyone before 200 A.D. claiming as much.

Then I'm not going to suggest in any way that he wasn't a vampire hunter at one point in his life.