The Case for Christ

I'm a Christian viewer and sorry to say that Strobel's film version of 'The Case For Christ' will be barely watchable for anyone not already dabbling with Christian theology. Antagonists to faith will find none of the featured historical "experts" trustworthy or convincing, given that every face appears linked to a seminary or church. Could they really not find any Atheist professionals who would both agree on these historical points AND offer their likenesses to the film? Sad either way...

Strobel's own dramatic journey seems woefully underplayed and underutilized as well. Rather than taking us through the hard questions and arguments in his own atheist checklist, he simply splashes around in the theological shallow end -- the serious parties (intellectuals and science- types) won't find his History Lite bold or dedicated enough at all.

A nice idea based on an effective book, but the movie's just too much a pep rally. I would be far more interested to see this revised for a strictly irreligious audience.

I have not read the book, although I had heard of it.

This is a documentary about one man's search for answers to the major questions in life : Is there a God; is Jesus for real; is Christianity true.

Strobel asks honest questions and lined up quite a few of the top Biblical and historical scholars to find his answers. He was also honest enough to go wherever the evidence led. That is a far cry from those who already have their mind made up and just seek to get support for their position.

There were some hard questions asked and some very good answers given. If the book is anything like the documentary, it will be well worth reading.

There are countless people of good faith who require no proof of Jesus' divinity. But Lee Strobel isn't one of them. Strobel isn't the first person to put Jesus' divinity on trial, but why would we want another bite of that apple?

Courtroom trials don't determine "truth", they don't even have much influence on public opinion. J.O. Simpson and Lizzie Borden were both acquitted of murder, but would you be willing to data either one of them? Anne Boleyn was convicted of adultery and beheaded. But most historians will tell you she was innocent and that her only crime was that Henry VIII tired of her.

Strobel says that Jesus rose from the dead, not because it adds value to his life or provides him with comfort. He believes in the resurrection because he can't imagine that eye witness testimony could be wrong or that oral traditions could be corrupted. When people require proof, of what value is their faith?

Documentaries about Jesus typically offer more questions than answers. This one was no exception (although it was better than I expected it to be). For me, even the Synoptic Gospels never sufficiently answered my questions about Jesus. It was more like reading excerpts from an unfinished story that inevitably triggered additional questions the answers to which were not to be found anywhere in the Bible. All of my questions about Jesus (along with other philosophically challenging questions about God and the universe we live in) were finally answered when I was fortunate enough many years ago to come across a copy of The Urantia Book (aka The Urantia Papers). As the most recent epochal revelation of divine truth bestowed upon our planet (but don't take my word for that...read it and judge for yourself before making a determination about what it is or is not), 77 of its 196 Papers are devoted exclusively to The Life and Teachings of Jesus. I recall being repeatedly scolded by more than one nun in my youth when I would ask things such as: Why do the Gospels jump from Jesus as a kid in the Temple around age 12 or so to Jesus as a full grown adult in his mid-30s? What happened to Jesus during those intervening years? In response to these and other thought-provoking questions I persistently asked, I was often told God did not want me to know those things. They wanted me to just shut up and smile and be blissfully content on the outside whilst on the inside I choked upon their fossilized versions of tainted truth without rebelliously questioning either the actual source of their dead-dogma doctrines or their primitive Gestapo-methods of using fear and intimidation and even occasionally physical violence to exert their Nazi-like mind-control over those of us who were unfortunate enough to have become their intellectual prisoners. To paraphrase, they were utterly clueless when confronted by the curiosity of a child. I thank God who has graciously seen fit to provide me with unlimited access to detailed records of those missing years in the life of Jesus along with more complete versions of His final days in the flesh that are covered elsewhere.

In this documentary, the filmmaker rounds up a bunch of experts, many of whom are priests, pastors, or divinity professors, and presumes that these are unbiased experts who can help determine the validity of claims made by the bible. Their research tells them that everything in the bible is true, and hearing voice after voice make these affirmations we are supposed to be convinced that Jesus was actually God. It is a defense without an opposing argument. It is an artificial consensus.

They say that all the claims made about Jesus are true because there are eyewitnesses, and that is irrefutable proof. Eyewitnesses who passed teachings down by generations is irrefutable if you believe these experts and would stand up in a court of law. Not really. There are many eyewitnesses of UFO's, alien abductions, bigfoot. Yet who of these experts would consider that irrefutable.

So Jesus went around performing miracles, in a totally not magical way, and this was prophesied in the OT, therefore he is God. Look, I dunno, the universe is pretty big for one guy to create. So for me that left the Gnostic Gospels to believe in, which these experts dismiss as bull with no validity. Obviously there is some basis for Christianity or else billions of people wouldn't be believing in it, but just saying everything in the bible is true by experts isn't enough to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. This is merely a detailed recounting of information we already know: Because a tomb was empty, because people had visions of him, because people witnessed him perform miracles, because this was prophesied, he must be the Son of God.. This proves nothing.

4/10