The Case for Christ

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

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.

For a Christian, this documentary is useful help for stronger faith or just confirmation of believes from childhood obtained.

For a non believer , i suppose, it represents a beautiful, maybe fascinating demonstration.

Simple, I like it and the emotion animated me in each of 71 minutes.

But , I not was convinced by opportunity of use of presumed interviews of people on street about their belif. Sure, maybe the purpose was noble and the vision wise but it remains an eccentric aspect.

But, no doubts, it is a profound useful - and beautiful- documentary and inspired kick for discover of Jesus , step by step , by yourself.

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?

Why? Because as informative as all the male scholars were, why no women? (And these were the best you could find? Thanks for no RC priests though, truly!) Just because all the scriptures were written by Jewish men, not to mention just for Jewish men, in the beginning? Which is where Christianity started to go wrong; about 5 minutes after Jesus ascended into heaven. The Jewish men were unhappy with God's 'only' 10 laws, so they had to make a bunch more. But to have been told that now they only had 2?! Oh, horrors! Enter organized religion, hypocrisy, and corruption.

Doesn't it matter that most 'eyewittnesses', especially any of the original 12 or 70, middle-aged in 33 a.d. Roman life expectancy was 40 tops. So how could they have been original source writers? Even John is a stretch. (BTW, the Book of Revelation is about the fall of ROME. That's all they were concerned about-why do you think Jesus was murdered via politically? Paul really shouldn't be trusted as he is mainly Christianity's 'marketing man'. An unbeliever should look to Flavius Josephus, et al for true history and if one follows Jesus and believes HE IS THE RISEN LORD, faith.

48 is really gr8!!! Blessed Easter 2023.