The Case for Christ in Case for Christ: The Movie (Lee Strobel Response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2020
- If we all lived in the world in the movie "The Case for Christ", would we take the evidence presented and follow the path of 1980 Lee Strobel and become a Christian?
Thanks to Shannon Q. / @shannonq
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
"He is very skeptical until he hears someone say it out loud". That made me laugh coffee out my nose.
Modern remake of Risen 🤣
Wish I I could've seen that.
I laughed at “God wins! He probably gets that a lot.”
On a side note, the poisoned drink at Jonestown was a cheaper Kool-Aid rival called Flavor-Aid. Artificial grape flavor. I’d sooner take my poison straight.
@@wmwestbroek Except for Judges 1:19.
This movie is not for converting anyone. It’s just for reinforcing the faith of those who already believe.
And even at that it does a poor job. I was like: "Sorry, if I wasn't already convinced, this sure wouldn't convince me." Then I read the book to see if it was better. It wasn't.
great way to put it!
Isn’t that the whole point of apologetics?
Yep, even when I was a conservative Catholic, I always thought that Evangelical Protestants "doth protest too much"....
That describes all religious arguments. It is why they prey on kids and the desperate for new members. They know their arguments are not compelling enough to convince young adults.
Lee Strobel: "I'm a hard-hitting journalist out to find the truth!"
*precedes to only ever interview people he agrees with and desperately runs away from anyone who presents an argument to his incoherent ramblings and famously refuses to debate his points with anyone*
Ok
_Mister biased pseudo-expert, could you explain to me how right I am, in detail please?_
Yeah, in 'Case for Faith', when interviewing a guy about suffering, the person says at one point that we have to take into account the devil. The person doesn't at any point provide reasons to believe the devil is real, but the award-winning investigative journalist doesn't even raise an eyebrow (at least from what we can see in the book).
he sticks his fingers in his ears and sings lalala. it doesn't say much about faith when you have to be intellectually dishonest to defend it.
Lee Strobel's own conversion story is like most apologetic conversion stories, which is why it is unsurprising to see fabrications and embellishments of what most likely happened. The fact is, "Case for Christ" was not first published until after Strobel was already a minister in Bill Hybels's church for years. It wasn't even the first Christian book he published. So, it is no wonder if his supposedly rigorous journalistic approach is found wanting. After all, he was well out of practice for some time by the time he got around to writing this story down.
@itsasin1969 I know right. Are you really seeking truth if you never interview anyone who argues against the affirmative position?
When a friend gave me The Case for Christ, I read a bit and realized that apologetics was never intended to change minds, but to harden already firm Christians and attempt to stop people from questioning their beliefs.
That is your opinion. I forget if Stobel defined exactly who his book was intended for but I doubt that he meant for the Resurrection evidence to only reaffirm Christians beliefs, I can see it influencing indoctrinated atheists, agnostics, people of other religions and solidify young Christians beliefs who might soon encounter fundamentalist Marxist/atheist teachers/professors who regularly mock students for believing in Jesus and indoctrinate these students (most of whom are not yet well versed in Christian Apologetics) with anti-Christian propaganda.
In fact numerous highly intelligent atheists who set out to disprove the Cornerstone belief of Christianity by studying all of the biblical and historical evidence both pro and con, were so overwhelmed by the confirming evidence that they became followers and believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour! eg- C.S. Lewis and Professor Simon Greenleaf.Greenleaf who was the Royal Professor of law at Harvard in the 1800's and was considered by many to be a leading expert on what constitutes legal evidence and some of his written work still has influence in our courts today. Some of Greenleaf's Christian students knowing he wasn't a believer decided to test their professor who had a reputation for judging evidence fairly and expertly to study the Resurrection evidence. Greenleaf accepted the challenge and studied all of the evidence that he could find. After completing his study he came to the conclusion, (I forget the exact quote but it went along the lines of) 'there is not an unbiased jury in the land that could study this evidence and not conclude that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.' And the great thing is that today there is even more positive evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and atheists and critics have failed dismally to refute it in 2000 years of debate.
Christian movies: "Let's search out to find objective truth!"
Later in those Christian movies: Main character has an emotional breakdown that causes him to convert to Christianity.
Me: "Uhh... what happened to searching for objective truth?"
That would be an SJW not a christian .
@@gamingdragon1356 Both are so similar in so many ways that it's no surprise you might confuse this very christian thing for an sjw thing.
Virtually all conversions are the result of some type of cultural and emotional connection between the future convert and the religion, or at least some of its members.
It's _never_ evidence that convinces them. How could it? It's so skewed and few and far between that it is more effective than otherwise at deconverting people.
Luc of Paris
Christian Apologetics and Grievance Studies are basically the same.
Start with a presupposed conclusion, uncritically accept every outlandish claim that confirms the conclusion, categorically reject the mountains of evidence that refute the conclusion.
If you read "The Case for Christ“ or "White Fragility“, they are the same, both are religious propaganda.
@@gamingdragon1356 - because society is sooooooooooo just and doesn't need any fixing.
@@druidriley3163 yes it is
"Do you really want to know the truth or is your mind already made up?“
Says movie William Lane Craig… the guy who also says funny things like:
Even if the evidence would prove Christianity wrong… the self authenticating witness of the holy spirit would still prove that Christianity is true.
thats in one of my FAVORITE yt videos... "the witless of the holy spirit"
Dude! Don't hesitate to review and debunk these old apologetic books. I know they've been done so many times, but your presentations are just so damn enjoyable and informative.
@Phillip Hickman Why can't he?
When this movie came out I saw it as a Christian. I wasn’t impressed then. Afterward I decided I needed to investigate for my self. This movie helped make me an atheist
well then it did some good I guess
That's awesome!
You too?
Me too!
I left sex adduction atheism and became Christian
“A Case For Christ” was the last straw for me to start looking at secular sources. It was so terrible and patronizing to me, as a Christian struggling with my faith; yet it tried to make itself out to be a hard-hitting, objective look at the facts. I decided to look at what he opposition said. Glad i did.
same here - I hoped and prayed it would convince me of my earlier beliefs and lead me back to church after I’d been struggling for quite a while - it was devoid of anything convincing at all
My parents, very devout Catholics, read this book. They said it was so unpersuasive and now they wonder if Lee was ever really an "atheist" as he puts it.
"What was your relationship with your father?"
Ugh, really? It's going with that angle? More evidence this movie was targeted at soothing believers, not convincing non-believers.
I've yet to see a single Christian source that seems to actually be attempting to convert and convince non-believers.
@thewanderandhiscomp gin?
Had it been aimed at non-believers it would have been a documentary, and it would have failed miserably!
So,....was this question having something to do with "those who don't have good relationships with their fathers end up being atheists"?? O_o
Apologetics don't convince unbelievers or skeptics, they are an attempt to help intellectually justify the faith of those who already believe.
Case for Christ in a nutshell: The bible says jesus got resurrected, so he did
You didn’t actually watch it then
Basically that's it
@@Nick_Shepherdwe did, and you have no evidence for your god.
We have sometimes different groups of 500 people claiming the following and is therefore irrefutable evidence:
- Seeing Elvis Presley at a drive-through
- The Earth is flat
- Aliens have abducted them
- Big Foot sightings
- Moon landings were faked
- Homeopathy actually cures illnesses
- The reboot of Star Wars are actually good movies
the good place
unfortunately ,
only available on Flix.
Even the 3rd movie of the original trilogy wasn't any good
The movies were good for what?
@anti-anti-intellectual x I'm sorry to disagree and I know I will kick off a shitstorm, but the bad writing, inconsistent, badly copied storyline, incoherent characters and their development, no consistent plot line at all during the three movies, all the problems, all the blandness with the sequels are demonstrable and objectively there. The only subjective part in it is for a person to not care for this and only watch it for the flashy SFX.
@anti-anti-intellectual x No. An observation.
I find it offensive when friends and family recommend this book in an attempt to save me again.
Same. Mostly because they've never even read it. As far as I know, they never even bothered with the movie.
Lol, I watched it because my friend told me that it lays out a good case for Jesus' resurrection... Well, not so fast buddy.
I deconverted while in the middle of reading this book. I was expecting it to 'save' my quickly deteriorating belief in Christianity when I got it, but instead I found it incredibly lacking in proper skepticism. I remember panicking and trying not to let this one disappointment get to me too much - just because one highly-recommended book doesn't do what it claims doesn't meant there's no good evidence. Then I looked into it more and realized that there isn't good evidence.
I started highlighting problems and got tired after the preamble, in the middle of the first chapter. i just put the book down because i like my highlighter more.
Some people really can't let go of the cult and try to rope you back when you decide what a joke the whole thing is
IMO, the "For the Bible Tells Me so" jingle is the greatest thing to hit the activist community since the Hitchslap.
It takes me back to Sunday School, and rrrrright back _out_ again!
@@CSGraves This is also an example of the "Circular Reasoning" fallacy.
"For Lee Strobel tells me so"?
When I was in high school, I attended Willow Creek Community Church and Lee Strobel was a teaching pastor there. I read "The Case for Christ" and just ate it up. We heard these exact teachings in sermons and I couldn't fathom how anyone couldn't accept Christ after hearing this hard-core evidence! I started reading it again this past year, as a skeptic and I couldn't believe how I didn't see the huge holes in his reasoning, even just within the first few chapters. I guess when you really, really, really want to believe, evidence is too hard to accept.
No matter what evidence you Atheists will NEVER believe.
Exactly. Same here btw. He is preaching to the choir.
I'm an unbeliever coming from a Jewish background, I was approached and given the book The Case for Christ by a lovely Christian co-worker who urged me to read it. I made a deal with her. I'll read "The Case for Christ" if you listen to Rabbi Tovia Singer's, "Let's Get Biblical" series on the Jewish response to the Christian missionaries. I held up my end, (being unmoved by the sub standard evidence presented in the book). It took a lot longer for her to hold up her end of the bargain but eventually she listened to some of the CD's. She too was unphased by the arguments presented in the book series. Believing eyes see only what they want to see.
If this is the best they've got they're in big trouble.
I had 2 2hr conversations with a pastor about the belief in God and he returned to give me this (terrible) book, I read it and I remember thinking that if this is supposed to be the "go to" book to convince me, it's truly pathetic!!!!
It's now sitting somewhere on a shelf full of highlighted passages that I have massive issues with.
Since then I've had many Christians try to send me to this book and unfortunately for them it ends the conversation, to me Lee Strobel is the bottom of the barrel so if anyone tries to refer me to him, they're beyond reasoning with so I won't waste my time.
I've spent years asking for evidence. They do not have any.
The barrel is bottom all the way through. There simply are no good arguments or evidence for deities.
No, no, no ... that's not how that book works! *You're not supposed to actually **_read_** it!*
It works like a talisman - Christians just need to touch it and it magically makes the resurrection believable without actually needing to do anything more than read the title. After all, why would a Christian write a book unless the resurrection was true. Christians never lie! They just take the resurrection on faith merely because this book exists to defend it.
Christians just don't understand why it doesn't magically work for non-believers, because we don't treat it like that - we actually open the book, read it, and realise that it's pure deception. An empty shell. A facade with no substance behind it.
@@pauligrossinoz I think the same can be said for the Bible.
Out of curiosity, could you provide an instance of what you have issues with? I’m doing research
Imagine if civilisation collapsed and everything got destroyed causing us to revert to a dark age level of living. If our ancestors found a box full of Tolkien books some how preserved, they would legit take it as a historical document and start following the path of Gandalf, for he died for our sins and was reborn to save us from the dark one.
This makes me recall something I heard from Ricky Gervais, being interviewed by Stephen Colbert, that if we destroyed all the holy books and all the science books then thousands of years down the road we would have a whole new bunch of holy books but the science books would be mostly the same.
They always start out with “I want to find the truth” but some how we end up talking about feelings and emotions. I love the jingle Paul has, because it so accurately captures their claims sometimes, like they make strong assertions and if you’re not sharp you’ll miss the “For the Bible tells me so” that was underlying the assertions.
I think the bible needed a continuity editor too. So many inconsistencies.
Let's start with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
The movie/book is only convincing if you already believe. It’s laughable when I look back now that I’ve left the faith
Cheers to you for questioning and finding your way out
not even Paul claims to have seen the risen Jesus though, according to his own testimony he saw a bright light, fell blind for several days, and heard a voice that he admited no one around him heard.
A hallucination..combined with other physical ailments.. we actually have examples of that today medically. It is a natural event due to medical issues
Sounds like he was staring at an eclipse.
Funny, that same exact thing happened to trump on August 21st 2017... when he looked at the eclipse without protective glasses...
@@dustinellerbe4125 omg i honestly didn't see your comment before i made mine. Lol
It depends on what account of Paul's encounter you read.I seem to recall that one of those accounts reads that the ones around him did hear.
Lee Strobel is as much a hard-hitting investigative reporter as J. Warner Wallace is successful cold case detective.
😂🤣 savage 🤣
And they have in common another thing - something every apologist claims (which is inspired by Saul/Paul) - that they were devout atheists before seeing the truth of Jesus. Christians love their converted atheists.
I was a firm believer for many years. Now, I need to write my own book, "The case for wasting my time and money."
When the guy said that there were at least 9 sources confirming they saw Jesus after his death, I actually perked up and went "Oh shit, really. Maybe I need to take another look at this whole Christianity thing." and then when the movie proceeded to provide non of the sources, I was totally let down. I caught the question dodge when the guy started talking about the reliability of the gospels though. And I love the angry atheist trope that they had going on.
Christian kids these days are so privileged, having tolerable acting in their propaganda entertainment. Back in my day all our movies featured Kirk Camerom and a bunch of random people from the funding mega church.
Fireproof?
You don't believe Lincoln hunted vampires? Sorry Paul, but your views are getting way too radicalized and I have to unsubscribe.
I thought it was zombies.
*The Very Hungry Singularity* Of course Lincoln hunted vampires, what else could explain their rarity since his Presidency!
It's a matter of early Republican Party tradition.
Not a great film, but I enjoyed it very much! It was a hoot!
ALVH the book is actually bizarre in how plausible it makes it sound. (Haven't seen the movie.) Like it's not even funny, the whole thing is played dead straight. It's almost eerie.
The Case Against Christ; a Study of Lee Strobel's Haircuts
"Is it possible?"
I dunno, possibility must be demonstrated.
Yes, apologists love to conflate logical, physical and colloquial possibility.
I was so goddamn disappointed when I read the book “The Case for Christ.” He only interviews Christians and asks one “was Jesus crazy?” as if we could honestly expect a Christian to say he thinks the Son of God was insane
I read "The Case for Christ" back when it first came out (loaned by a friend to "convince me"); I was flabbergasted by the lame excuses presented.
As for 500 witnesses, how many people witnessed the "miracles" at Medjugorje? Quite a number, if I recall. We recognize this as mass hysteria.
As a chemist, I'm amused by the Hollywood laboratory scene: Unstoppered flasks full of colored liquids on shelves at eye level, and no safety goggles. But everyone wears lab coats!
Paulogia making quarantine so much easier!
😂😂 a thousand 👍🏽s. My absolute favorite part is at 13:30. “Now, what did I do with that priceless artifact, the oldest existing fragment from the New Testament... Let’s see, I’m pretty sure I left it in one of these drawers... let’s see... hmmmm... oh, here it is!” 😂
He probably bought it from Hobby Lobby...
"People don't knowingly drink poison for something they know is a lie."
Someone passed a note to get help leaving Jonestown and then drank the Kool-Aid
But... they do, also how do you know? Also...
the people who passed the note actually left with the senator and then were shot up, even then most of the people who "drank the flavor-aid" were forced to at gunpoint.
I know that 'Kool Aid' is some kind of metaphor, but what on Earth does it mean?
@@exiled_londoner 'Kool-Aid' is the make of a carbonated soft drink which is supposedly what Jim Jones laced with cyanide to give to his congregation in a mass suicide murder at Jonestown, Guyana. The soft drink at the camp may actually have been Flavor Aid, similar to the more well known Kool-Aid :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
@Douglas I generally concur. Just clarifying a small part of your statement. Pepsi is a carbonated soft drink. Koolaid is NOT. Flavour aid probably likewise.
Typically, it's sold as a powder. You add water to it. Tap water. And it's either pre sweetened or you add sugar.
Cheers
"That's four times as many as the Iliad". So what"? The Iliad is also regarded as largely made up.
Is this Christian move honestly comparing the New Testament to another fictitious story?
I wish I could find the source, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but the record of the Trojan War actually have the Greeks fighting alongside the Trojans against an unknown enemy. So even if the war did happen, the Illiad has the antagonists wrong
@@renkol123 There were actually multiple Troys. It goes up to Troy IX.
It is speculated that Troy VIIa was destroyed either by Mycenaean Greeks or "the Seapeople". Similarly to Greek settlements at the time it was rebuilt but at a much lower development level in the ancient dark ages. The rebuild is today called Troy VIIb.
It is believed that Troy VIIa was the Troy referenced in Homers Iliad. Troy VIII even is a Greek settlement. And Troy IX is a Roman settlement from the time of Augustus. Through Troy VI and VII Mycenaean ceramics are found which points at some kind of connection, and maybe a vigorous trade relationship.
ThatBeardedGuy that would change a whole lot haha
carpe diem oh wow! That kinda changes everything we know about Troy
If the Iliad defined my worldview, if it was the key to everlasting heavenly bliss, if it told us everything we needed to know about God and the universe and our place in it - then I'd give a shit. . .
I love that a "investigative reporter" has to ask a priest how to authenticate facts!
«Two generations not enough time for legend to grow». Does anybody remember the «Slender man stabbing» from a few years back, where two girls murdered another girl because of a 5 year old creepy pasta?
For anyone wanting to know more, or just a little refresh. Monstrum just did a video on slenderman. ua-cam.com/video/JBVn4SzvImo/v-deo.html
Edit:Clarification. The video is about the creation and lore of slenderman. Not the murder. It is mentioned, but little detail is given.
@@MichaelDeHaven Dr. Todd Grande (a psychologist) has a video on the stabbing: ua-cam.com/video/YVI9fdm8aiY/v-deo.html
But if you stack up all the pages they are like... Really tall😂
*Larry Scarr* Especially if they're one-sided (!)
@L Ron Cupboard very small rocks?
My momma always told me that if I couldn't say something nice about somebody, I shouldn't say anything at all. With that in mind, I'll refrain from saying anything about Lee Strobel et al.
Was it Falstaff who said that "discretion is the better part of valour" ?
Never seen the movie or read the book. I did read “The Case Against The Case for Christ” by Robert M Price. Highly recommended.
I saw an experiment a few years ago, where they tried to prove that King Arthur was a real king in Britain's history. It went very much like this movie. In the end, they proved that King Arthur was a legend who's existence appeared first in a book.
"in movie land, this fragment can be found randomly in a priest's office" at 13:29 had be laughing uncontrollably
“Frodo threw the Ring into Mt. Doom”
Oh man, your LotR texts got corrupted in a very short amount of time. 😛
Lol true
Smeagol: "am i nothing to you?"
At the part in the movie where he tells his wife that it was her all along, I immediately remembered what Pine Creek had said.
"I believe that more women convert men than the Holy Spirit."
And your comment about them not being able to get a story from 40 years ago correct, was a mic drop moment.
I hope I am able to say this for many years to come. Apologetics is what unraveled the cords they tried to bind up.
There's a lot of work in unraveling any case for Christ. You do a wonderful job.
"Oh no! Not you too, Movie Lee. Can't _anyone_ in movieland become a Christian because of the evidence?
Oh well, I guess it's like those women at the tomb; they wrote it this way because it wouldn't be believable otherwise"
Can't get over this line, it's fantastic
Oh whatever, they used the “how is the relationship to your father” line. Gags
Been a long time since I've seen the movie. Someone thought since I'm a reporter it'd be the perfect proselytizer. As I recall, what I saw in the movie was a story about someone given a powerful emotional motive to believe something--to keep his marriage--rationalize believing it by asking softball questions to people who were going to give predictable answers and thinking it research. I at once empathized with movie Lee's predicament and was embarrassed for his resolution.
Hi Paul. Whoa, I'm first? I beat ShannonQ? First time for everything I suppose ...
As for the movie, never saw it and never will. I did however read the book years ago and all it did was reinforce my disbelief in an almighty anything and my firm belief that organized religion may be good in the community sense for some, but dangerous for those on the outside of those specific communities.
One of the biggest dangers of the death cults is their acceptance that a global apocalypse is inevitable. Many long for it. And pray for it. Some even work towards that end. Almost oblivious to what that means in terms of suffering and loss of life. Thus we have whole swaths of the population not caring about the environment or the future of mankind. They want it to get worse for that brings their god to life.
This is the type of video you excel at and I enjoy the most. Interesting that today's apologists are making the same claims as 40-50 years ago - albeit with grayer hair and more wrinkles.
As a professional and committed journalist, skeptic and atheist, Strobel only decided to interview Christians (not a single scientist, skeptic, member of another faith, atheist, etc) in his supposed attempts to disprove Christianity. Which he, again, didn’t believe in at the time.
After my Dad found out I was an atheist he told me to watch this gem. I sent him a playlist including Paulogia, Viced Rhino, Aron Ra, Prophet of Zod, Holy Kool aid, and some AXP compilations. I told him that if he could get through these channels content and still claim to be a theist then I'd eat my shoe.
I assume he didn't watch?
@@Paulogia assumption correct. Lol sent me a long message saying even if the bible was full of man made errors therr just has to be a greater power and there is no other answer.
Years ago I tried to convert my dad by giving him a copy of The Case for Christ lol
I try and imagine what younger me would have thought if resources like Paulogia, et al had existed back then...I wonder if I would have stayed a Christian for as long as I did, or deconverted even sooner?
Thanks for covering this. I read the book and laughed and laughed. Someone had me read this as their evidence for their belief in god!
"I guess it's like those women at the tomb, they wrote it this way because it wouldn't be believable otherwise." They may need some aloe for that burn.
Poor Lee just wanted to save his marriage, but ended up living a lie.
*Griexxt* Anything for a peaceful life!
Indeed. "Become Christian, or I will leave you." What kind of choice is that? I would divorce my spouse for even presenting such an ultimatum ! ~Anastacia in Cleveland
@Nick Roberts It will take too much time for me to prove to you that Christianity is a lie. You will have to take it on faith.
@Nick Roberts Do you have proof of that?
@UCwCrs_ddrV88kW6QJW4smgQ Then the fact that Lee's story didn't convince me should be sufficient proof that he's living a lie.
"Then he appeared to 500 brothers and sisters, many of whom are still alive, though some have died" It's funny how NONE of those 500 seemed to have told their stories, they all stayed quiet waiting for Paul to write about them years later. 🤦♂️🐂💩
They were contractually obligated by Paul to stay quiet until the release of his writings. Even during press interviews to generate hype, they had to hold their tongue. Unfortunately for Paul, somebody recorded an early draft during a screening, and it just leaked all over town.
Notice that Paul didn't give any names and contact details of these supposed 500!
If you went to visit Jerusalem in that era and couldn't find someone who supposedly saw the resurrection of Jesus, Paul would just say that you asked the wrong people.
What a lame claim!
From "many still alive, though some have died" we could sure infer they stayed in touch with these witnesses. Did follow up interviews. Cuz, years later, they've noted the survivors and the not so much.
Today they'd never be free of media, authors...
Apologists make media like this movie to keep followers from researching the truth on their own. I fell for this bs for many years. I wouldn't watch videos like Paul's because I was told the devil speaks through them and I believed that with every fiber of my being. It took me backsliding in my faith to grow a pair and start looking for answers to questions that Apologists gave shit answers to.
"For the Bible tells me so" jingle will haunt me for a long time. You got me a meme infestation XD
This is outstanding!!! I can't imagine how much time and effort you put into this. I am sure there were a lot of things in the movie you could have used, but the ones you selected are fantastic. Thanks for providing this entertainment. I really enjoyed your comments.
I got this on DVD as a christmas present from my mom one year... I opened the present, saw this, tried my best to fake a smile, said "Oh... o...k...", took it home and threw it away.
I was actually a little insulted when my mother desperately tried to recommend CFC to me in a futile attempt to curb my own de-conversion from Christianity. As a professional academic with decades of training in history and biblical studies, the thought that Lee Strobel was my mom's best ammunition to counter my own beliefs developed over years of my own critical inquiry was pretty jarring.
According to the Matthew gospel, upon the supposed resurrection of the biblical Jesus, "saints" emerged from their graves and hoofed it back to town. Yep! Bona fide zombies! That's enough right there to doubt the entire gospel.
And when i told my nephew of the passage he didn't believe me that the passage existed.
He proceeded to give me a passage to refer to jesus being on the earth for 40 days.
I showed the passage that said 7.
No response.
Lol.
@@colindickson8034 can you elaborate on this more? The passages
@@colindickson8034 Please elaborate more.
@@JohnAlexanderBlog lol.
Have you not read the resurrection stories?
Try
Luke 24 1-51
John 20-26
Acts 13 31
Acts 1:2-3,9
The Shroud.
The church allowed it to be tested scientifically once. The carbon dating concluded that the cloth was medieval. A forgery. An excellent forgery, certainly - whoever made the thing did an amazing job of it - but a forgery even so. The church promptly announced the testing must have been flawed, and have not allowed any form of re-testing since.
SCIENTISTS:
'It's medieval.'
CHURCH:
'You're wrong.'
SCIENTISTS:
'How do you know?'
CHURCH is awkwardly silent.
"Your testing must have been wrong."
"Let us repeat the test then."
"... I'd rather not."
It's a moot point. There is some doubt on the age as someone has written compelling papers on the bad luck the researchers had in choosing a tiny portion of the shroud to test that just so happened to be part of a repair job based on the textile weaving. Still, the Vatican has already admitted it's a forgery. A letter has been presented to the Pope from the local bishop at the time who said not only was it a fraud, they had caught the man who made it.
Fabulous work by Paulogia! I'm highly impressed with new levels of production quality, scripting, etc.
This movie is very underrated. It made me laugh just as much as Step Brothers and Old School.
"OK, God. You win."
I laughed out loud when I saw this in the movie.
Haven't seen the movie, but I read the book when a christian friend of mine asked me to take a look at it. If the "evidence" in the full movie is close to what's in the book then I'd say it would be wholly unconvincing.
I was once given the book as an attempt to convince me. I decided to read it and got my notebook out to keep notes. Within a few pages, I was indignant; “This is a fucking novel!” It is a narrative. It is not a non-fiction book. Why do you think a movie based on the book was so easily adapted? I know this doesn’t mean the “facts” in the book aren’t true, but the book was always held up to me as an honest, critical examination of the evidence for the resurrection. It is not that.
Great video and mind boggling how much work you put into each video. 10 out of 10 paul. I think you were great on unbelievable too by the way.
This was a very entertaining commentary. Thanks, Real Life Paul!
Beautifully broken down as usual. Thanks for doing this.
Well done and thanks for sharing this with us.
Thank you for new video Paul
My sister gave me a copy of his book when it came out. I read it and the notes I made about the errors in it was thicker than the book.
Great video! Got my Ham and AIG T in the mail, wore it today and it's already been noticed and asked about twice. I told them about the show, they had a somewhat puzzled look but said they'd check it out.
It wasn't an investigation for evidence, it was an investigation for emotional appeal. The truth is what you feel it is, not what it actually is because we are emotional creatures. That's his story and he's sticking to it.
Great stuff. Keep them coming.
Strawman: the movie.
Ha! Well said.
@@Oswlek So well said...
Always love it when you use anchor man clips!!! Love it!(:
OH MAN!!! I missed the "For the Bible Tells Me So" jingle!
Excellent review. :)
"Something something Gospel something" is pretty much every apologetics argument ever.
Not specifically about this video, but Paul, I've been watching your content since Logicked recommended you years ago (am I remembering that right?), and it's a pleasure to see you getting better and better at doing this. Looking forward for more.
This would be great material for a youtube parody, with 80s Lee Strobel going around asking youtube atheists these questions and getting better answers
The Case for Buddy Christ?
The Case for UA-cam Jesus?
Virtually Believable?
Ill support a go fund me page to make this movie!!!
Thanks for the NT channel recommendation. Since this video I’ve watched pretty much all their content. Good call!
Well thought out and entertaining as usual. Thanks.
My own case against Christ/ Christianity is; there never was an Adam or Eve. Human beings were not created out of dust, we evolved. And without Adam and Eve, there was no Original Sin. Without original sin to be passed down to every human being, there was no crucifixion of God to absolve a non-existent sin. After I realized that, I found more and more in the Bible that made no sense, like Noah's Flood. The Bible debunked Christianity for me.
Great video, Paul. You nailed it. 😉
Awesome content! Thank you.
Excellent work, thank you.
Empty tomb trick? James Randi escaped a modern "escape proof" jail in a police station filled with cops who knew he was a magician AND trying to catch him. Seems to me these people have never been to a good magic show.
On the Abraham Lincoln vampire slayer topic it is also known that Lincoln was very good at fighting sometimes taking on multiple opponents at once so if vampires were real he actually would have probably been a good vampire hunter.
I once had a therapist recommend the book, after I kindly told her I was an atheist. She was put off by my response, and shortly after abruptly ended the session, open the door from her seated position at her desk, and said "I'll see you next week" without making eye contact. It was super awkward.
I know this isn't relevant to the video, however because of the aforementioned story I enjoyed this video perhaps a bit more than I normally would have.
To be fair, Paul, Frodo did not throw the ring into mount doom. He claimed it as his own, Gollum attacked him, bit off his finger and the ring, and fell into the fires of mount doom. Frodo failed, it was Gollum, trying to get his precious back, that ultimately caused the ring's distruction so that we are all free of Sauron's tyranny today.
Reminds me of when I started watching Is Genesis Historical? I was expecting debates with actual scientists, not simply Young Earth Creationists talking with other Young Earth Creationists.
The National Enquirer headline of the woman having a 50lb baby made me laugh.
Lest we forget that Lee has stated that he was also an alcoholic going through AA simultaneously with his so-called quest for Christ in an attempt to save his marriage.
Seems to me that would have a profound impact on one’s biases.
I was duped into watching this movie. I'd actually never heard of Strobel before I saw the film. It was a happier time. When I saw the trailers for the movie I thought it was about an atheist questioning the evidence for Jesus. Which it kind of is. But not in a good way. All the atheists in the film are depicted as smug, arrogant know-it-alls. While the Christians are depicted as kind, caring good listeners. It also has a made for TV feel about it which just seems contrived and uncomfortable. Anyone old enough to remember a show called "Touched by an Angel" will know what I'm talking about. But the most disturbing part of it is when the psychologist, played by Faye Dunaway, comes up with this complete nonsense about atheists having a bad relationship with their fathers. I don't know how or where this theory got started. But, from personal experience, I KNOW it's horseshit. Maybe the overall worst thing about this embarrassment of a movie is that it attempts to have a MORAL. The moral is...atheism will eventually lead to alcoholism and spousal abuse. From there, only Jesus rescues. It's 90 minutes of my life I aint getting back, sadly. So if it's ever a straight choice between being subjected to this tripe again or watching grass growing....I'll be in the garden if anyone wants me.
I'm an atheist and I have a pretty good relationship with my father. My *mother* on the other hand...
I never saw the movie but did read the book shortly after it came out. I was still a christian then (always a liberal type, not a fundamentalist). The idea of the disciples willing to go to their deaths was the one thing I came away with, that I found very compelling (for a long time). From my viewpoint today, particularly after a year in hibernation binge-watching youtube debates, this point was washed away by Paul's videos, that we know of only one or two that got martyred and even then, we don't know if they could have recanted and lived
First off, Frodo throws the ring into Mount Doom!? Spoilers man! (Just kidding)
Second, and in all sincerity, while my deconversion was like most former christian's I've spoken to, a death by a thousand cuts, this movie actually was one of the deeper cuts, it truly played a meaningful role in my escape from christianity. It's been long enough now that I can't say for sure if I was already starting to doubt by the time I saw this movie, or if it was just one of the final pieces that pushed me into finally being willing to doubt, but I do distinctly remember watching this movie with the hope that it would improve my confidence in what I, at that time, already believed, that christianity was true and I was justified in believing in it, only to come away from the movie actually feeling less confident. The only part of the movie which was even a little compelling to me at the time was the "They wouldn't die for a lie" argument, which I hadn't heard before, and it was undermined significantly by the rest of the movie which seemed to either state things I knew from personal experience weren't true (like that 2 generations wasn't long enough for a legend to start), or disputed things no athiest I'd ever known had ever stated or cared about, like how many manuscripts there were. The movie gave the impression to my former fully committed and believing christian self, that the case for christ was awful, and that attacked my confidence that I already had the truth in a way an athiest never could. An athiest (at least to my former indoctrinated christian self) had a bias against christianity, maybe even was under the power of Satan and thus had actual motivation to try to mislead me. But Lee Strobel was supposedly one of my own, a christian, and whats more, supposed to be the proof (that I'd never seen in my life to that point) that some one who didn't already believe in christianity could reasonably come to believe based off evidence and not just indoctrination, desire for community, or personal experiences which I knew enough non-christians to know were experienced by non-believers as well in ways that seemed to equally "confirm" the truth of their beliefs which conflicted with christianity.
Now I didn't deconvert immediately after this movie, not by a long shot, at the time I clung desperately to the "they wouldn't die for a lie" argument, that had compelling power, but my foundations were shaken enough that I was prompted to actually look into that claim to find the evidence that any of the people who actually knew jesus while he was alive had been given the chance to recant and refused... and not only did I find the evidence for this claim lacking, but this brought to my attention all the competing "they wouldn't die for a lie" claims in other religions. Like the 3 witnesses in mormonism who supposedly saw an angel deliver the golden plates and heard god's voice confirm them and joseph smith's message as being true (or something along those lines) and, even more powerfully then the church traditions that the apostles dying for their beliefs, these 3 mormon witnesses not only were willing to continue professing their belief as those who did so were being killed around them (including Joseph Smith himself), but refused to recant even after they were excommunicated from the church, and as far as we can tell from much stronger evidence then we have for the apostles, never recanted once till their dying day. Now that was truly a punch to the gut, if my best reason for believing christianity was actually worse then evidence for the truth of Mormonism, a religion that I already had strong evidence that it was false, now I had a REALLY powerful reason to doubt that my belief was justified, and combined with the years of (in my search to better know and under God and His will) reasons to doubt I'd been uncovering, if I had to pinpoint the moment that I finally started to allow myself to doubt, even if just a little, it was probably around this point. And once you allow yourself to doubt even a little, to truly doubt and not just think "I'm sure this is true but let me also look at the evidence with the assumption it will confirm what I already believe", the house of cards built upon the sand that is Christianity simply does not hold up.
Frodo doesn’t throw the ring into Mount Doom. Interesting that the ending has been corrupted in this way even though the last film was released eighteen years ago and you can still watch it and it’s faithful to the book in respect of how the ring was destroyed.
Ironically Lee Strobels conversion story is also more legend than it is history.
The movie takes place between 1979 and 1981 because Strobel converted in 1981, supposedly after 2 years of investigation and trying to prove that Christianity is false.
In the movie he interviews Gary Habermas who says that Christianity gave him comfort after his wife died.
But the wife of Habermas died in 1995 when Strobel was already a pastor for a decade.
So all of those interviews where Strobel throws softball questions at historians who are exclusively religious fundamentalists and Christian Apologists were staged events where he only pretended to be a skeptic.
It's amazing the major logical flaw in any apologist's thinking. Even if we had a perfect New Testament (i.e., all original copies, complete harmonization, no errors) this would in no way imply the stories involving miracles are true. There is no way to confirm that miracles outlined in old stories are true because miracles are the least likely thing to occur. Dozens of naturalistic explanations, infinitely more likely than any miracle, can explain a story involving miracles: from the simplest (the story was made up), to exaggerated memory, to a growing legend. If one believes Jesus was raised from the dead, this is a FAITH claim, not a historical claim. There are dozens of examples of old myths and stories involving dying and rising gods, virgin births, etc. If an old story was the only requirement for truth, then all such stories would be true. Yet the apologist fails to see this fatal flaw in reasoning and marches right past it.... "my old stories involving miracles are ostensibly true, while everyone else's old stories involving miracles are false."