"The Case For Christ Movie" by Lee Strobel?

Question

I thought he had some good points. That the early publishing of the Gospels gives them credit. That may have even been 30 years after his death. That even the oral tradition held back them was found to be extraordinarily accurate and of course kept by trained men who memorized the whole tor rah. That Jesus apostles who lived when Jesus was alive died for Jesus sake knowing they were not dying for a lie. More than one disciple died for this cause. The urgency of a Roman guard to keep his post and be alert to keep his post as the grave was guarded. Not to mention all the old testament scriptures Jesus fulfilled. Below follows a link to 365 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. http://www.bibleprobe.com/300great.htm
or http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
the chances that Jesus would fulfill all these is mathematically silly. But it happened. The Fulfillment of the New Covenant Prophesied. Jeremiah 31:33-34, Hebrews 8:7-11
So did I leave anything out?

www.blueletterbible.org

no one ever knows if its effective. You just cast the seed and some times it takes root. After you pray and God waters the seed.

ah yes but the difference between islamic marters is to kill your enemy which satisfies their God. To Jesus that is dissatisfying. Christians by the flocks were killed for wanting freedom to love.

Well not to say some Islamic Maryters weren't killed for just wanting to believe what they believe . What I am referring to is the head sawing kind of thing. Of course some people who call them selves Christian do horrible things as well and so you could ask do they truly represent their religion. Lets not get into that hand basket

Ah yes but if you follow your nose to the fruit loops you will find the accuracy of the Gospels being recorded 30 years after Jesus and how close they are according to historians. Then go to the Koran recorded 700 years after Jesus death and you get the scriptures that say Jesus was talking to God and God asks did you say you and marry were Gods. And Jesus responds yes. Which is not recorded anywhere in the Gospels and also contradicts his character. So there is a logical way to approach these things also.

Hmm to Davster some of the claims they are making seems like they could also be argued the other way around. For example

An alternate birth location:

A new possibility has been suggested recently. There appears to have been a small hamlet in Galilee that was also called Bethlehem -- "Bethlehem HaGalilit" in Hebrew. It was located very close to Nazareth.

Bruce Chilton, author of "Rabbi Jesus" comments:

"Bethlehem in Hebrew means 'house of bread,' a common name for settlements with mills capable of producing fine flour, rather than the course grade most Israelites used for their daily needs. In 1975, amid the musty, damp and badly lit back shelves of the University Library in Cambridge, I first learned of a Galilean Bethlehem, near Nazareth, from an obscure study of the Talmud published during the nineteenth century. I was surprised by the dearth of discussion of this place in New Testament studies as the possible site of Jesus' birth, especially since a northern Bethlehem is me

mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 19:15)....Now, however, archeological excavations show that Bethlehem in Galilee is a first-century site just seven miles [12 km] from Nazareth, so my former reserve can be put aside. There is good reason to surmise that the Bethlehem to which Matthew refers was in Galilee." 5

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
so it only takes one unpredicted coincidence and their whole hypothesis could be wrong. Not to mention there is already momentum behind other things than just that verse.

Excavations between 1992 and 2003 have uncovered the remains of a large church and monastery built circa 500 CE. Oshri said: "There is no doubt in my mind that these are impressive and important evidence of a strong Christian community established in Bethlehem a short time after Jesus' death." He is certain that the structures are Christian because of the oil lamps with crosses, baptismal font, bronze cross, and pig bones found on the site. He expects that recognition of Bethlehem in Galilee as the birth place of Jesus may take a long time. He said: "Business interests are too important. After all this time, the churches do not have a strong interest in changing the nativity story."

also from the same above website

thanks though that should make for some interesting discussion and maybe I can look into it and find more evidence that this may indeed be the Bethlehem in Nazareth that was talked about. :o)

Answer 1

The fact that the authors of the Christ story made sure it didn't have too many variances with the prophecies of the Torah is hardly proof of Jesus' divinity. Let me give you one example:

Through anlysis of how he is referred (the Nazarene) and historical understandings (there was no census taken and even if done so Romans would never ask people to trek to their ancestoral home), Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. I have read many analyses of the Gosples and this is a pretty common understanding. The trip to Bethlehem is a literary addition so that the story "fufils" a prophecy or two. It's bogus, never happend, a rewrite of history so that no one cans say "He can't be the Messiah because the Messiah is supposed to be born in Bethlehem". Ditto for things like the words of angels visiting Mary and Joseph, the virgin birth, the "escape" from the slaughter of the innocents (which historically is considered not to have happened). These are all literary additions to make it consistent with Old Testement prophecy. Read Bishop (Episcopalian) John Shelby Spong, he points out these and many more literary elements used but his goal is not to debunk the Bible but rather to show how it is supposed to be read - not literally.

Some Wiki text about the birth: Entry - Virgin Birth

Matthew and Luke both wanted to make Jesus fit prophecies from Hebrew scripture. Both were aware of prophecies concerning a virgin birth and Bethlehem, and therefore these elements of their stories match. But each author wove these prophecies into an overall narrative in a different way. For example, both authors had to explain how Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he was known to be from Nazareth (as mentioned in all four gospels) - and each came up with an explanation that some see as contradicting the other.

Edit Addition: The point is not to argue that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, the point is more that saying that Isaih predicting a Bethlehen birth and the gospels telling of a Bethlehem birth is hardly proof of fulfilled prophecy. Now if Isaih predicted, say that George Washington would found the United States that would be will documented enough and in different sources to be a prophecy fulfilled.

Answer 2

Nobody important: the difference is, these people saw Jesus die, then saw him alive, then saw him ascend. They had PROOF. Therefore, if they died for a lie, it would be really stupid because they would know FOR SURE they were making it up. Plus, some of these people (Paul) had no reason to want to believe Jesus was God and were not raised to think that way.

Muslim suicide bombers are acting on pure belief, which can be irrational. They don't know anything for sure and were brainwashed from an early age. It's apples and oranges. Different minds, cultures, upbringings, and experiences regarding faith.


Questioner: I agree, but the book is better. And "The Case for Faith" is amazing too. Check it out.

Answer 3

I read the book. Mr. Strobel is a lawyer. I come from a family of lawyers, and I can say from experience that a good one can effectively and convincingly argue any point.
Some(not much) historical accuracy exists, arguments that can never be dis/proven can be made that oral tradition can be accurate. None of this proves that Jesus was divine.

Answer 4

I am a Christian, I agree with you. I don't know why you are taking the time to put all this on yahoo answers? Do you think this is effective evangelism? I am seriously wondering....

Answer 5

Islamist suicide bombers die for their faith as well. Does their 'martyrdom' (the word martyr has its roots in the greek martyros, which means 'witness') validate their beliefs? If not, why not, given that its the same standard applied to the early Christians.

ADDENDUM: A good point that I forgot to bring up, thanks for mentioning it...what /about/ the plain old Islamic (insert any other religion imaginable) martyrs who were killed for what they believed in? Their deaths validate their beliefs, do they not? You can't just make that argument and claim it only applies to Christians. What about the Branch Dividians? They saw their 'prophet' and believed, and died for it...why would they die if what they believed about David Koresh wasn't true? Your logic is faulty, and attemping to dismiss that tack doesn't excuse it.

Answer 6

I read the book, but didn't realize there was also a movie! Can you tell me where it might be available to rent or buy?

God bless you!

Answer 7

I think you may have left one or two things out:

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

Answer 8

Thanks for posting -- I didn't realize they had made a movie of that book.

Answer 9

"So did I leave anything out?"

Yes, logic and the truth.