The Case For Christ (Movie)
My Take:
Back in the 1990's I read the book, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel and it is fascinating to see it has become a full-length movie after several decades!
Not all children born into a religious household will have lasting faith . Indeed, many, many people born into faith in God have no permanent root in spirituality - despite their home-training. Often people, youth in particular want to relate to something they can touch. As a result, many youth walk away to go out and experience life. Later in life, many new and returning adults reconnect with their beliefs. (Are you familiar with the Prodigal Son . )
The Case For Christ is currently playing on Netflix for any of you interested in an engaging account of how a non-believer wrestles with him or her —self when considering shifting from one world view to a new one. Such as faith in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
A hard-driving journalist, Lee Strobel was exactly where he expected to be at work: on top. His award-winning investigative reporting recently earned him a promotion to legal editor at the Chicago Tribune . But things weren’t going nearly as well at home where his wife Leslie’s newfound faith in Christ went against everything Lee believed—or didn’t believe—as an avowed atheist .
Utilizing his journalistic and legal training, Lee begins a quest to debunk the claims of Christianity in order to save his crumbling marriage. Chasing down the biggest story of his career, Lee comes face-to-face with unexpected results that could change everything he knows to be true. Based on Lee Strobel’s award-winning bestselling book and starring Mike Vogel, Erika Christensen, Faye Dunaway, and Robert Forster.
Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ Audiobook Ch. 1
The Four B’s will be enforced.
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
A hard-driving journalist, Lee Strobel was exactly where he expected to be at work: on top. His award-winning investigative reporting recently earned him a promotion to legal editor at the Chicago Tribune. But things weren’t going nearly as well at home where his wife Leslie’s newfound faith in Christ went against everything Lee believed—or didn’t believe—as an avowed atheist.
Check out the clip above. Additionally, catch the movie on Netflix today!
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
Great movie.. A journalist who was an atheist and used objective journalism to try to prove existence of God.. He used facts, he put an entire wall of questions and answers. He tried his hardest to discredit Christ and yet in the end, after viewing all evidence it compelled him to Jesus.
Wonderful wonderful movie.
Very good book and very consequential movie. True to the book. (Without the dramatic story-line of course.)
I never read the book. I did watch the movie, but I also listened to his 3 audio.. Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, and a Case for faith.
I dont know why but when I hear Stroebels thoughts, it makes me think about Norman Geisler who made the Book," I don't have enough faith to be an atheist "
Great minds! You have got me one or two books up! I will make some time to audio(book) Case for faith. I have not heard of his Case for a Creator. Beginning with Case for Faith both are on my list immediately! Perhaps, you can do an article on one or the other and I can join in?!
In the movie, I was struck by something the mental health specialist commented on: "Father wounds." Although I immediately understood what she meant by it, it was a new phrase for me. How about you?
It has almost 5 star review.. Its from Mr Strobel as well. I forget what order he went in when he did all of these. I think it was Case for Christ, Faith, Creator
to me it seems he went through the typical levels.. Is there even a person called Jesus? When he found the evidence that convinced him , I feel he would question should a person even have faith in it, and finally an investigation about God creating it all.. I feel they all fit together perfectly for any person who wishes to ease their way into Christianity and not get overwhelmed by the bigger stuff.
I see your point. Thus, the three books. Today my 'old' mind is working and I do remember seeing the book he wrote abou faith on Youtube over the last several years. Just so much to read that I did not take any time to listen to its audio book. Now, I even see The Case for the Creator on Youtube! Will listen to both soon! This book, The Case for Christ is brilliant in its inductive reasoning, which leads to faith in Jesus, the Messiah.
I saw the movie, more or less ( I had it on the tv but didnt watch it constantly). I would call it a cut above the average religious proselytizing pic like the ones Kirk Cameron starts in, but on the other hand I don't think this movie will convert unbelievers.
As a movie I'd give it a C +, as a religion lesson maybe a C -.
The acting isn't bad, but the script is run of the mill, other than the overtly religious angle.
Hi John! Yeah, the movie is covering a lot ground and content in a limited span of time. The book takes its time. Moreover, the movie is 'dated.' In that, Mr. Strobel wrote this book in the 1980's about his own Atheist to Christian life change. There is an interesting audiobook chapter from the book up in the article window above.
No one, absolutely no one, is "born into faith in God" as you put it. We are all born atheists, God belief has to be taught and learned
... and the God one believes in is a function of nurture. (And for adults finding faith later ... a function of culture and influences.)
It is quite a proposition to suggest that almost 20% of the children in China were born with Buddhist beliefs or that nearly 100% of the children of Afghanistan were born with beliefs in Allah or that ~80% of the children of India were born with the pantheistic-polytheistic beliefs in Brahma, Vishnu, et. al.
If the particular beliefs (and indeed the gods) spontaneously emerged throughout the world (thus finding religious views geographically mixed rather than clustered) then one might be able to make the argument that we are born with the belief in God. However that argument would also need to explain why different infants are born with beliefs in different (quite different) gods.
The argument that human beings are genetically predisposed to believe in a god or gods, however, seems to have legs. We do seek answers to questions and when we cannot find the answer cultures historically offered a supreme entity (or entities) - and with great success! Not too long ago Zeus / Jupiter was the explanation for thunderstorms. Vulcan the explanation for volcanoes, etc.
I don't think we have any concept of anything when we are born. It is what we expereince throughout life that molds us.
I agree. We are born with genetic skills (ability to breathe, cry, eat, etc.) and we have a natural ability to bond with those caring for us. But I would need to see some rather convincing formal evidence that a newborn has a shred of knowledge outside of 'I am comfortable / I am uncomfortable' and similar.
I knew nothing about religion until my grandmother told me about it.
Yes, I agree with you.
( experience)
Yes. Faith comes by hearing.
Romans 10:
14 How then can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who g bring good news!” h
16 But not all of them welcomed the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” i 17 Consequently, faith comes by hearing , and hearing by the word of Christ.
Nope, everyone is instilled with the question who is our creator, how did we get here..Everyone has some kind of compelling attraction to God..
The mere fact that your here now shows you have an interest.
Thank you, Shepboy!
How precisely do you know this?
Speak for yourself.
I'm more interested in seeing your proof for a "Creator" to substantiate claims for one. Failing that, then such claims at least provide a comedic entertainment value.
Well, they will say there's this book, called the Bible....
And of course, there's Lee Strobel who switched careers from being an "atheist investigative reporter"
to being a person who has found Christ and made a career out of it with, what?, 27 books of faith and Christ published and his own TV show and web site..............
so if it happened to Lee, it could happen to anyone, right?
/s
It's odd how some theists will use an individual who adopted a religious belief (as if that was uncommon or something) as "proof" there is a god. I wonder if I published a story along the lines of a reverse-Strobel story, where I am a die-hard theist who becomes an atheist after exhaustive research proving there is no god (or no actual empirical evidence for one), would be as well received? Probably not by the theistic community.
Okay... Prove to me that there is not...
This article is about The Case for Christ . If you have Netflix you can 'dail' it up and watch it to be informed. If not you can comment on the trailer above, please. Or, visit some of the many free to you Youtube videos on this specific movie. Thank you!
The Four B’s will be enforced.
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
Gotta love those logical fallacies.
Yes, and my statement is indirectly on point with that, especially as it related to religious conversion and belief.
Here is a documentary on the book. It is not the 2017 movie version. Lee Strobel does appear in this Youtube video.
Lee Strobel took the time to learn what he believes and why he believes it about Jesus.
See you cant stay away. If you people are so called atheists, then you would just avoid this thread. Why in the world would you feel the need to come rain on the parade of Christians?
Do any of you who are atheists honestly think your going to turn a Christian from their beliefs? I know you wont phase my one bit.
You all feel attracted to God.. Any time someone talks about God you have to jump right into the fray.
I find it kind of funny that you all would even come here talking and debating about something you dont even believe in.. If someone made a thread about Islam faith, I wouldnt be there. If someone talked about Pink unicorns.. I wouldnt be there.. There is no point in discussing or talking about something that I know doesnt exist.
And if people truly did believe in pink unicorns, then I would go and condemn them, or make fun of them, or tell them they didnt exist, or say things to hurt their feeling about their beliefs.. I just wouldnt be part of the conversation.
That is not you guys though. You all believe in God, and you all have a problem with God, a chip on your shoulder thinking you know better than him, and you cant understand why he does things the way he does.
How is the Bible a case for the existence of Jesus when neither god nor Jesus wrote the bible? The bible is an unproven claim that relies on people ignoring logic.
Theistic religion is a test of logic that most people flunk because of their inability to use reason instead of emotion.
Please inform yourself about the movie, The Case for Christ. It is also a longstanding book and audio book. Did you view the video you commented under?
I don't care if it is a novena with the pope and a 6 credit hour college course. The fact that you believe it to be true because you agree with the premise doesn't mean that it is factual.
The movie is cataloged as a dramatic film and not as a documentary. There is a hint in there.
The movie trailer is provided in the article. The documentary is above also: 2.2.3.3.… or in plain sight several comments above.
If you do not care to be judicious regarding this topic, allow others to discuss it without you. Please observe:
The Four B’s will be enforced.
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
I was not aware that critical replies were not welcome on NT threads.
You're kidding, right?
Well I have to agree and further more if you want to hide an article from atheist members it would be wise to put it in a private group.
Otherwise you kind of have to accept the comments as long as they don't violate the COC.
It's a book written by a man
and a movie based on the book for Blank's sake !
IT proves NOTHING except one man's change of beliefs.
A change, which by the way, has benefitted him financially in a very beneficial way, ala Jimmy & Tammy Bakker.
What is lee up to now?
27 books, most of which are the '"Case for a..." series " A case for the Holy Spirit", A case for Faith, A case for a Creator, etc
A nationally syndicated TV show and a web site to sell his wares?
Gotta love Capitalism.............
Thank You for stating the obvious BF
( love the animations )
People communicating with one another is how much in this life gets done, Split Personality. We all communicate everyday. We're doing it now, don't you know. And, I do not begrudge the man a respectable living. This book does not proposition anybody to lose anything substantive they are wishing to be or keep.
Did you partake of any substance of the article, movie, documentary, or audiobook?
A great movie. I enjoyed watching it. It’s interesting to note the atheists are about as overtly hostile to your belief seeds as they are to mine even though on political matters they and you are much more compatible than you and I are.
XXJefferson! Hello and welcome. What are your views on The Case for Christ. I am greatly interested to discuss our shared faith with you. This is a truly remarkable movie. It took decades to make. Having read the book I was anxious to see if it caught the heart of Mr. Strobel's experience. It does. Although, I did not know before the movie how close he came to ending his marriage over Christianity.
That was a tense moment for me in the movie. As I could see how it could come about. When love cannot abide Spirituality. It is notable that for all these years since, Mr. Strobel's love won out on all accounts!
a correction to my post, there was a Typo , Then i would NOT go and condemn them. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Sure, but remember you have people who dont believe in something, trying to make a case about something they dont believe in to people who believe.
What is going to be achieved here? Perhaps there are Christian, new Christians who still dont have a strong foundation of belief and knowledge of the Bible and someone comes here talking about stuff they dont even understand or believe in. It is counterproductive, but then again to me it shows these so called atheists really do believe in God and that is why they are here to find the answers they come to seek.
Why would any person want to debate about something that doesnt even exist.. It makes zero sense. They spend time talking about nothing..
LOL books are only written by two sources.. Man or Woman... Does being one of them automatically discredit a person?
So all movies based on a book should be discredited also?
It shows more than that. It shows a man who pursued truth using objective journalism and investigation. He WANTED to prove there was no Jesus after lengthy and thorough investigation he concluded there is evidence.
So you think he did this just to make a buck? A very unsupported ignorant view.
Sounds like he has done a lot of good for many people who are struggling.
Yes Capitalism is awesome.
We understood your meaning, in context of the whole paragraph. (-:
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
So when Pierre or some other person on here said why would someone need to be put in ignore? This right here is a prime example. There is debating people, and then there are people who get their erections by the hurt you try to inflict on others by your words.
God belief is absurd and laughable to many people Shep, and for good reason. It doesn't mean they are sick or vile, and you have no right to judge them this way.
Why would that be necessary and how would you prove authorship?
The Bible is, among other things, an anthology of chronicles by many different authors. It is inaccurate to treat it as a single source.
To be a critical reply, you would have to display something more than "the Bible is an unproven claim" or the religion=make believe or something similar. To be critical, your reply would have to employ a reasoned and detailed analysis. Just declaring believers to be foolish is not a critical reply.
Furthermore, just as you have a right to respond - critical or otherwise - others have a right to express opinions about your comments and theorize about why you expend so much time and energy bashing faith or people of faith.
Oh but I do, I can, and I will. Your GOOD REASON is being hurtful and ignorant to people of Christian faith. It makes you intolerant and hateful mean hearted person.
What I find funny is that none of you bash on any of the other religions.
And then in the same sentence you have the gall to tell someone they don't have a right to judge others. Wow.
It proves that a rational person, trained in investigatory techniques, can come to faith in Christ through investigation and reason. Many atheists claim such a thing is impossible. He has proven those people wrong, so it does prove something. It also proves that faith is not blind. Read enough scripture and you soon come to realize that the Bible does not endorse a blind faith at all, but many atheists claim it does.
CAUTION!
on trail!
Yo Shepboy, did you find it interesting when the mental health expert brought up the famous philosophers who possibly suffered, or experienced, "Father wound"?
lennylynx, that is general purpose and emotional comment. Do you find any statement or action by Mr. Lee Strobel in either the trailer, audiobook, documentary, or the movie absurd or laughable?
'Bash' probably is not the word I would use, but allow me to go on the record that IMO (at least) the Bible and the Qur'an (in their many variants) make grand claims without evidence, are demonstrably errant yet self-proclaim divinity.
You are arguing that atheists actually believe in God but are just pretending to not believe because they disapprove of His decisions.
Tell me you are not serious.
I am serious because you all are obsessed talking about the God of the Bible. I dont see any one here arguing for the existence of any other God. No one talks about them.. why? because we know they dont exist. But yet when it comes to the Bible and God you all beat most of the Christians to the punch to hurry up and talk about it.
You dont find it silly that you all are talking about something that doesnt exist?
What is even sillier is it is not the existence of God you all talk about, its always more about the Bible and what is written in it, and How God would like for us to live , being more Christ like.. We cant be perfect like Jesus was, but it gives us a model to follow.
I am an atheist toward other Gods, other than the Biblical God. You wont see me challenging people who believe in Zeus, or all the Hindu Gods, or what ever.. Why? because I truly dont believe in them. I will not argue with people about something I dont even believe in.
Let me ask you this. What would be considered evidence? In a court of law having witnesses would qualify as evidence.
When the Bible talks about places where King David ruled and it is found by using Archaeological evidence, then that would qualify.
When the place where Jesus healed a person who was paralyzed, the area was described in detail, and then it is found that adds to the evidence that the writer in the Gospel talked about a real place that is verified by finding it.
You all believe in Alexander the Great or some of these other ancient rulers, and yet some of them had their history recorded on paper 1000 years after the event and only like 10 manuscripts of it, and yet that is good enough for belief.
that is not the case for the Bible, even when we find manuscripts that date back during the time or very close to the time of the events and then we have hundreds upon hundreds of manuscripts about them..
So you are being extremely subjective when it comes to claims with out evidence. You seem to hold the Bible and its history at a different standard than other historical figures and history..
I watched it when it came out at the theater which has been a little while so I dont remember every detail of the movie. If i seen that scene again it would spark my memory. I need to see it again with my wife. Maybe we will do that tonight.
The history of Alexander the Great is taken as such. Corroborating evidence raises confidence in the accuracy of the recorded history. The lack of corroboration in a source generates skepticism. You seem to think the history of AtG is accepted as truth yet that is not at all correct. It, like all other history, is accepted as the best information we have on the past event.
More important, however, are the claims. Note that Jesus claimed to be God - the Son hypostasis of the supreme entity. That and other biblical claims of truly extraordinary levels (what could be more extraordinary than the claim of being THE creator of everything?) require far stronger corroboration than historical claims of amazing military accomplishments.
Further, to emphasize both points, Alexander the Great reportedly claimed to be descended from a Greek god. That is part of the history too. That is quite a claim. Do you accept it or would you require evidence? Why?
Finally, Alexander the Great is long dead. God, ostensibly, is not. AtG cannot possibly generate new information in over 2300 years because the man is dead. God, in contrast, has gone equally silent yet is not considered dead. I trust you see the problem.
Given the most extraordinary possible claim of being THE god who created everything, it is not at all surprising that skeptics look for evidence beyond the writings of ancient men with pens.
Do you want skeptics to use 'alleged God' instead of 'God' in their comments? This is an odd complaint. Further, if a child believes a monster is in her closet is it really surprising that the monster-skeptic parent would challenge her belief? If someone is talking about God it is not at all surprising that the claims made by the theist would be challenged by atheists.
So do I find it silly that atheists engage theists and use the theist term 'God' in doing so? No. In fact, I do not see any other option (other than silence).
The Bible is the basis for these beliefs. How is it silly to engage in critical analysis of the Bible when it is the foundation of many (incompatible) beliefs that are inconsistent with modern science and logic?
You would if there were Zeus theists offering Zeus articles on NT. Imagine a group of individuals seriously defending the belief that Zeus exists and pointing to 'historical records' such as the Iliad and the Odyssey or to the countless artifacts of ancient civilizations who spent fortunes worshiping these gods? These ancient people truly believed in their gods. They gave 'testimony' to their existence and died fighting in the name of their gods. I could go on ...
Hard to believe anyone would consider it 'silly' for you to challenge these Zeus beliefs with science, history and logic.
You argue with atheists yet you reject the very idea of existence without a god. You argue with OEC yet you reject the idea that the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Shepboy, one normally does not argue against something one accepts as valid. So, yes, you do indeed argue with people about that which you do not accept as true. Demonstrably. You are doing it right now.
I'd like to see support for that claim. I have several history textbooks in my library and not one of them casts even the tiniest doubt on the existence of Alexander the Great or his conquests.
And the people traveling with him, who spent time with him, heard him speak and saw him perform miracles had no problem at all believing it. Not because he said so, but because their experience with him supported the claim. There's nothing in the evidence we have to suggest that Jesus was a liar. What then do we make of his claims? Do we decide that - against all his other behavior and speech - he must be a liar simply because we have never encountered anything quite like him before? Dismissing something just because it's hard to believe is feeble justification.
Read what I wrote again. I did not suggest history doubts the existence of AtG or that he was a great military leader.
AtG in his lifetime accomplished a lot more than Jesus did
As I noted (again I already wrote this) what makes Jesus' claims so very different from AtG is that Jesus claimed the big one - to be the supreme entity of all existence. You probably do not simply accept AtG's claim of being the descendant of a Greek god, right? You would need some very good evidence of such a claim. Well Jesus' claim is profoundly greater than that of AtG's.
It is hard to believe AtG is descended from a Greek god. Is that 'feeble justification'? And besides this is not about being hard to believe but rather having evidence that rises to the grandiose level of the claim.
Yet, Jesus, has millions of followers and who follows ATG?
They're all Paulists.
As stated above, the Kingdom of God is in us who will receive it in the form of the Spirit. The believers are the one who have been given reasons to have hope in God and Jesus. Our faith is personal, because it exists within us, as the Spirit convicts us and writes meaning upon our hearts. It is the very definition of walking by faith and not by sight!
Tacos! Thank you for your astute observations. (-:
Your personal attack speaks volumes about you.
People can believe whatever they want. belief in god is no different than belief in fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. I find those beliefs to be equally silly too. belief does not exempt it from scrutiny or criticism.
That sounds more like insecurity on your part than mine.
And when Perrie checks in, she can address your CoC violation.
Not my problem if my words strike close to home or to fact. Your sensitivities is your own concern.
Objective and empirical.
Cross examination can destroy the credibility of witnesses and invalidate their testimony.
It would show those places existed. That's about it. The Illiad and the Odyssey showed that the city of Troy existed. Does that mean geek gods were real?
Only the place would be verified. Not the acts performed by Jesus.
is there a rule that says atheists are not allowed to comment on religious articles?
Of course not. Most theists are convinced they are correct because they have belief and nothing will sway them. They simply reject anything which contradicts or challenges their beliefs. Many are too emotionally attached or comforted by belief to actually let go or be challenged on it.
Such arrogant, and erroneous presumption!
See first statement.
So?
Good for you.
How do you know? What if people believe in unicorns or such things? What makes your belief correct and theirs wrong?
Belief does not exempt it or the believer from scrutiny or analysis.
Yeah, some of us actually challenge religious claims or nonsense. How terrible. >sarc<
Still wrong! You find it funny atheists coming to comment on religious topics. I find it funny you actually think we believe in a god. It's like you can't understand that some people simply don't believe in god/s or such things.
I watched the movie and I was impressed by it and by the effort he took to make his decision. I love it that Sony has Affirm films which are all faith based movies. I liked both of the Gods Not Dead movies. And I can’t wait to see Let There Be Light. Another real powerful movie on many levels is The Shack.
Lee Strobel's testimony impacts the thinking of Atheists, which he was. He was transformed through a comprehensive study of all the subject matter. Lee learned trust in Jesus through making the investigation of Jesus a front-burner issue in his life, holding to an open mind, following the truth wherever the evidence takes him, and finally reaching a verdict.
And so was his evidence: miracles performed in front of witnesses.
The Greek and Roman gods have far more evidence of their existence. The Bible serves as its own evidence - 'the words in this book are divine because the words in this book say they are divine'.
But to my point, the evidence needs to rise to the level of the claim. AtG's claimed military prowess has rather sufficient evidence. The far greater claim of being the supreme entity who created everything is evidenced simply by words on pages in an ancient book.
Tell that to someone in Iran, Thailand or India and see what response you get. Your god is not universal.
It’s not us they target in their participation in these kind of seeds. They know we Christians are going to talk about our faith and our beliefs. They know we are commissioned to spread the good news of salvation to all the world. Their purpose here is to cloud our message to non believers who are open to change and to sow and cast doubt in their minds as to our message. They are literally acting as agents of the evil one in trying to prevent others who are undecided 🤷♀️ from becoming believers.
There are some people who claim to be atheist but very much believe God exists. They simply strongly hate Him and all that He and those who believe stand for. That kind is far more likely to jump into discussions like this and much more likely to be involved in groups like FFRF than an atheist who simply thinks he/she knows there is no God.
That makes no sense.
Lennylynx! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will consider how to revise that sentence above. I am not sure we are all "born atheist," per se. However, it was not my intention to write that "all born...faithful." As in, most babies are creatures with a belief system or inherited faith from the womb. I was not thinking on those lines. That said, the paragraph construction explains that it is a passing statement about familial faith.
It was late (nearing 1 AM - LOL). What I meant by the paragraph is this:
Being born into, in my case as in example, a Christian home or in Lee Strobel's case, an Atheist home prior to his household transitioning to Christianity, does not mean a child is incapable of walking away from its family belief systems. Many youth do depart their faith, to return at some later point in life or not at all.
Accepted, thank-you for the correction. We ARE born atheists, however, this much is absolutely undeniable. A baby does not even possess the faculties to grasp the concept of a god.
I am just glad I was born.... : )
Article paragraph updated. Now watch the trailer and the movie! Share your thoughts, please.
I am too!
We are not born Atheists. The reason being is you have to know about religion in the first place to reject it.
So true.
We're not born believing in fairies and ghosts either.
I'd put it that we're born agnostic but don't know what that means either.
Did I say that?
How could you be?
A baby has no concept of anything but the basic human needs for survival.
Or the denial of One. No one is born believing that no God exists.
I agree with you. How could an infant know that no god exists sans any real knowledge? Makes no sense, right?
By the very same logic, everyone is born unconvinced that a god exists. An infant lacking even the vaguest idea of what a god is will certainly not hold belief in a particular god. (Unless one can deliver evidence that a newborn possesses knowledge of the concept 'god' and is convinced that the god exists.)
Also, if newborns did possess knowledge of god then is it not curious that infants throughout the world are born with very different gods in their minds? Seems also to be the case that the god in the mind of the infant tends to be the god of the parents, family, community, culture. So one born in India is far more likely to be Hindu, while one born in China is more likely to be Buddhist and in Afghanistan it is almost certainty that each newborn has Allah in its mind. Suggests that the concept of god enters the mind through nurture - not nature. Also suggests that the 'right' god depends on one's influences.
To cap this off, consider the millions of ancient infants born into this world believing in Zeus or Jupiter. Since Zeus, Jupiter, et. al. do not exist (pretty sure everyone is a Zeus-atheist by now) how did those thoughts get into the minds of the infants?
... just a thought experiment ...
To be properly informed about what you are discussing you should WATCH the movie or at least its movie trailer, The Case for Christ, on Netflix or read the book using your best means. Consider this: You can not address what you do not know about.
BULLETIN: I have added to the main article, Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ Audiobook Ch. 1!
Question,
How do you people feel about other religions besides Christains?
I feel all but a few religious are horseshit which is not to say that there aren't some good people of religious faith. By that I mean they try to put into practice the actual tenets of most of those faiths without fanfare or publicity or posturing or hostiility toward others not like them. Unfortunately, it's the very nature of their faith that makes them scarce in the public square unlike their various co-religionists (of whatever stripe) who make a big show of piety and morality and who are anything but. Their "faith" is deeply rooted in sanctimony.
So, if you care to share... What religions do you approve?
Any who believe in mythology and superstition are victims of propaganda and suffer from basic bad wiring.
Hello Cjcold! Though some religious sects have incorporated superstitious fears and ignorance into their methods, most world religions have well-developed theologies. A simple reductionist statement does nothing to explain the complexities of Christianity, for instance.
Cjcold, we have a very interesting article and some investigative videos available above, have you checked any of it out? How about a comment or question from the topic?
I disagree, to them it is not what you think of it.
Do you think the teachings of Christ are superstition and propaganda-- or not?
Great question. Generally speaking, my worldview takes into account that our nation is not a theocracy and is governed by a strong Constitution. I conclude that other religions and non-religious entities have similar rights and privileges as Christians. Moreover, I like people, and have social friends, in other sects, traditions, and religions. Did I reply to the gist of your question? If not, ask again.
Yes you did... and thanks for your reply. : )
I was mainly asking the people that do not like the Christian faith.
Oops! I accidentally did not connect my answer to your comment! Sorry. Got it! (-:
No problem. : )
The documentary above in 2.2.3.3.… @ timestamp 32:46 brings up a question about the Talmud regarding Jesus. Can someone with knowledge of the Talmud explain this:
1. It was considered by the Jewish leadership and non-supporters of Jesus, that he was a magician.
There is nothing wrong with this perception per se. It would be consistent and explain a lot. If so, that is.
Is there a member available for Q & A for the question above?
I may be able to give some "secular" information about it. I'll give it a try and, see if I can back it up with anything.
Galen! Thanks for the offer of help. (-:
NP, I think that even though I know nothing of the Talmud, I can at least give some historical info of the times.
Galen, I found one of the Talmudic references to Jesus as one who practiced magic in Sanhedrin 107b. NOTE: I am interested in the truth of this factual statement as history and not as a point of contention.
Remember, it was a group of Magi that came to see Jesus when he was in Bethlehem.
Magi were magicians, that is were the word comes from, they weren't considered "evil" at the time, just followers of Zorianderism because, Rome was in charge of most of the Middle East at the time magic was accepted, except were some religions looked down on it, like the Hebrews did. Magi read the stars to learn of events that would happen in the future, think of the Magi following a star to Bethlehem to find Jesus. They were also considered Wise Men and, Wise Women in some circles.
When Joseph and, Mary fled to Egypt it is possible that Jesus picked up (in his education), some of the Magi teachings, thus he would have been thought of as a magician.
Now that's interesting. More to consider.
And perhaps also he studied with spiritual masters in India as well?
You don’t think Jesus could have reached India during his years as a young man? If he had remained in Judea, wouldn’t he have been married off at age thirteen, the age all Jewish boys attain manhood? The silk road to India and beyond was much-traveled. There were caravans of merchants. And if there were three Wise Men (the Magi) from the East who were present at Jesus’ birth, doesn’t it imply (as Indian sage Paramahansa Yogananda claimed) that a tug from the Orient was present in Jesus’ life from the beginning? Then why would the Lord not return the visit? Especially since the oldest temples in the world, belonging to the oldest religions, were in India.
However, as for the controversy about Jesus in India , surf over to http://www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com "}}" data-beacon-parsed="true" class="bn-clickable" data-ylk="" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="2" data-v9y="1" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: #000000; text-decoration: none; box-shadow: #0dbe98 0px -2px 0px inset; font-family: ProximaNova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"> www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com and you’ll see what’s provoking both agony and ecstasy. You may discover why writer Len Kasten, in the March / April 2009 issue of Atlantis Rising , says: “this film, some think, has the potential to revolutionize Christianity...”
So they were not only magicians but also...Astrologers.
It is possible that he didn't even have to leave Egypt for this to have happened, as it is written there, caravans came and, went all the time, it is possible that he ran into more than one person from India while living in Egypt. Of course one of the things said in the Bible is that he returned with his parents to Nazareth when he was twelve.
Yes.
I'm not familiar with it. However, it would seem obvious to me-- the miracles He performed! Turning water into wine? Walking on water? That seems like magic to me!!!!
(Actually I think part of the problems with interpretations of what He did is due to various people having different definitions of "magic").
Looking back through time, it is bizarre how the Jewish leadership missed the appearance of its Messiah. . . . This is very, very interesting.
Perhaps some of the "magic tricks" he did made them doubt that he was a real Messiah. (Pre-conceived notions can often limit what one is open to seeing). His magic may have fooled them...???
BTW, speaking of "magic"-- does anyone know what my current avatar is? (The source?)
It is a tarot card used for divination, no?
In your opinion, was Jesus a magician? Your comment is ambiguous. Krishna, what I mean is this: A magician's 'magic', while pleasant and interesting, has no life-changing qualities to it. Did Jesus' demonstrations of power alter the course of lives in the Gospels?
They were looking for a warrior king, like David was, not a peaceful king who wanted to bring all peoples together, they wanted someone to drive the Romans out of Judea.
This will help those to understand the Tarot card.
Good point. As a democracy today, I could ask is Israel still looking for an earthy Messiah? It is a serious and fair question, in my opinion.
INTERMISSION:
AMAZING GRACE
by Brooke Simpson
Native American vocalist on The Voice
The New Testament makes truth claims about Jesus, the Messiah. Around Jesus a system of definitions and ideas on what Christian faith is, is erected. It falls to the believer or seeker as good readers and thinkers to study the system of Christian theology in order to grasp anything relevant and important within it. This, in my opinion, is what Lee Strobel accomplished for himself.
Trout-G, I am sharing this information with you here, because this article corresponds to the death, suffering, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Moreover, I do not wish to 'burden' Hal's article down.
I am supplying you a video on the painful death of Jesus lifted out of a dramatized movie version of Lee Stobel's, " Case For Christ ."
More. A comprehensive look (from both sides of the issue) 1986 Los Angeles Times article. This article is 4 pages of rich input on the very topic you are inquiring about:
Christ's Death Under Medical Examination : Doctors' Investigation of the Crucifixion Published in AMA Journal March 28, 1986