The Case For Christ: Film Analysis and Rebuttal - Pt 2 of 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 мар 2019
- Analysis of the 2017 film The Case For Christ, based on the book of the same name written by Lee Strobel. The film depicts Strobel's investigation into the purported resurrection of Jesus and his subsequent conversion to Christianity.
Part 1 covers the depictions of atheists and Christians.
Part 2 covers the evidence that the film provides for the resurrection.
All video footage is taken from The Case For Christ DVD and is protected under the fair use guidelines.
Other sources:
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ri...
samharris.org/an-atheist-mani...
• The God Debate II: Har...
• LEE STROBEL - The Case...
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ri...
samharris.org/an-atheist-mani...
canonpress.com/content/I-115.pdf
arisechurchnz.com/morality-and...
/ tell-a-devout-christia...
/ randomfilmtalk 
Развлечения
Well, I am a christian, long time... unbeliever. i won't bore anyone with why i converted, but i will agree with you, movies like this make my skin crawl. A lot of the "points" made in defense of christianity are nonsensical and borderline propagandic. furthermore the portrayal of atheists is almost comically wrong. You aren't wrong, this is a bad movie. and i don't think christians should waste their time watching it anymore then non-christians.
Your "early" work is really great! Thank you! Habermas was even greater; so thanks for "clarifying". ;)
I believe the argument that Jesus never died comes from Islam where "Isa bin Miryam" is described as having fainted... it's not very popular in the West, but to be honest, the timescale of his death makes little sense otherwise, crucifixionx were day or week long tortures, not generally something over in 8 - 12 hours...
Why would none of the gospel writers bother about the empty tomb being discovered by women, who in jewish society are not considered reliable witnesses? MAYBE CAUSE THEY (or the people paying them and telling them what to write as the signs are for greek speaking professional writers which often were copyists or worked on contract) WERE NOT JEWS BUT CHRISTIANS AND WROTE NOT FOR JEWS BUT FOR OTHER CHRISTIANS... ?
Sorry, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON claimed to have seen the risen Jesus PERSONALLY. The Gospels were written by people living 1 to 2 generations after the facts and possibly half a world away from the events...
Other people wrote about any single claim presented in the bible and the number 500 is based on ONE line in Acts saying that 500 more brethren witnessed the resurrected Jesus, which is basically not even a claim, just something written down. Who were they? Why was none of their stories important enough to write down? The bible is full of pointless lists, but a list of WITNESSES to the most important "fact" it presents was not worth to compile and preserve? sure, it is VERY unlikely anybody would travel a thousand miles from Greece to Galilee to pick up ANY such witness, but at least showing you did your work and HAD 500 individual witnesses would be a lot more confidence invoking compared to "and yes there were also 500 guys that totally saw him too. I swear".
Non-devout catholic here, and I love this analysis. I've never liked Christian movies or music or anything to preachy so I never would have watched this movie but dear God (pardon) this movie sounds ridiculous. Rip on more like it please lol
Yes, as a Catholic, I agree that this movie and other movies like it don't do anything except push the narrative among non-Christians that we're arrogant, pushy, condescending and cripplingly naive.
As a former Southern Baptist, I can say that part is accurate at least for a majority of Baptists. Catholics seem to be more logical and accepting of facts where Baptists, Pentacostals, and Evangelicals ( I've attended services for all three many times) are more emotional and tend to reject logic for faith.
Tbf this guy is also pretty condescending. At least in the two parts of this review.
It's a shame that the automatic social exclamation in cases like this is "mygod!" because my opinion/reasoning on the theology seems pretty identical to yours and the non-theological equivalents of "mygod!" are most likely scatological.
But I have to say - oh, alright, HOLYFACKINGSHITE but your analysis and background checking are damn thorough. Sir... respect.
I personally prefer "cheesus". But such language is indeed unfortunate - I even go as far as to use common kink-shaming language when I'm possessed by a certain animus... while being a kink aficionado myself! This is why I disagree with Dawkins and agree with rabbi Sacks that teaching your kid English is a form of cultural indoctrination. Bondage is our fate, it's just some rare people may choose a position. - Adûnâi
The feedback counter to date restores my faith in autochthons
Gotta love how YT gives me an ad for the very film you just a tore a new asshole.
11:48 the core of the story is not the same in all 4 at all though. One of those accounts has a mass zombie uprising with Jesus’s resurrection. Can’t believe you left that out
Did you know as late as World War I in the hospitals they had difficulty determining if somebody was dead. They used to put a pain of glass over their head where somebody wiped with their finger “I am alive”. So if their respiration caused the glass to fog up, and that message would appear. There are many conditions that can imitate death and many situations where a person would appear to be dead, but actually is not.
Just throwing that out there. This makes me think of the Holy Grail “I’m not dead yet” and the bit with the parrot “he’s just resting”
In fact it’s difficult to think of death and not recall at least some bit of Month Python.
I always figured that with the crucifixion and resurrection, that Jesus was just in shock or in a coma/unconscious from the combination of blood loss and stress or whatever. Crucifixion usually took a few days but Jesus supposedly “died” in 3 hours. So, he was likely just unconscious for a few days, woke up in a tomb, called for help and the young man mentioned in one of the Gospels helped get him out.
@@michiganscythian2445 The earliest account (Paul's) isn't even aware Jesus lived an earthly existence. Richard Carrier is probably correct in that the Gospel account is later literary fiction.
- Adûnâi
That's an issue that doesn't get brought up enough. We're going by the testimony of people that lived over 400 years before the Dark Ages. Their understanding of the world was extremely limited and where science of any kind was all but non-existent. People would believe or fabricate any kind of explanation of what they saw or think they saw that made the best sense to them.
I can't believe that this has so few views and comments. I would love to see you take down more Christian propaganda films like this!
I haven't seen the film, but i am familiar with Habermas, and he really does give an iron cast argument that the original disciples preached and suffered for their belief in the resurrection. And consistently over a span of decades.
Habermas' argument is not based on the new testament texts generally, he restricted himself to only the new testament texts that mainstream Non-Christian new testament specialists consider to be reliable in their authenticity and preservation. And he engages those texts as if they were ordinary uninspired real historical documents.
The only "ironclad" thing about Habermas work is that for the last 25 years he has consistently talked abvout his magnum opus, which will once and for all present the case for "minimal facts" that cannot be denied... and the only thing that has changed is how many such facts he claims he can prove, no book has appeared, no evidence presented. Just point after point given up to not be undeniable.
So what? It's still just a "they wouldn't have done xyz for a lie" argument. If you accept that as a valid argument, then you _have to_ accept Islam as true due to the 9/11 suicide murderers.
@@Wolf-ln1ml no it's not the same. Yes, people might die for something if they believe it, and that doesn't prove their faith is well founded.
The difference is that if Jesus actually had not risen from the dead then his disciples must have known 100% that they were the ones who had invented the lies. It's the difference between dying for something that you were accidentally wrong about vs a lie that you started.
@@phun1901 There are plenty of people who have endured punishments for sticking to their own lies, including death. It's always a matter of how much someone actually believes their own lies, and how bad the consequences of revoking them would be. Not to mention that human psychology can be weird. *_Very_* weird.
But even without that - we have _texts_ claiming that they preached about a resurrected Christ, and later accepted death sentences rather than revoking those preachings. You are claiming here that it's _more_ likely that their preachings not only happened, but were actually representing a reality that goes against pretty much _everything_ we have solid evidence for, rather than *_any_* other explanation.
Selectively ignoring a mountain of evidence that speaks against those claims, and cherry-picking a few pieces of evidence that appear to support it... Sorry, but that is the very definition of confirmation bias.
If there _was_ a god like that, one that had any actual desire to have any kind of relationship with humans, there would be about as much evidence for it as there is for the fact that masses attract each other (also known as gravity).
@@Wolf-ln1ml if someone "believes their own lies" they are not lying. It boils down to the disciples genuinely believed their eyewitness testimony in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
You are critising an argument before you even heard it. That is confirmation bias.
It's not simply that the text quotes the original disciples claiming that this is what they taught. In the same texts Paul obligated everyone to listen to them, obey the original disciples and send them money while they were still alive, whilst Paul was elsewhere engaged in other regions.
Rival teachers don't endorse each other, don't financially support each other, they don't misquote those people who are going to immediately dispute a blatant misrepresentation. If the disciples didn't teach what Paul attributed to them, then what is going here? Give me an alternative.
It's pretty straightforward that Christians were being persecuted and killed. Paul is transparent about his own participation in persecution prior to his conversion, and he spends a lot of time addressing ongoing suffering that others are experiencing. If they weren't being persecuted for their testimony, then what were they being persecuted for? Why did people hate them, what did the disciples gain from their testimony?
If you think there are comparable situations with other people then what are they?
9:30 please allow me to happily debunk this point: It was women who found the empty tomb because going near dead bodies (to clean, prepare, say prayers, put on oils and such, etc) was "unclean" work that men shouldn't be doing (the thinking at the time). That's also why the guards were accompanying them, to help roll the big giant bolder away from the door so they could get to the body and work on it.
The people of that time would have questioned why men were at the gravesite at all, and probably would have accused them of just moving the bolder themselves and stealing the body. Notice that no one just believes the women, the women go tell the men and the men go verify what those devious female folk said before people start believing it, plus the men now have a reason to go visit the gravesite without suspicion.
Around 10:00 you make it "4 women" to balance the truth claim. As you said, women testimony at the time wasn't held as high as men testimony. But it wasn't void. If you had 10 women versus one man testimony, the "truth" would lean toward the women testimony.
(I'm far from an expert but that's how I'd explain the need for 4 women)
Or the idea that women were used as witnesses goes in tandem with the claim that the god is a defeated weakling who was crucified.
- Adûnâi
@@angamaitesangahyando685 And what court of law were these women supposed to be testifying in?
None.
They were going to take the news back to the Disciples & his followers, not to a law court. Women were an integral part of Jesus' ministry & the church that grew around His teachings (read the story of Mary & Martha). Notice that no one dismisses Women's testimony as witnesses of His healing miracles - only of His resurrection.
Which, BTW, no one saw. People saw Lazurus, and the centurion's daughter actually rise from their deathbeds. All anyone saw of Jesus' resurrection was an empty tomb.
I suspect they went to the wrong tomb. Modern ones are all nicely mapped out & marked out - old cemeteries are often laid out higgedly piggedly. Imagine a cemetery, centuries old, made up of random caves in cliffs & hillsides. Anyone could get lost.
what scares me most, about those who would agree with this film's case, is that I know there are people who are cleverer than me who would succumb to blind faith, which is a DANGEROUS thing, in my opinion.
Very dangerous indeed, especially when a majority of our leaders in the US identify as Christians.
Years ago I was having a discussion with a mate about the miracles, and one of the best things he said was "Ok so you're Jesus, you get followed by 5,000 people and feed them all with 5 loaves and 2 fish... Would it not make more sense that everyone brought a packed lunch?" - nailed it.
yeah, try to pack anything while being a hobo in a desert, you smartass atheist.
You're missing the point. It was not expected they'd Amass such a great following. So they couldn't even tell people to even Pack Lunch.
And dude. It's not uncommon for people NOT to pack Lunch.
@@silverhawkscape2677 I would argue that "back in the day" food was a priority. To compare it to today would be silly. People don't bring lunch with them today because they know they can always buy something when they're out and about. But if you were walking up a mountain, would you Not bring something to eat? Or would you just expect a shop to be at the top?
@@Truffle_Pup That's not how not works. And you'll be surprised on how people will still fail to pack food even if they won't be any shop they can buy from at the Location. >_>
Edit: And there is a Verse that addressed this.
Matthew 14:13-21
When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.
As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.
18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.
So there you have it. The Disciples wanted to send the crowds away so that they can go back to the villages and get food. Christ wanted them to stay and so instead feed them what they had on hand. I don't know how hard this is to understand or even look up.
@@silverhawkscape2677 oh I totally agree with that, modern people are idiots. But c.2000 years ago, I will bet my house that every single person thought of food and water first before following some beardy hippie on a massive trek.
Edit: By all means quote the text, but it's still fallible. Unless you truly do believe it, in which case, all the very best with that.
It seems the budget only allowed a limited amount of accuracy, and it was all spent on Gary Hanermas. His arguments are as stupid as depicted and he says them confidently.
Very accurate representation sadly.
I have now watched all your videos. I still want you to make more. Perhaps a "Why The Emperors New Groove is Not Very Bad". To stay true to the naming convention you accidently boxed yourself into.
I´d watch the absolute shiitee out of yet another video telling me what I already know, but does it in a way that wastes time while still being very well made, mostly. Im still a bit iffy about The Blade Runner video, for the simple reason I dont care for that movie at all.. It was all of 40 mins or so since I saw it after all, so I am still pissed you like something I dont. Since it clearly makes you a Cucumber-Tree.
Jesus is not even historical. Disproving his resurrection is ALREADY a leap.
09:50 Actually, this is a really deep point. Afaik, Richard Carrier called it something like "an argument from stigma". You can read more on it yourself, but to summarise one of the points which fascinates me personally, women might have been made up precisely because their shameful account went in tandem with the outrageous claim of a crucified god. - Adûnâi
It was women because women were in charge of preparing bodies after death and saying prayers and stuff, as it was "unclean" work men shouldn't be doing (the thinking at the time). That's what the women were originally going there for: to clean, re-dress, put oils on, etc the body, hence why the guards were accompanying them there to help roll the big giant bolder away so they could get to the body.
Had it been men who discovered the empty tomb, people of the time would have wondered what they were doing there in the first place, and they would have been accused of just moving the bolder themselves and stealing the body.
Do you believe it’s ethically justified to kill an animal for food but not human?
If so, you’re implying that there’s morally relevant difference between the two that justifies killing one for food and not the other, so what trait(s) justify the treatment difference between the 2?
If you are coherent with your answer, you should be able to remove the trait(s) from the human and replace them with the trait of the animal and it would justify killing the human for food.
If no trait exists, this means that to be morally coherent, you must believe that killing an animal for food is wrong.
_"so what trait(s) justify the treatment difference between the 2?"_
One might argue that in case of some animals, their capacity for happiness/emotional well-being/... is lower. You'd have a hard time convincing me for example that an oyster has as fulfilling a social life as a happily married human with dozens of good friends, and is happily pursuiing it's long-term life goals... Of course that becomes a lot urkier when it comes to cows for example since as far as we've been finding out, they do lead pretty involved social lives and form friendships and all that, so it's a matter of degree. And for anyone who wants to argue that _any_ amount of suffering is bad - well, plants also suffer in their own way when they're cut down, so you'd have to be someone who only eats what has died without any hint of human intervention (only fruits that have already fallen off the tree for example), which would make life *_extremely_* difficult for the vast majority of humans.
But even without that - I'm a human, they're not. It's speciesism obviously, but I have yet to hear a good argument against that stance.
@@Wolf-ln1ml 1. Higher capacity for well-being/suffering - I do agree that this makes humans, on average, more morally valuable than animals. However, this would make a poor justification for killing animals for food, since the same logic would apply to mentally disabled humans and infants. I don’t have a problem killing oysters, clams, or mussels for food, since I don’t believe they are sentient, and I would expect to have evidence by this point if they were sentient, which brings me to:
2. “Plants feel pain” - It sounds like you’re referring to the sound plants make when they’re cut (unless you have another source on this you’d like to share). In this case, I would ask how you would know the difference between a scream and a simple mechanical response to being cut. The reason I would lean on the side of it being a mechanical response is because I can’t conceive of any evolutionary reason a plant would have to feel pain (animals in contrast would avoid a predator out of a desire to avoid feeling pain). With that being said, if plants did feel pain, it would still cause less suffering to be vegan, since a lot more plants would have to be harvested to fatten an animal up than would have to be harvested for direct consumption. (Imagine a wonderful, super epic transition:)
3. Species - The reductio of this view is that if the consciousness of your best friend or favorite grade school teacher were transferred into the body of a cow, you would have to be morally okay killing them for food, since they would now be of a different species.
Chrstian movie, in general tends to be pretty cringy. Never get one, or remember one, that maybe make you thing from a perspective more phillosophical in the way to aproach to a higher level of knowledge. You could be closer to a believe system from Thomist point of view, even from Pascal. But no one try to do it.
Just another note - the New Testament is as far as I know the document with the most manuscripts. But this does not make it any more believable.
First, the earliest manuscripts were written generations after the fact. For the first hundred years, the stories were only an oral tradition, and oral traditions usually change the message.
Second, and more important due to it being verifiable, the earliest manuscripts are different from the modern Bible. The exact same Gospel may have things added or omitted in its different versions. It was only when the printing press arrived and Bibles became cheap and ubiquitous that most people began to notice discrepancies. For example, Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, and the famous "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.", is entirely missing from the earliest known manuscripts. The very fact that the changes happened is proof that the entire thing is unreliable, and the number of copies is irrelevant. It's like saying "you can trust my calculations, I did them 10 times" while omitting you reached 10 different answers.
As an added note, the changes in the Bible are very close to genetic mutations. Some changes made the text more... 'persuasive' and helped it being copied, and thus were selected for, and you can trace lineages by the accumulated errors during copying. Only the printing press forced the most common versions to overrule the variety.
dont/..like....it
We’ve watched all of your videos now. We want more. Please get off your arse and make a video. Or I guess you can do it on it. We really don’t care where it is. Just make some more please. Let us know if you need help.
You do realize the time, research and effort in analysis that RFT meticulously and concisely conveys is not akin to posting a simple reaction video. I love watching RLM's and Critical Drinker's reviews but RFT is some serious next level film breakdown.
You do realize I’m trying to be lighthearted about it. I am not really yelling at the guy
@@Princess_Feona Ah, ok lol Looking forward to his Hobbit 2 video.
Thank you! + This film is not for me, and I am pleased with you showing all this.
+ Also thank you for giving your intentions at the end! Wow, it is very rare!
Please excuse me for telling otherwise after an extensive work like this, dear apparently naive narrator, who knows that he does not know enough about faith (all right!)--let me cast doubt on your specific judgments.
- You did not follow the argument of Habermas. It was suggested that (1) the resurrection is evidence for the relevance of Christian faith in the only one supernatural reality (let's assume so), and that (2) there is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. They seemed to speak about concrete events, convictions and their alleged reality. You made the character Habermas appear silly by refuting him with a generalized concept 'there is no evidence for God.' * And we know why: you stated right at the beginning that there cannot be any proofs/evidence for God--a supernatural eternal Person. * So I must think that you just assume it. You use expressions many times like "no evidence" (is it a reality or is it an assumption?*), seemingly looking for logic. Yet what you presume from the start is neither logical, nor unequivocally understandable or natural in itself. You just---warning: here come a word you do not wish to hear! You may call it probability, chances (that one picks), assumptions, expectations, hopes, delusions, illusions, imagination, ideas, beliefs or "what you see and call real." But that is what you believe, blatantly so because you do not even care making those same assumptions again and again. You try to react proportionately but do not want to look deeper into the issue. What is it good for?* Do you want to lead someone to somewhere?* Or are you responding to your own thoughts?* I don't know. But if you want to show something to somebody, indoctrinating them with your own beliefs/assumptions/anythings is eventually a probability. This film is an example. You may be an example... and (you can answer it) are you one for yourself?* On what do you base your claims, judgments or assumptions, and on which in what measure (in case you stick to them)?* If you have no answer whether you are an example representing a kind of looking at things (yet), it reassures to the hearer that you are so lost in your own worldview that you might not even notice it.
- I like that you give your reasons and arguments for refutation! At the same time, you are misled by the distorted ideas communicated by our culture (just as the film is in similar ways). You state that faith equals belief, which means holding something true without having the hard evidence for it. * Everyone assumes that... * (nope; only) those who have no interest in changing others' ideas and those who have the main intention to change the mindset of others. Reasoning becomes futile if you assume that. But I believe you are a person with whom one can reason, so I would like to use the term faith, which is not the same as belief, nor a bunch of beliefs, for the basis of your beliefs/thoughts and worldview. Everyone has a worldview, so everyone has some faith (whereas "the faith" could be 'believing everything about the truth'). This is the reason I labelled you naive and proceeded to show how you also have some sort of faith, a foundation for your beliefs. Sticking to or being inconsistent with your 'bias' (or, one's personal starting point for argumentation) does not place you above anyone. Does it 'in itself'?* If you believe/think/imagine that, you are a victim of a dangerous view. (If you simply meant openness as honesty, it comes down to the same question: why is it better* than anyone else's approach?*) How can you conclude that a storytelling is patronizing (which it must be until it is written especially for non-believers) when you yourself utter at the same time such a view that their approach to things is of lower quality than yours?* This would open a new line of argument. About your faith. What are your standards?* What is good/desirable, and how do you know something has or lacks that quality?* Do you?* It leads far... Why should others believe you?*
+ You did not want to change our minds--you make it clear. That is nice. I could guess it (as hinted at above). Let the reader decide. That's a good maxim.
Keep it up!
* You can insert: "REALLY?" / You can switch ?* for a question from my part: "WHY?"
PS: Thank you for reading it all!