The Case for Christ

The sun has set on the night of Halloween, and in a celebratory air, I went searching for movies that could scare me. My wife’s out of the house. Time to watch something that will give me shivers up and down. One popped up straight away on the Netflix Instant Watch list: Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ. Few things have the power to horrify quite like the two words ‘Christian’ and ‘Documentary’ put together in one sentence. Dare I watch it? How could I resist? I’d write about it, I decided. I’d write about it and scoff at it majestically.

The tagline, “A journalist’s personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus,” evokes two thoughts. First, journalist. It strikes me of the appeal to authority fallacy. Look at me, I’m used to doing research and finding sources for articles; trust me based on my experience as a researcher. Well, no. In matters as grandiose as “Is there a god” that have been considered by millions—no, billions—of people, it doesn’t answer all questions merely because a journalist says something. You’ll have to provide some evidence, and rely less on your job title.

My second thought is the particular phrase “personal investigation.” Is “personal” a weasel word to fall back on, so that if I disagree with anything he says, then he can say “Well, it’s my personal truth, and it doesn’t have to be yours. To each their own, after all.” Either something’s true or not, and no amount of “personal” revelation is going to change the matter.

Next up, a screen showing the definition of “atheist” to be, “One who denies the existence of God.” All right, some dictionaries might say this certainly, but it doesn’t mean this. It means, “one who lacks the belief in god; not theist.” The former definition implies denial, which is the refusal to admit the truth or reality of an assertion. It’s biased by definition, and not true etymologically.

“Probably” has more consonants than that, Mr. Strobel. Pronouncing it “prolly” doesn’t impart much in the way of excellent journalism.

Next up, evidence. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Either you’ll be held up by your words, Mr. Strobel, or hung by them; I am listening intently for evidence. So what do you have to give as evidence for the truth of the Bible?

Argument 1: “Expert Witnesses” should be believed because they are “Expert Witnesses” – a whole string of professors from various colleges, seminaries, and universities. No, that’s not going to suffice. As stated above, the appeal to authority fallacy won’t be accepted here. What next?

Argument 2: The Bible should be believed because the writing fits in with other historical data of that period. Just because it was written during that time doesn’t make it true. Next?

Argument 3: Eyewitness accounts are important because they provide evidence for God. And eyewitnesses are also extremely prone to be wrong, as proven by numerous studies. Circumstantial evidence is always stronger evidence. Even if the authors of the Bible were eyewitnesses to what they wrote down, that doesn’t mean they were writing down the truth. Next?

Argument 4: Papias, a Christian apologist, said that the apostle John was an eyewitness, and Papias was one generation younger than John, ergo everything John wrote down was accurate. Again, I’m not going to accept “I knew him and he wrote down something, so whatever he wrote must be true.” I want actual, solid evidence, not fallible eyewitness or hearsay accounts.

Argument 5: The authors of the gospels wrote during the first century. Other eyewitnesses also were alive during this time and didn’t speak out against the lies of the Bible. Ergo, the Bible is true. I’m not sure how to deal with this one. Because other people didn’t write about something, it makes it true? I want positive evidence, not lack of evidence. Next.

Argument 6: Prior to being written down, the stories of the gospel were oral tradition, and oral tradition is self-correcting and therefore never changes over time. First, I doubt oral tradition is infallible; second, that doesn’t make the original stories to be true. Next.

Argument 7: There are no contradictions in the New Testament given enough weaseling around. And since there are no contradictions, the Bible is true. False. Next.

Argument 8: The Jewish historian Josephus refers to Jesus; the Roman historian Tacitus refers to Jesus, the political writer Suetonius refers to Jesus; and lastly, “critics refer to him.” Ergo, everything the Bible says is true. I’m not going to accept the argument from authority, no matter who you point the finger to. I want solid evidence. Besides, none of these three men were contemporaries of Jesus. Josephus was born 37 CE, Tacitus in 56 CE, and Suetonius in 69 CE. Let’s trust the words of people who lived years and years after a supposed event in history happened to tell us about it. No. Next.

Argument 9: The Gnostic gospels were written much later than the original gospels, and therefore aren’t to be believed. Therefore, the Bible is true. How is that even a rational argument? Next.

Argument 10: A professor says that the original gospels are reliable. Therefore, they are reliable. Next.

Argument 11: I was once a hard-hearted atheist. Now with the scales tipped with so much evidence, I was open to evidence. Therefore the Bible is true. What evidence? You haven’t produced a shred of reliable evidence yet. Next.

Argument 12: being a Christian is “way more fulfilling” than being an agnostic. Therefore, the Bible is true. No matter how much something makes you feel, it doesn’t make it true. Next.

Argument 13: The Jesus of the New Testament fulfills prophesies of the Old Testament. Therefore the New Testament is true. It’s not hard to imagine why this would be: the New Testament was written after the Old Testament.

Argument 14: Jesus did miracles in the New Testament. Therefore the Bible is true.

Argument 15: The Talmud says that Jesus was a magician. Therefore Jesus did miracles. Therefore the Bible is true.

Argument 16: Strobel didn’t want there to be a god because he didn’t want to be held accountable for his life. What does want have to do with evidence? It doesn’t. Next.

Argument 17: Strobel is angry that he’s losing his wife to a Christian cult. Therefore he wants to conform so he doesn’t lose his wife. Touching. Next.

Argument 18: The Bible says Jesus was crucified by the Romans and rose from the dead. The Romans were known to be thorough in execution. Therefore, Jesus resurrected. Is there any evidence other than the damned Bible? NO.

Argument 19: The Bible says that Jesus’ tomb was donated by a non-follower of Jesus, and the tomb was discovered by women; both facts are embarrassing to the early church. Ergo, the Bible is true.

Argument 20: The Bible says that Paul saw Jesus and that 500 other people saw Jesus. This is strong evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Actually, it’s exactly the opposite of strong evidence, because if so many people saw Jesus, then you would think any of them would write about it, which they didn’t.

Argument 21: Because people believed Jesus resurrected wholeheartedly shortly after that time, therefore it happened. Because the Christian movement evolved and many of them suffered martyrdom for something they “saw with their own eyes,” it means that it is true. No it doesn’t. Next.

Argument 22: Saul/Paul and James turned from skeptic to believer. Therefore the Bible is true. Just because someone changes their mind about something doesn’t mean it’s true. Next.

“Jesus was murdered by crucifixion.” Execution isn’t murder. He even had a trial and everything. Sorry.

Argument 23: Strobel used a legal pad to write down the evidence for and against Jesus being the son of God. He concludes after pages upon pages of evidence that it would take more “faith” to maintain his atheism than to believe Jesus is the son of God. Well, I’d love to see some of that evidence. You’d think after an hour of this documentary I might see some. Saying the Bible is true because the Bible is true isn’t evidence whatsoever.

He states:

Consistent with the evidence, the most logical, the most rational step I could take was a step of faith in this same direction that the evidence was pointing and put my trust in Jesus.

How can someone looking at evidence, logic, and reason jump so blindly to faith and trust in the direction of so far unstated evidence? By very definition, faith is irrational and illogical and in no way based on evidence. Is this the moment when Strobel finally gives up on his mind?

Argument 24: When Strobel became a Christian, he changed. Therefore, Christianity is good. Therefore, it’s true. I won't even dignify this one.

So ended a movie that began poorly and ended in drivel. It nearly had me convinced at points… to turn the thing off. At least it was scary… in how much evidence it lacked.