The Case for Christ

[Nihilist Virus]

Long ago when I was still a Christian I managed to read The Case for Christ among other Christian books such as Mere Christianity, Who Moved the Stone?, More than a Carpenter, and others. Now Pure Flix has made a movie out of The Case for Christ.

In this thread I want to focus on the actual case for Christ, but before that I just want to say a few things about the movie. First of all, David "Assault Rifle" White has toned down the open disdain for atheists. His first major movie, God's Not Dead, featured the bloodsucking vampire atheist who dumped his girlfriend because she had cancer, the aforementioned atheist girlfriend who was very cantankerous, and of course the power-abusing, disagreeable, rude atheist professor. In the sequel, there were parents of a deceased child who seemed to not care in the slightest that their child had died and the implication was that this apathy was a direct result of their atheism. And of course the ACLU was represented seemingly by Satan himself. In fairness, they added a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan: Sabrina the Teenage Witch's lawyer was a very noble man who was also an atheist. And finally in The Case for Christ we see atheists as actual human beings. The protagonist, Lee Strobel, was of course an atheist and we see his fallacy-based transition into Christianity. While he's a jerk to his wife quite often, it's not apparent to me that this behavior is a direct result of atheism: I think they were trying to show that he was acting out as a response to his slow, involuntary subduction into Christianity. However, Pure Flix still manages to insult atheists by outright saying that Christians are better people. There's "something different" about Christians, it's clear that they are supposed to be different for the better, and chief among these differences is love. From my observations here on these forums I would generally dispute this notion, although in rare cases it seems to be accurate.

In the film, Lee sets out to disprove Christianity. I was waiting for the fallacious implication to arise wherein he fails to disprove it and therefore accepts it, but the story actually has him coming across what he thinks is evidence in support of the resurrection.

The importance of the resurrection is indeed the crux of the issue and the movie is correct on this. Lee asks a colleague how to attack Christianity, and the colleague suggests to "go for the jugular" and investigate the resurrection because it will all stand or fall on that issue. The apostle Paul certainly agrees that faith is worthless without the resurrection and I'd assume that atheists would accept Christ's other miracles automatically upon accepting the resurrection while Christians would reject Chris'ts other miracles automatically upon rejecting the resurrection.

During Lee's journey, he visits upon the swoon theory and I don't intend to discuss that because I agree that it is very implausible, although less implausible than an actual resurrection. I agree tentatively that Jesus fulfilled the easy requirement of a resurrection: death.

So the three main points that Lee seemed to base his entire conversion on were the following:

1. The volume of manuscripts
2. Paul's assertion of 500 witnesses
3. Why die for a lie?



1. The volume of manuscripts

I didn't see it mentioned that no two of the approximately 6000 manuscripts were identical to one another. I suppose that wasn't important. But what's important, if you watch the movie, is that Lee is supposedly applying his journalist methods to this research task. The gospels were anonymous, although in fairness it's probably absurd to think that Luke was anonymous at the time since the preface is addressing a particular individual with whom rapport appears to have been established. Regardless, source material traces back to Mark which was written anonymously and in the third person as though it is a narrative. Mark's source, if it exists, is totally unknown. It would be totally irresponsible for a journalist to treat Mark like a source, regardless of the volume of copies.



2. Paul's assertion of 500 witnesses

First, let's establish which epistles were written by Paul:

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

• First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
• Galatians (c. 53)
• First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
• Philippians (c. 55)
• Philemon (c. 55)
• Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
• Romans (c. 57)

This list was found by googling, "which epistles were written by saint paul".

Now, Galatians 1:11-12 has Paul saying,

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And then 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has Paul saying,

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


I've presented more verses than are needed here because I don't want to exclude what I feel is the actual truth: that of the Lord, liar, lunatic, legend, or lore polychotomy, I think the latter is most likely accurate. However, that is not necessary for my case and, as I said, I tentatively accept that Jesus physically died. So if you're not interested in that possibility then you need only focus on the bolded portion of scripture above. The red part is, in my opinion, a forgery.

Recall that at no point were there twelve disciples on earth at the same time as the resurrected Jesus (if Judas didn't actually kill himself immediately, he certainly was not present with the resurrected Jesus). It's been pointed out that perhaps "the Twelve" is just a name, such as "the gang." But why would Paul say that Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, and later to James? Is that redundancy there to exalt Peter and James above the other disciples in some sort of hierarchy? Why, then, is there no mention of John? Wasn't John a major disciple who allegedly wrote three epistles, either wrote a gospel or had one named after him, and wrote the apocalypse? Wasn't he among the first men to visit the empty tomb? Wasn't he the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? Wasn't he a major piece of the early church who traveled with Peter and did works with him? So the redundancy appears to be there for no reason. Is the list just chronologically ordering the people who saw him? Well, even if we exclude the women, no. First was perhaps the guards stationed at the tomb, then John, then Peter, then "the Twelve" without Judas or Thomas, and then Thomas. And we have no idea where the 500 actually fit in, or any kind of explanation as to why the Roman government was not interested in a situation where a man seemingly survived, revived from, or otherwise was alive after one of their executions. In sum, the list derived from the gospels looks nothing like Paul's.

Lastly, while not getting too deep into the myth theory, I'd find it strange that Paul says he received the gospel from no man and then goes on to cite 500 contemporary witnesses as among the reasons he converted.

But even if we accept the bolded portion as genuine, how does this stand up to the standards of journalism? Paul wasn't present for the resurrection, so he is not a direct source. He does not say who his source is. We don't know how the church at Corinth received this claim or what they said in response. It's a long way from a fact as far as journalism is concerned.



3. Why die for a lie?

In short, no one would die for a lie and no one has been shown to have done so.

Apologists correctly make the distinction that, say, the 9/11 hijackers did not knowingly die for a lie because they were not present for Muhammad's (fbuh) presentation. But the disciples claim to have been present for the resurrection, and they died for this claim. Right?

No. First, note that the criteria above invalidates Paul and Stephen from the conversation. You can have them as saints and martyrs, but you can't lump them into the "Why die for a lie?" argument. They had visions of Jesus which were not seen by other observers who were present for the event. Recall the notion that is strongly emphasized by apologists: that there could not have been a group hallucination of the resurrection, so Jesus must have been physically present with the disciples. Jesus' resurrection, the argument goes, was a real, physical, tangible event (notwithstanding his ability to walk through walls). But what Paul and Stephen saw were not real, physical, tangible events. The very fact that the other observers who were present did not see Jesus means that it was just some sort of vision or hallucination, not a physical appearance. You can claim that Jesus really did appear to Paul and Stephen, but you cannot claim that he did so physically.

So the discussion has to focus entirely on the eleven remaining disciples, and we exclude Judas' replacement. There is no evidence that they were given the opportunity to recant their claims and live. James, the first disciple to be killed, was seemingly killed at the whim of Herod. Acts 12:1-3 says,

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also.

I see no implication that James was given the opportunity to renounce Christ and live. I would liken this to gang warfare: a Blood tells one of his underlings to go kill a Crip. No implication is given that the Crip may remove his blue to avoid death. It's just an execution. So James is a martyr, but he is removed from the "Why die for a lie?" pool of candidates.

So I leave this with a question. Of the remaining 10 disciples, can you show - without appealing to legend or tradition, but actually show via historical method - that one disciple willfully died while refusing the opportunity to recant Christ and go free? I do not think any such case exists. The earliest case I know of where this happened involved Polycarp, who was born long after Jesus died.

Without this piece of the puzzle, the case for Christ is nothing.

 

[rockytopva]

I was an atheist and the Christ was a mere piece of fiction for me. Might as well worship Zeus or Apollo for all I cared. All of that changed when I stumbled into a revival type atmosphere. My story is the same as GC Rankin 100 years before me.

"Grandfather was kind to me and considerate of me, yet he was strict with me. I worked along with him in the field when the weather was agreeable and when it was inclement I helped him in his hatter's shop, for the Civil War was in progress and he had returned at odd times to hatmaking. It was my business in the shop to stretch foxskins and coonskins across a wood-horse and with a knife, made for that purpose, pluck the hair from the fur. I despise the odor of foxskins and coonskins to this good day. He had me to walk two miles every Sunday to Dandridge to Church service and Sunday-school, rain or shine, wet or dry, cold or hot; yet he had fat horses standing in his stable. But he was such a blue-stocking Presbyterian that he never allowed a bridle to go on a horse's head on Sunday. The beasts had to have a day of rest. Old Doctor Minnis was the pastor, and he was the dryest and most interminable preacher I ever heard in my life. He would stand motionless and read his sermons from manuscript for one hour and a half at a time and sometimes longer. Grandfather would sit and never take his eyes off of him, except to glance at me to keep me quiet. It was torture to me." - George Clark Rankin

Then he got it good in the Methodist church in Georgia...

...Quote...

After the team had been fed and we had been to supper we put the mules to the wagon, filled it with chairs and we were off to the meeting. When we reached the locality it was about dark and the people were assembling. Their horses and wagons filled up the cleared spaces and the singing was already in progress. My uncle and his family went well up toward the front, but I dropped into a seat well to the rear. It was an old-fashioned Church, ancient in appearance, oblong in shape and unpretentious. It was situated in a grove about one hundred yards from the road. It was lighted with old tallow-dip candles furnished by the neighbors. It was not a prepossessing-looking place, but it was soon crowded and evidently there was a great deal of interest. A cadaverous-looking man stood up in front with a tuning fork and raised and led the songs. There were a few prayers and the minister came in with his saddlebags and entered the pulpit. He was the Rev. W. H. Heath, the circuit rider. His prayer impressed me with his earnestness and there were many amens to it in the audience. I do not remember his text, but it was a typical revival sermon, full of unction and power.

At its close he invited penitents to the altar and a great many young people flocked to it and bowed for prayer. Many of them became very much affected and they cried out distressingly for mercy. It had a strange effect on me. It made me nervous and I wanted to retire. Directly my uncle came back to me, put his arm around my shoulder and asked me if I did not want to be religious. I told him that I had always had that desire, that mother had brought me up that way, and really I did not know anything else. Then he wanted to know if I had ever professed religion. I hardly understood what he meant and did not answer him. He changed his question and asked me if I had ever been to the altar for prayer, and I answered him in the negative. Then he earnestly besought me to let him take me up to the altar and join the others in being prayed for. It really embarrassed me and I hardly knew what to say to him. He spoke to me of my mother and said that when she was a little girl she went to the altar and that Christ accepted her and she had been a good Christian all these years. That touched me in a tender spot, for mother always did do what was right; and then I was far away from her and wanted to see her. Oh, if she were there to tell me what to do!

By and by I yielded to his entreaty and he led forward to the altar. The minister took me by the hand and spoke tenderly to me as I knelt at the altar. I had gone more out of sympathy than conviction, and I did not know what to do after I bowed there. The others were praying aloud and now and then one would rise shoutingly happy and make the old building ring with his glad praise. It was a novel experience to me. I did not know what to pray for, neither did I know what to expect if I did pray. I spent the most of the hour wondering why I was there and what it all meant. No one explained anything to me. Once in awhile some good old brother or sister would pass my way, strike me on the back and tell me to look up and believe and the blessing would come. But that was not encouraging to me. In fact, it sounded like nonsense and the noise was distracting me. Even in my crude way of thinking I had an idea that religion was a sensible thing and that people ought to become religious intelligently and without all that hurrah. I presume that my ideas were the result of the Presbyterian training given to me by old grandfather. By and by my knees grew tired and the skin was nearly rubbed off my elbows. I thought the service never would close, and when it did conclude with the benediction I heaved a sigh of relief. That was my first experience at the mourner's bench.

As we drove home I did not have much to say, but I listened attentively to the conversation between my uncle and his wife. They were greatly impressed with the meeting, and they spoke first of this one and that one who had "come through" and what a change it would make in the community, as many of them were bad boys. As we were putting up the team my uncle spoke very encouragingly to me; he was delighted with the step I had taken and he pleaded with me not to turn back, but to press on until I found the pearl of great price. He knew my mother would be very happy over the start I had made. Before going to sleep I fell into a train of thought, though I was tired and exhausted. I wondered why I had gone to that altar and what I had gained by it. I felt no special conviction and had received no special impression, but then if my mother had started that way there must be something in it, for she always did what was right. I silently lifted my heart to God in prayer for conviction and guidance. I knew how to pray, for I had come up through prayer, but not the mourner's bench sort. So I determined to continue to attend the meeting and keep on going to the altar until I got religion.

Early the next morning I was up and in a serious frame of mind. I went with the other hands to the cottonfield and at noon I slipped off in the barn and prayed. But the more I thought of the way those young people were moved in the meeting and with what glad hearts they had shouted their praises to God the more it puzzled and confused me. I could not feel the conviction that they had and my heart did not feel melted and tender. I was callous and unmoved in feeling and my distress on account of sin was nothing like theirs. I did not understand my own state of mind and heart. It troubled me, for by this time I really wanted to have an experience like theirs.

When evening came I was ready for Church service and was glad to go. It required no urging. Another large crowd was present and the preacher was as earnest as ever. I did not give much heed to the sermon. In fact, I do not recall a word of it. I was anxious for him to conclude and give me a chance to go to the altar. I had gotten it into my head that there was some real virtue in the mourner's bench; and when the time came I was one of the first to prostrate myself before the altar in prayer. Many others did likewise. Two or three good people at intervals knelt by me and spoke encouragingly to me, but they did not help me. Their talks were mere exhortations to earnestness and faith, but there was no explanation of faith, neither was there any light thrown upon my mind and heart. I wrought myself up into tears and cries for help, but the whole situation was dark and I hardly knew why I cried, or what was the trouble with me. Now and then others would arise from the altar in an ecstasy of joy, but there was no joy for me. When the service closed I was discouraged and felt that maybe I was too hardhearted and the good Spirit could do nothing for me.

After we went home I tossed on the bed before going to sleep and wondered why God did not do for me what he had done for mother and what he was doing in that meeting for those young people at the altar. I could not understand it. But I resolved to keep on trying, and so dropped off to sleep. The next day I had about the same experience and at night saw no change in my condition. And so for several nights I repeated the same distressing experience. The meeting took on such interest that a day service was adopted along with the night exercises, and we attended that also. And one morning while I bowed at the altar in a very disturbed state of mind Brother Tyson, a good local preacher and the father of Rev. J. F. Tyson, now of the Central Conference, sat down by me and, putting his hand on my shoulder, said to me: "Now I want you to sit up awhile and let's talk this matter over quietly. I am sure that you are in earnest, for you have been coming to this altar night after night for several days. I want to ask you a few simple questions." And the following questions were asked and answered:

"My son, do you not love God?"

"I cannot remember when I did not love him."

"Do you believe on his Son, Jesus Christ?"

"I have always believed on Christ. My mother taught me that from my earliest recollection."

"Do you accept him as your Savior?"

"I certainly do, and have always done so."

"Can you think of any sin that is between you and the Savior?"

"No, sir; for I have never committed any bad sins."

"Do you love everybody?"

"Well, I love nearly everybody, but I have no ill-will toward any one. An old man did me a wrong not long ago and I acted ugly toward him, but I do not care to injure him."

"Can you forgive him?"

"Yes, if he wanted me to."

"But, down in your heart, can you wish him well?"

"Yes, sir; I can do that."

"Well, now let me say to you that if you love God, if you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior from sin and if you love your fellowmen and intend by God's help to lead a religious life, that's all there is to religion. In fact, that is all I know about it."

Then he repeated several passages of Scriptures to me proving his assertions. I thought a moment and said to him: "But I do not feel like these young people who have been getting religion night after night. I cannot get happy like them. I do not feel like shouting."

The good man looked at me and smiled and said: "Ah, that's your trouble. You have been trying to feel like them. Now you are not them; you are yourself. You have your own quiet disposition and you are not turned like them. They are excitable and blustery like they are. They give way to their feelings. That's all right, but feeling is not religion. Religion is faith and life. If you have violent feeling with it, all good and well, but if you have faith and not much feeling, why the feeling will take care of itself. To love God and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, turning away from all sin, and living a godly life, is the substance of true religion."

That was new to me, yet it had been my state of mind from childhood. For I remembered that away back in my early life, when the old preacher held services in my grandmother's house one day and opened the door of the Church, I went forward and gave him my hand. He was to receive me into full membership at the end of six months' probation, but he let it pass out of his mind and failed to attend to it.

As I sat there that morning listening to the earnest exhortation of the good man my tears ceased, my distress left me, light broke in upon my mind, my heart grew joyous, and before I knew just what I was doing I was going all around shaking hands with everybody, and my confusion and darkness disappeared and a great burden rolled off my spirit. I felt exactly like I did when I was a little boy around my mother's knee when she told of Jesus and God and Heaven. It made my heart thrill then, and the same old experience returned to me in that old country Church that beautiful September morning down in old North Georgia.

As we returned home the sun shone brighter, the birds sang sweeter and the autumn-time looked richer than ever before. My heart was light and my spirit buoyant. I had anchored my soul in the haven of rest, and there was not a ripple upon the current of my joy. That night there was no service and after supper I walked out under the great old pine trees and held communion with God. I thought of mother, and home, and Heaven.

I at once gave my name to the preacher for membership in the Church, and the following Sunday morning, along with many others, he received me into full membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It was one of the most delightful days in my recollection. It was the third Sunday in September, 1866, and those Church vows became a living principle in my heart and life. During these forty-five long years, with their alternations of sunshine and shadow, daylight and darkness, success and failure, rejoicing and weeping, fears within and fightings without, I have never ceased to thank God for that autumnal day in the long ago when my name was registered in the Lamb's Book of Life.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I was an atheist and the Christ was a mere piece of fiction for me. Might as well worship Zeus or Apollo for all I cared. All of that changed when I stumbled into a revival type atmosphere. My story is the same as GC Rankin 100 years before me.

"Grandfather was kind to me and considerate of me, yet he was strict with me. I worked along with him in the field when the weather was agreeable and when it was inclement I helped him in his hatter's shop, for the Civil War was in progress and he had returned at odd times to hatmaking. It was my business in the shop to stretch foxskins and coonskins across a wood-horse and with a knife, made for that purpose, pluck the hair from the fur. I despise the odor of foxskins and coonskins to this good day. He had me to walk two miles every Sunday to Dandridge to Church service and Sunday-school, rain or shine, wet or dry, cold or hot; yet he had fat horses standing in his stable. But he was such a blue-stocking Presbyterian that he never allowed a bridle to go on a horse's head on Sunday. The beasts had to have a day of rest. Old Doctor Minnis was the pastor, and he was the dryest and most interminable preacher I ever heard in my life. He would stand motionless and read his sermons from manuscript for one hour and a half at a time and sometimes longer. Grandfather would sit and never take his eyes off of him, except to glance at me to keep me quiet. It was torture to me." - George Clark Rankin

Then he got it good in the Methodist church in Georgia...

...Quote...

After the team had been fed and we had been to supper we put the mules to the wagon, filled it with chairs and we were off to the meeting. When we reached the locality it was about dark and the people were assembling. Their horses and wagons filled up the cleared spaces and the singing was already in progress. My uncle and his family went well up toward the front, but I dropped into a seat well to the rear. It was an old-fashioned Church, ancient in appearance, oblong in shape and unpretentious. It was situated in a grove about one hundred yards from the road. It was lighted with old tallow-dip candles furnished by the neighbors. It was not a prepossessing-looking place, but it was soon crowded and evidently there was a great deal of interest. A cadaverous-looking man stood up in front with a tuning fork and raised and led the songs. There were a few prayers and the minister came in with his saddlebags and entered the pulpit. He was the Rev. W. H. Heath, the circuit rider. His prayer impressed me with his earnestness and there were many amens to it in the audience. I do not remember his text, but it was a typical revival sermon, full of unction and power.

At its close he invited penitents to the altar and a great many young people flocked to it and bowed for prayer. Many of them became very much affected and they cried out distressingly for mercy. It had a strange effect on me. It made me nervous and I wanted to retire. Directly my uncle came back to me, put his arm around my shoulder and asked me if I did not want to be religious. I told him that I had always had that desire, that mother had brought me up that way, and really I did not know anything else. Then he wanted to know if I had ever professed religion. I hardly understood what he meant and did not answer him. He changed his question and asked me if I had ever been to the altar for prayer, and I answered him in the negative. Then he earnestly besought me to let him take me up to the altar and join the others in being prayed for. It really embarrassed me and I hardly knew what to say to him. He spoke to me of my mother and said that when she was a little girl she went to the altar and that Christ accepted her and she had been a good Christian all these years. That touched me in a tender spot, for mother always did do what was right; and then I was far away from her and wanted to see her. Oh, if she were there to tell me what to do!

By and by I yielded to his entreaty and he led forward to the altar. The minister took me by the hand and spoke tenderly to me as I knelt at the altar. I had gone more out of sympathy than conviction, and I did not know what to do after I bowed there. The others were praying aloud and now and then one would rise shoutingly happy and make the old building ring with his glad praise. It was a novel experience to me. I did not know what to pray for, neither did I know what to expect if I did pray. I spent the most of the hour wondering why I was there and what it all meant. No one explained anything to me. Once in awhile some good old brother or sister would pass my way, strike me on the back and tell me to look up and believe and the blessing would come. But that was not encouraging to me. In fact, it sounded like nonsense and the noise was distracting me. Even in my crude way of thinking I had an idea that religion was a sensible thing and that people ought to become religious intelligently and without all that hurrah. I presume that my ideas were the result of the Presbyterian training given to me by old grandfather. By and by my knees grew tired and the skin was nearly rubbed off my elbows. I thought the service never would close, and when it did conclude with the benediction I heaved a sigh of relief. That was my first experience at the mourner's bench.

As we drove home I did not have much to say, but I listened attentively to the conversation between my uncle and his wife. They were greatly impressed with the meeting, and they spoke first of this one and that one who had "come through" and what a change it would make in the community, as many of them were bad boys. As we were putting up the team my uncle spoke very encouragingly to me; he was delighted with the step I had taken and he pleaded with me not to turn back, but to press on until I found the pearl of great price. He knew my mother would be very happy over the start I had made. Before going to sleep I fell into a train of thought, though I was tired and exhausted. I wondered why I had gone to that altar and what I had gained by it. I felt no special conviction and had received no special impression, but then if my mother had started that way there must be something in it, for she always did what was right. I silently lifted my heart to God in prayer for conviction and guidance. I knew how to pray, for I had come up through prayer, but not the mourner's bench sort. So I determined to continue to attend the meeting and keep on going to the altar until I got religion.

Early the next morning I was up and in a serious frame of mind. I went with the other hands to the cottonfield and at noon I slipped off in the barn and prayed. But the more I thought of the way those young people were moved in the meeting and with what glad hearts they had shouted their praises to God the more it puzzled and confused me. I could not feel the conviction that they had and my heart did not feel melted and tender. I was callous and unmoved in feeling and my distress on account of sin was nothing like theirs. I did not understand my own state of mind and heart. It troubled me, for by this time I really wanted to have an experience like theirs.

When evening came I was ready for Church service and was glad to go. It required no urging. Another large crowd was present and the preacher was as earnest as ever. I did not give much heed to the sermon. In fact, I do not recall a word of it. I was anxious for him to conclude and give me a chance to go to the altar. I had gotten it into my head that there was some real virtue in the mourner's bench; and when the time came I was one of the first to prostrate myself before the altar in prayer. Many others did likewise. Two or three good people at intervals knelt by me and spoke encouragingly to me, but they did not help me. Their talks were mere exhortations to earnestness and faith, but there was no explanation of faith, neither was there any light thrown upon my mind and heart. I wrought myself up into tears and cries for help, but the whole situation was dark and I hardly knew why I cried, or what was the trouble with me. Now and then others would arise from the altar in an ecstasy of joy, but there was no joy for me. When the service closed I was discouraged and felt that maybe I was too hardhearted and the good Spirit could do nothing for me.

After we went home I tossed on the bed before going to sleep and wondered why God did not do for me what he had done for mother and what he was doing in that meeting for those young people at the altar. I could not understand it. But I resolved to keep on trying, and so dropped off to sleep. The next day I had about the same experience and at night saw no change in my condition. And so for several nights I repeated the same distressing experience. The meeting took on such interest that a day service was adopted along with the night exercises, and we attended that also. And one morning while I bowed at the altar in a very disturbed state of mind Brother Tyson, a good local preacher and the father of Rev. J. F. Tyson, now of the Central Conference, sat down by me and, putting his hand on my shoulder, said to me: "Now I want you to sit up awhile and let's talk this matter over quietly. I am sure that you are in earnest, for you have been coming to this altar night after night for several days. I want to ask you a few simple questions." And the following questions were asked and answered:

"My son, do you not love God?"

"I cannot remember when I did not love him."

"Do you believe on his Son, Jesus Christ?"

"I have always believed on Christ. My mother taught me that from my earliest recollection."

"Do you accept him as your Savior?"

"I certainly do, and have always done so."

"Can you think of any sin that is between you and the Savior?"

"No, sir; for I have never committed any bad sins."

"Do you love everybody?"

"Well, I love nearly everybody, but I have no ill-will toward any one. An old man did me a wrong not long ago and I acted ugly toward him, but I do not care to injure him."

"Can you forgive him?"

"Yes, if he wanted me to."

"But, down in your heart, can you wish him well?"

"Yes, sir; I can do that."

"Well, now let me say to you that if you love God, if you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior from sin and if you love your fellowmen and intend by God's help to lead a religious life, that's all there is to religion. In fact, that is all I know about it."

Then he repeated several passages of Scriptures to me proving his assertions. I thought a moment and said to him: "But I do not feel like these young people who have been getting religion night after night. I cannot get happy like them. I do not feel like shouting."

The good man looked at me and smiled and said: "Ah, that's your trouble. You have been trying to feel like them. Now you are not them; you are yourself. You have your own quiet disposition and you are not turned like them. They are excitable and blustery like they are. They give way to their feelings. That's all right, but feeling is not religion. Religion is faith and life. If you have violent feeling with it, all good and well, but if you have faith and not much feeling, why the feeling will take care of itself. To love God and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, turning away from all sin, and living a godly life, is the substance of true religion."

That was new to me, yet it had been my state of mind from childhood. For I remembered that away back in my early life, when the old preacher held services in my grandmother's house one day and opened the door of the Church, I went forward and gave him my hand. He was to receive me into full membership at the end of six months' probation, but he let it pass out of his mind and failed to attend to it.

As I sat there that morning listening to the earnest exhortation of the good man my tears ceased, my distress left me, light broke in upon my mind, my heart grew joyous, and before I knew just what I was doing I was going all around shaking hands with everybody, and my confusion and darkness disappeared and a great burden rolled off my spirit. I felt exactly like I did when I was a little boy around my mother's knee when she told of Jesus and God and Heaven. It made my heart thrill then, and the same old experience returned to me in that old country Church that beautiful September morning down in old North Georgia.

As we returned home the sun shone brighter, the birds sang sweeter and the autumn-time looked richer than ever before. My heart was light and my spirit buoyant. I had anchored my soul in the haven of rest, and there was not a ripple upon the current of my joy. That night there was no service and after supper I walked out under the great old pine trees and held communion with God. I thought of mother, and home, and Heaven.

I at once gave my name to the preacher for membership in the Church, and the following Sunday morning, along with many others, he received me into full membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It was one of the most delightful days in my recollection. It was the third Sunday in September, 1866, and those Church vows became a living principle in my heart and life. During these forty-five long years, with their alternations of sunshine and shadow, daylight and darkness, success and failure, rejoicing and weeping, fears within and fightings without, I have never ceased to thank God for that autumnal day in the long ago when my name was registered in the Lamb's Book of Life.

I'm a bit guilty of skimming here but um... is anything here on topic whatsoever?

 

[rockytopva]

I'm a bit guilty of skimming here but um... is anything here on topic whatsoever?

I do not think we can intellectually prove Christ to any atheist. Without the actual Christ making his presence known it is a total waste of time. I could present a million arguments and they would all fall short of proving the Christ.

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

"The reason all mankind missed the calling was because he did not feel God's lovingkindness." - The sermon that turned Robert Sheffey into a Methodist Circuit Rider.

Without the spiritual power it is a hopeless case.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I do not think we can intellectually prove Christ to any atheist. Without the actual Christ making his presence known it is a total waste of time. I could present a million arguments and they would all fall short of proving the Christ.

So you agree that there is no case for Christ?

 

[rockytopva]

So you agree that there is no case for Christ?

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

No case at all! Pure foolishness! Not even evidence that Christ existed at all on planet earth! It simply is not the will of God for these things to be proved intellectually (Mental E/c2) or materially (Natural E/c2 with signs and miracles).

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. - 1 Corinthians 1

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 2

Which is why on my website @ rockytopva I seek out videos where the Spiritual can come shining through and try to avoid the intellectual teachings.

 

[Moral Orel]

In the film, Lee sets out to disprove Christianity.

I didn't see it, and I'm not going to. I don't like doc-dramas. Too much drama, not enough documentary.

But let me take a wild stab in the dark. He set out to disprove the resurrection without interviewing a single person that isn't a believer in the resurrection. Am I right? People don't usually say this in this section, but since Strobel was a professional journalist, I can't help myself. #fakenews

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't see it, and I'm not going to. I don't like doc-dramas. Too much drama, not enough documentary.

But let me take a wild stab in the dark. He set out to disprove the resurrection without interviewing a single person that isn't a believer in the resurrection. Am I right? People don't usually say this in this section, but since Strobel was a professional journalist, I can't help myself. #fakenews

Strobel's book and work has been thoroughly torn apart. It is the equivalent of someone claiming to try and disprove aliens visiting earth and then interviewing people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Strobel's book and work has been thoroughly torn apart. It is the equivalent of someone claiming to try and disprove aliens visiting earth and then interviewing people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

Yes, I'm sure Strobel's books have been scrutinized and torn apart. And that's why I enjoy doing the same to atheist books ...

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I'm sure Strobel's books have been scrutinized and torn apart. And that's why I enjoy doing the same to atheist books ...

It is, what it is.

 

[Non sequitur]

Long ago when I was still a Christian I managed to read The Case for Christ among other Christian books such as Mere Christianity, Who Moved the Stone?, More than a Carpenter, and others. Now Pure Flix has made a movie out of The Case for Christ.

In this thread I want to focus on the actual case for Christ, but before that I just want to say a few things about the movie. First of all, David "Assault Rifle" White has toned down the open disdain for atheists. His first major movie, God's Not Dead, featured the bloodsucking vampire atheist who dumped his girlfriend because she had cancer, the aforementioned atheist girlfriend who was very cantankerous, and of course the power-abusing, disagreeable, rude atheist professor. In the sequel, there were parents of a deceased child who seemed to not care in the slightest that their child had died and the implication was that this apathy was a direct result of their atheism. And of course the ACLU was represented seemingly by Satan himself. In fairness, they added a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan: Sabrina the Teenage Witch's lawyer was a very noble man who was also an atheist. And finally in The Case for Christ we see atheists as actual human beings. The protagonist, Lee Strobel, was of course an atheist and we see his fallacy-based transition into Christianity. While he's a jerk to his wife quite often, it's not apparent to me that this behavior is a direct result of atheism: I think they were trying to show that he was acting out as a response to his slow, involuntary subduction into Christianity. However, Pure Flix still manages to insult atheists by outright saying that Christians are better people. There's "something different" about Christians, it's clear that they are supposed to be different for the better, and chief among these differences is love. From my observations here on these forums I would generally dispute this notion, although in rare cases it seems to be accurate.

In the film, Lee sets out to disprove Christianity. I was waiting for the fallacious implication to arise wherein he fails to disprove it and therefore accepts it, but the story actually has him coming across what he thinks is evidence in support of the resurrection.

The importance of the resurrection is indeed the crux of the issue and the movie is correct on this. Lee asks a colleague how to attack Christianity, and the colleague suggests to "go for the jugular" and investigate the resurrection because it will all stand or fall on that issue. The apostle Paul certainly agrees that faith is worthless without the resurrection and I'd assume that atheists would accept Christ's other miracles automatically upon accepting the resurrection while Christians would reject Chris'ts other miracles automatically upon rejecting the resurrection.

During Lee's journey, he visits upon the swoon theory and I don't intend to discuss that because I agree that it is very implausible, although less implausible than an actual resurrection. I agree tentatively that Jesus fulfilled the easy requirement of a resurrection: death.

So the three main points that Lee seemed to base his entire conversion on were the following:

1. The volume of manuscripts
2. Paul's assertion of 500 witnesses
3. Why die for a lie?



1. The volume of manuscripts

I didn't see it mentioned that no two of the approximately 6000 manuscripts were identical to one another. I suppose that wasn't important. But what's important, if you watch the movie, is that Lee is supposedly applying his journalist methods to this research task. The gospels were anonymous, although in fairness it's probably absurd to think that Luke was anonymous at the time since the preface is addressing a particular individual with whom rapport appears to have been established. Regardless, source material traces back to Mark which was written anonymously and in the third person as though it is a narrative. Mark's source, if it exists, is totally unknown. It would be totally irresponsible for a journalist to treat Mark like a source, regardless of the volume of copies.



2. Paul's assertion of 500 witnesses

First, let's establish which epistles were written by Paul:

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

• First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
• Galatians (c. 53)
• First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
• Philippians (c. 55)
• Philemon (c. 55)
• Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
• Romans (c. 57)

This list was found by googling, "which epistles were written by saint paul".

Now, Galatians 1:11-12 has Paul saying,

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And then 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has Paul saying,

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


I've presented more verses than are needed here because I don't want to exclude what I feel is the actual truth: that of the Lord, liar, lunatic, legend, or lore polychotomy, I think the latter is most likely accurate. However, that is not necessary for my case and, as I said, I tentatively accept that Jesus physically died. So if you're not interested in that possibility then you need only focus on the bolded portion of scripture above. The red part is, in my opinion, a forgery.

Recall that at no point were there twelve disciples on earth at the same time as the resurrected Jesus (if Judas didn't actually kill himself immediately, he certainly was not present with the resurrected Jesus). It's been pointed out that perhaps "the Twelve" is just a name, such as "the gang." But why would Paul say that Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, and later to James? Is that redundancy there to exalt Peter and James above the other disciples in some sort of hierarchy? Why, then, is there no mention of John? Wasn't John a major disciple who allegedly wrote three epistles, either wrote a gospel or had one named after him, and wrote the apocalypse? Wasn't he among the first men to visit the empty tomb? Wasn't he the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? Wasn't he a major piece of the early church who traveled with Peter and did works with him? So the redundancy appears to be there for no reason. Is the list just chronologically ordering the people who saw him? Well, even if we exclude the women, no. First was perhaps the guards stationed at the tomb, then John, then Peter, then "the Twelve" without Judas or Thomas, and then Thomas. And we have no idea where the 500 actually fit in, or any kind of explanation as to why the Roman government was not interested in a situation where a man seemingly survived, revived from, or otherwise was alive after one of their executions. In sum, the list derived from the gospels looks nothing like Paul's.

Lastly, while not getting too deep into the myth theory, I'd find it strange that Paul says he received the gospel from no man and then goes on to cite 500 contemporary witnesses as among the reasons he converted.

But even if we accept the bolded portion as genuine, how does this stand up to the standards of journalism? Paul wasn't present for the resurrection, so he is not a direct source. He does not say who his source is. We don't know how the church at Corinth received this claim or what they said in response. It's a long way from a fact as far as journalism is concerned.



3. Why die for a lie?

In short, no one would die for a lie and no one has been shown to have done so.

Apologists correctly make the distinction that, say, the 9/11 hijackers did not knowingly die for a lie because they were not present for Muhammad's (fbuh) presentation. But the disciples claim to have been present for the resurrection, and they died for this claim. Right?

No. First, note that the criteria above invalidates Paul and Stephen from the conversation. You can have them as saints and martyrs, but you can't lump them into the "Why die for a lie?" argument. They had visions of Jesus which were not seen by other observers who were present for the event. Recall the notion that is strongly emphasized by apologists: that there could not have been a group hallucination of the resurrection, so Jesus must have been physically present with the disciples. Jesus' resurrection, the argument goes, was a real, physical, tangible event (notwithstanding his ability to walk through walls). But what Paul and Stephen saw were not real, physical, tangible events. The very fact that the other observers who were present did not see Jesus means that it was just some sort of vision or hallucination, not a physical appearance. You can claim that Jesus really did appear to Paul and Stephen, but you cannot claim that he did so physically.

So the discussion has to focus entirely on the eleven remaining disciples, and we exclude Judas' replacement. There is no evidence that they were given the opportunity to recant their claims and live. James, the first disciple to be killed, was seemingly killed at the whim of Herod. Acts 12:1-3 says,

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also.

I see no implication that James was given the opportunity to renounce Christ and live. I would liken this to gang warfare: a Blood tells one of his underlings to go kill a Crip. No implication is given that the Crip may remove his blue to avoid death. It's just an execution. So James is a martyr, but he is removed from the "Why die for a lie?" pool of candidates.

So I leave this with a question. Of the remaining 10 disciples, can you show - without appealing to legend or tradition, but actually show via historical method - that one disciple willfully died while refusing the opportunity to recant Christ and go free? I do not think any such case exists. The earliest case I know of where this happened involved Polycarp, who was born long after Jesus died.

Without this piece of the puzzle, the case for Christ is nothing.

Well, this is rather disheartening that the only response for "Can anyone show that one disciple died without refusing to recant Christ" is "I do not think we can intellectually prove Christ to any atheist".

I'm genuinely curious.

 

[rockytopva]

In the seas of the eternities the 15 billion year age of this universe is no big deal. How much less than the life span of a human?

Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. - 1 Corinthians 15:32 b

In a matter of milliseconds on the eternal scale our mental resources will vanish away as the breath of life leaves our body...

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? - 1 Corinthians 15:32 a

I plan on leaving this earth casting my soul on the imagination of God and in faith in Jesus Christ. And will spend all my days recommending that if you follow somebody... Follow Jesus!

 

[Non sequitur]

I plan on leaving this earth casting my soul on the imagination of God and in faith in Jesus Christ. And will spend all my days recommending that if you follow somebody... Follow Jesus!

Well, if someone responded to the OP's question(s) that would be a great start!

 

[mark kennedy]

So I leave this with a question. Of the remaining 10 disciples, can you show - without appealing to legend or tradition, but actually show via historical method - that one disciple willfully died while refusing the opportunity to recant Christ and go free? I do not think any such case exists. The earliest case I know of where this happened involved Polycarp, who was born long after Jesus died.

Without this piece of the puzzle, the case for Christ is nothing.

A nice summary of those resources, not sure I agree with everything your saying but nicely done. One problem with your challenge, we really don't know what the trial of Paul included when he was before Nero, only that he ordered Paul executed. The only reason Paul even got a trial, actually a series of them, is because he was a Roman citizen of Rome. Of course there was Peter and John before the Sanhedrin:

“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:16-20)
​

Two things we know, they were martyred for their preaching and they refused to stop preaching the Gospel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Khalliqa]

*popcorn emoji*

 

[Non sequitur]

*popcorn emoji*

*steak and beer emoji*

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A nice summary of those resources, not sure I agree with everything your saying but nicely done.

Thanks, but you're still on my ignore list for the constant false accusations of ad hominem attacks. However, I did click through the ignore button because atheist responses are dominating Christian responses despite the fact that Christianity in its entirety stands or falls according to the interpretation of the facts stated in the OP.

One problem with your challenge, we really don't know what the trial of Paul included when he was before Nero, only that he ordered Paul executed.

1. Non sequitur. Paul did not see the physical Jesus. His companions did not see Jesus. I covered this in the OP.

Spoiler

...Why die for a lie?

In short, no one would die for a lie and no one has been shown to have done so.

Apologists correctly make the distinction that, say, the 9/11 hijackers did not knowingly die for a lie because they were not present for Muhammad's (fbuh) presentation. But the disciples claim to have been present for the resurrection, and they died for this claim. Right?

No. First, note that the criteria above invalidates Paul and Stephen from the conversation. You can have them as saints and martyrs, but you can't lump them into the "Why die for a lie?" argument. They had visions of Jesus which were not seen by other observers who were present for the event. Recall the notion that is strongly emphasized by apologists: that there could not have been a group hallucination of the resurrection, so Jesus must have been physically present with the disciples. Jesus' resurrection, the argument goes, was a real, physical, tangible event (notwithstanding his ability to walk through walls). But what Paul and Stephen saw were not real, physical, tangible events. The very fact that the other observers who were present did not see Jesus means that it was just some sort of vision or hallucination, not a physical appearance. You can claim that Jesus really did appear to Paul and Stephen, but you cannot claim that he did so physically.

So the discussion has to focus entirely on the eleven remaining disciples, and we exclude Judas' replacement...

2. We don't actually know that Paul was executed. If we do know it, then you can show it. Feel free to do so, but I don't see how it will be relevant.

The only reason Paul even got a trial, actually a series of them, is because he was a Roman citizen of Rome.

Paul is off topic.

Of course there was Peter and John before the Sanhedrin:

“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:16-20)
​

Two things we know, they were martyred for their preaching and they refused to stop preaching the Gospel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

If you know those two things then it should not be difficult to show it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks, but you're still on my ignore list for the constant false accusations of ad hominem attacks. However, I did click through the ignore button because atheist responses are dominating Christian responses despite the fact that Christianity in its entirety stands or falls according to the interpretation of the facts stated in the OP.

Ummm...ok.

1. Non sequitur. Paul did not see the physical Jesus. His companions did not see Jesus. I covered this in the OP.

You don't have to see him to be converted, it just has to be him.

In short, no one would die for a lie and no one has been shown to have done so.

Sure they would, the question is whether or not the Apostles would have recanted given the chance. I see no reason to think they would and with Paul, he didn't.

Apologists correctly make the distinction that, say, the 9/11 hijackers did not knowingly die for a lie because they were not present for Muhammad's (fbuh) presentation. But the disciples claim to have been present for the resurrection, and they died for this claim. Right?

Of course.

No. First, note that the criteria above invalidates Paul and Stephen from the conversation. You can have them as saints and martyrs, but you can't lump them into the "Why die for a lie?" argument. They had visions of Jesus which were not seen by other observers who were present for the event. Recall the notion that is strongly emphasized by apologists: that there could not have been a group hallucination of the resurrection, so Jesus must have been physically present with the disciples. Jesus' resurrection, the argument goes, was a real, physical, tangible event (notwithstanding his ability to walk through walls). But what Paul and Stephen saw were not real, physical, tangible events. The very fact that the other observers who were present did not see Jesus means that it was just some sort of vision or hallucination, not a physical appearance. You can claim that Jesus really did appear to Paul and Stephen, but you cannot claim that he did so physically.

I didn't have dinner with him but I believe the Apostles did. I can't prove what Stephen and Paul experienced was Christ revealed but I believe it. I seriously don't see your point and you appear to have no tangible standard of proof.

So the discussion has to focus entirely on the eleven remaining disciples, and we exclude Judas' replacement...

Not really, we do have to rely on the Apostolic witness but that's not all. Churches were founded from Jerusalem, to Syria, to Cyprus, to Macedonia, across Asian Minor and beyond. Like Paul said, these things were not done in a corner.

2. We don't actually know that Paul was executed. If we do know it, then you can show it. Feel free to do so, but I don't see how it will be relevant.

You mean you don't.

If you know those two things then it should not be difficult to show it.

I'm not chasing this in circles, good luck with that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ummm...ok.



You don't have to see him to be converted, it just has to be him.



Sure they would, the question is whether or not the Apostles would have recanted given the chance. I see no reason to think they would and with Paul, he didn't.



Of course.



I didn't have dinner with him but I believe the Apostles did. I can't prove what Stephen and Paul experienced was Christ revealed but I believe it. I seriously don't see your point and you appear to have no tangible standard of proof.



Not really, we do have to rely on the Apostolic witness but that's not all. Churches were founded from Jerusalem, to Syria, to Cyprus, to Macedonia, across Asian Minor and beyond. Like Paul said, these things were not done in a corner.



You mean you don't.



I'm not chasing this in circles, good luck with that.

Please read the OP, in particular the part that I repeated to you in the spoiler. If not, bye.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Long ago when I was still a Christian I managed to read The Case for Christ among other Christian books such as Mere Christianity, Who Moved the Stone?, More than a Carpenter, and others. Now Pure Flix has made a movie out of The Case for Christ.

In this thread I want to focus on the actual case for Christ, but before that I just want to say a few things about the movie. First of all, David "Assault Rifle" White has toned down the open disdain for atheists. His first major movie, God's Not Dead, featured the bloodsucking vampire atheist who dumped his girlfriend because she had cancer, the aforementioned atheist girlfriend who was very cantankerous, and of course the power-abusing, disagreeable, rude atheist professor. In the sequel, there were parents of a deceased child who seemed to not care in the slightest that their child had died and the implication was that this apathy was a direct result of their atheism. And of course the ACLU was represented seemingly by Satan himself. In fairness, they added a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan: Sabrina the Teenage Witch's lawyer was a very noble man who was also an atheist. And finally in The Case for Christ we see atheists as actual human beings. The protagonist, Lee Strobel, was of course an atheist and we see his fallacy-based transition into Christianity. While he's a jerk to his wife quite often, it's not apparent to me that this behavior is a direct result of atheism: I think they were trying to show that he was acting out as a response to his slow, involuntary subduction into Christianity. However, Pure Flix still manages to insult atheists by outright saying that Christians are better people. There's "something different" about Christians, it's clear that they are supposed to be different for the better, and chief among these differences is love. From my observations here on these forums I would generally dispute this notion, although in rare cases it seems to be accurate.

In the film, Lee sets out to disprove Christianity. I was waiting for the fallacious implication to arise wherein he fails to disprove it and therefore accepts it, but the story actually has him coming across what he thinks is evidence in support of the resurrection.

The importance of the resurrection is indeed the crux of the issue and the movie is correct on this. Lee asks a colleague how to attack Christianity, and the colleague suggests to "go for the jugular" and investigate the resurrection because it will all stand or fall on that issue. The apostle Paul certainly agrees that faith is worthless without the resurrection and I'd assume that atheists would accept Christ's other miracles automatically upon accepting the resurrection while Christians would reject Chris'ts other miracles automatically upon rejecting the resurrection.

During Lee's journey, he visits upon the swoon theory and I don't intend to discuss that because I agree that it is very implausible, although less implausible than an actual resurrection. I agree tentatively that Jesus fulfilled the easy requirement of a resurrection: death.

So the three main points that Lee seemed to base his entire conversion on were the following:

1. The volume of manuscripts
2. Paul's assertion of 500 witnesses
3. Why die for a lie?



1. The volume of manuscripts

I didn't see it mentioned that no two of the approximately 6000 manuscripts were identical to one another. I suppose that wasn't important. But what's important, if you watch the movie, is that Lee is supposedly applying his journalist methods to this research task. The gospels were anonymous, although in fairness it's probably absurd to think that Luke was anonymous at the time since the preface is addressing a particular individual with whom rapport appears to have been established. Regardless, source material traces back to Mark which was written anonymously and in the third person as though it is a narrative. Mark's source, if it exists, is totally unknown. It would be totally irresponsible for a journalist to treat Mark like a source, regardless of the volume of copies.



2. Paul's assertion of 500 witnesses

First, let's establish which epistles were written by Paul:

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

• First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
• Galatians (c. 53)
• First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
• Philippians (c. 55)
• Philemon (c. 55)
• Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
• Romans (c. 57)

This list was found by googling, "which epistles were written by saint paul".

Now, Galatians 1:11-12 has Paul saying,

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And then 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has Paul saying,

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


I've presented more verses than are needed here because I don't want to exclude what I feel is the actual truth: that of the Lord, liar, lunatic, legend, or lore polychotomy, I think the latter is most likely accurate. However, that is not necessary for my case and, as I said, I tentatively accept that Jesus physically died. So if you're not interested in that possibility then you need only focus on the bolded portion of scripture above. The red part is, in my opinion, a forgery.

Recall that at no point were there twelve disciples on earth at the same time as the resurrected Jesus (if Judas didn't actually kill himself immediately, he certainly was not present with the resurrected Jesus). It's been pointed out that perhaps "the Twelve" is just a name, such as "the gang." But why would Paul say that Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, and later to James? Is that redundancy there to exalt Peter and James above the other disciples in some sort of hierarchy? Why, then, is there no mention of John? Wasn't John a major disciple who allegedly wrote three epistles, either wrote a gospel or had one named after him, and wrote the apocalypse? Wasn't he among the first men to visit the empty tomb? Wasn't he the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? Wasn't he a major piece of the early church who traveled with Peter and did works with him? So the redundancy appears to be there for no reason. Is the list just chronologically ordering the people who saw him? Well, even if we exclude the women, no. First was perhaps the guards stationed at the tomb, then John, then Peter, then "the Twelve" without Judas or Thomas, and then Thomas. And we have no idea where the 500 actually fit in, or any kind of explanation as to why the Roman government was not interested in a situation where a man seemingly survived, revived from, or otherwise was alive after one of their executions. In sum, the list derived from the gospels looks nothing like Paul's.

Lastly, while not getting too deep into the myth theory, I'd find it strange that Paul says he received the gospel from no man and then goes on to cite 500 contemporary witnesses as among the reasons he converted.

But even if we accept the bolded portion as genuine, how does this stand up to the standards of journalism? Paul wasn't present for the resurrection, so he is not a direct source. He does not say who his source is. We don't know how the church at Corinth received this claim or what they said in response. It's a long way from a fact as far as journalism is concerned.



3. Why die for a lie?

In short, no one would die for a lie and no one has been shown to have done so.

Apologists correctly make the distinction that, say, the 9/11 hijackers did not knowingly die for a lie because they were not present for Muhammad's (fbuh) presentation. But the disciples claim to have been present for the resurrection, and they died for this claim. Right?

No. First, note that the criteria above invalidates Paul and Stephen from the conversation. You can have them as saints and martyrs, but you can't lump them into the "Why die for a lie?" argument. They had visions of Jesus which were not seen by other observers who were present for the event. Recall the notion that is strongly emphasized by apologists: that there could not have been a group hallucination of the resurrection, so Jesus must have been physically present with the disciples. Jesus' resurrection, the argument goes, was a real, physical, tangible event (notwithstanding his ability to walk through walls). But what Paul and Stephen saw were not real, physical, tangible events. The very fact that the other observers who were present did not see Jesus means that it was just some sort of vision or hallucination, not a physical appearance. You can claim that Jesus really did appear to Paul and Stephen, but you cannot claim that he did so physically.

So the discussion has to focus entirely on the eleven remaining disciples, and we exclude Judas' replacement. There is no evidence that they were given the opportunity to recant their claims and live. James, the first disciple to be killed, was seemingly killed at the whim of Herod. Acts 12:1-3 says,

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also.

I see no implication that James was given the opportunity to renounce Christ and live. I would liken this to gang warfare: a Blood tells one of his underlings to go kill a Crip. No implication is given that the Crip may remove his blue to avoid death. It's just an execution. So James is a martyr, but he is removed from the "Why die for a lie?" pool of candidates.

So I leave this with a question. Of the remaining 10 disciples, can you show - without appealing to legend or tradition, but actually show via historical method - that one disciple willfully died while refusing the opportunity to recant Christ and go free? I do not think any such case exists. The earliest case I know of where this happened involved Polycarp, who was born long after Jesus died.

Without this piece of the puzzle, the case for Christ is nothing.

Why not just expand the (3rd) argument's conceptual capacity by focusing on a person's willingness to experience social suffering in association with belief in Jesus rather than the possibility that he/she might specifically die for it.

Heck, I don't know many people who would be even willing to get on stage in front of a crowd to spout something deemed to be ludicrous by a majority of the audience, let alone people who would be willing to face imprisonment for any length of time--among other social or legal penalties--for asserting what they know is a mere small probability (and not even a lie).

I know I wouldn't. It seems to me that evangelicals have defined the "belief intensity" argument way too narrowly. Or in other words, I don't think the threat of death itself has to play as the "litmus test" for one's authenticity of belief, even though it just so happens to be the most serious and final situation one can find oneself in if one continues to hold faith in the face of antagonism.


Peace,
2PhiloVoid