Who is Jesus Christ and Who is Irrational? (Mike Adams)

clashdaily.com ^ | 12-4-2013 | Mike Adams

[servo1969]

A sixty-seven year old proud atheist friend of mine recently interjected the sweeping statement “all religion is irrational” into one of our conversations. I replied, not with a direct rebuttal but, instead, with the unexpected question, “who is Jesus Christ?” He replied, “I don’t know.” If I were to ask some of you why I pulled that question out of left field you might also reply with a bewildered “I don’t know.” So keep reading. Please.

If you have never really pondered the question “who is Jesus Christ?” then you simply cannot consider yourself to be a committed intellectual – at least not yet. Let me say that in a different way: if you have never given serious thought to the true identity of the most important individual ever to walk the face of the earth then you are either a) suffering from severe intellectual hernia, or b) possessed of an intellect impaired by a fear of knowing the true answer to the question.

Let me begin by defending the assertion that Jesus Christ was the most important individual ever to walk the face of the earth. 1) We divide time using the date of Jesus’ birth. 2) More books have been written about Jesus than anyone else in recorded history. Case closed. Now we can move on to the issue of fear and intellectual curiosity.

The options we are given for understanding the identity of Jesus are so limited that no one who is truly intelligent can be behaving rationally if he just avoids the question altogether. Take, for example, my friend who has lived 2/3 of a century on this planet without so much as attempting to work through the options. I don’t want you to be one of those irrational people so let’s get to work.

When addressing the question of Jesus’ identity, there are only four available options. Anyone who has ever read C.S. Lewis or Josh McDowell knows that Jesus was either: 1) A legend, 2) a lunatic, 3) a liar, or 4) the Lord.

The idea that Jesus was merely a legend, as opposed to someone who actually lived, is simply not an option we can take seriously (at least not for long). Independent historical accounts, by that I mean accounts written by non-Christians, are enough to put this option to rest. Jesus is cited by 42 sources within 150 years of his life, and nine of those sources are non-Christian. By contrast, the Roman Emperor Tiberius is only mentioned by 10 sources. If you believe Tiberius existed, how can you not believe in a man who is cited by four times as many people and has had an immeasurably greater impact on history? You can believe that if you wish. But then you risk forfeiting any claim to be considered rational.

Nor is it rational to consider Jesus to have been a lunatic. Perhaps you could maintain that belief if you’ve never read the Bible. But how can a person claim to be educated if he’s never read the Bible?

World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky once entertained the notion that Jesus was a mere lunatic. But, then, in the early 1970s, as an atheist and a communist graduate student, he examined the words of Jesus for the first time. He was traveling to Russia on a ship and wanted to brush up on his Russian. But all he had with him to read (that just happened to be written in Russian) was a copy of the New Testament. And so he read. And he was transformed.

Marvin recognized immediately that the words of Jesus represent a profound level of moral understanding that rises above anything else that has ever been written. Read for yourself the words of Jesus. Then read the words of Charles Manson. Try to convince me that they are one in the same – merely two lunatics who mistakenly thought they were the Messiah. You have a right to that opinion. But you don’t have a right to be considered rational if you cannot detect a glaring difference between the teachings of Christ and Manson.

So, now only two options remain. And this is where the real trouble begins. If we call Jesus a liar (who falsely claimed to be God) then we cannot also call him a great moral teacher. One cannot be both. But many look at the final option of calling him Lord and panic. To go there means to accept belief in the supernatural. And surely that couldn’t be rational. Or could it?

Science has taught us a lot since the Bible was written. For one thing, we know that the universe had a beginning. It is expanding, it is finite, and it was not always here. Put simply, Carl Sagan was wrong. In fact, he was dead wrong. The cosmos is not all that is or was or that ever will be. It had a beginning. It is irrational to dismiss the obvious implications of this: that the universe was caused by a supernatural force existing outside of space and time.

People have to let go of the idea that the natural world is all there is because that is not where the science leads us. It instead leads us away from the philosophical commitment to only considering naturalistic explanations for the things we observe in the physical universe. This also leads us to one very important question: if a supernatural force was great enough to create the universe could the force or being not also reenter creation? And another related question: is the force or being responsible for creating life not also able to conquer death?

Arguably, the resurrection is a pretty small accomplishment in comparison with the creation of the universe. But that doesn’t mean it happened. The evidence must be judged on its own merits. I recommend that serious intellectuals start here.

Of course, you could just keep avoiding the question while judging others to be irrational. But there’s no avoiding the plank in your own eye.

[Elsie]

Second, it has limits.

Not for ALIENS!

[Elsie]

;^)

I was responding to 213 as an example.

Sorry I confused you - we’re on the same page.

[Elsie]

Claiming you learned something about the Scriptures from a College instructor at the place you mention is like Obama claiming he went to a divinity school and thus knows more about the Scriptures than me.

HMMMmmm...

Where have I heard something like that...?

---

 

 

Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

---

 

 

Timeline...    Subject...

 

0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."

1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."

2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."

3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."

[Elsie]

Now, I notice you dodged the best evidence against "Q" in your last post, anyone else notice that?

Dodging and ignoring is essential to getting your OWN message out.

The SAME old message we've heard for years...

"Did GOD really say..."

Genesis 3

[Elsie]

Your comparison of early human life to cancer is absurd and offensive.

And, highly illogical.

But, since it appears that one has bought the whole package...

[Elsie]

I’ve been told that going to a divinity school is a good way to lose your faith.

[Elsie]

Soylent Green is NOT people!

(But it USED to be!)

[Elsie]

As an aside, Buddha himself was not a Buddhist, he was the teacher whom all after him followed.

Then, after you've achieved nothingness; what have you got?

[Elsie]

Oh my goodness; you’ve outed ME!

I, too, have lapsed at times; but I hope they are getting farther and farther apart.

[Elsie]

[metmom]

God created Lucifer, the highest of all angels. He was not created evil but became evil when he rebelled against God.

The greater the capacity for good, the greater the capacity for evil. That’s why he’s the epitome of evil.

So that attempt to smear God fails.

[metmom]

I read and saw them both and they are EXCELLENT works, both.

Everyone should take those in.

[daniel1212]

e that a infinitely loving God is going to punish most of the people who ever lived for the crime of failing to believe in Jesus...Is failing to believe in Jesus really a crime that deserves everlasting teeth-grinding pain?

Your understanding of what believing/living for Jesus represents is superficial, if common. Pilate asked the eternal question :

What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. (Matthew 27:22)

For what you do with Jesus Christ implicitly reveals what you truly love and want, and determines where you will spend eternity, with the Lord Jesus or with your sins.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)

When one rejects Christ he is choosing sin over the One who is the utter opposite of evil, and which will be eternally recompensed, according to the degree of sin relative to the truth and ability he had. (Lk. 12:48)

And yes, this is just, as to reject Christ, and which in essence one does by willfully choosing to sin, evidences not just one choice but many. And finally rejecting Christ is in essence the sum total of all his sins, a result of rejecting innate light God gave, and which in essence souls do even if they never heard of him,.

Nor does God require us to believe and thus live for Him due to Him needing anything, as He does not, (Acts 17:25) but it is not only right to love that which is holy, and trust in that which is omnipotent, but it is what is best for man.

Idolatry is the mother of all sin, and by setting our ultimate affection, or giving our ultimate allegiance, or finding our ultimate security in something created and finite, then we are making that to be god, but which at best will ultimately fail us.

[CynicalBear]

>>The beginnings of human life has not been a problem for the Hebrew and Christian.<<

The failure to understand or refusal to believe in the true origin of life leaves a person with no solid base from which to work. As evidenced in the post you are responding to the lack of that base leaves on in doubt about most everything in life.

[CynicalBear]

>>Examine the scriptures and what I posted Will become crystal clear.<<

Not if they don’t believe in who that scripture comes from.

[daniel1212]

Thanks for your input.

[metmom]

Don’t those serial rapists and murderers have the same opportunity as anyone else to escape punishment by God? If they repent and accept Jesus as their savior after they’ve done their crimes, don’t they get off scot free in eternity? Meanwhile, any of their victims who didn’t become Christians before being raped and murdered land in hell.

Sin begins in the heart before it gives birth in the actions.

We are all murderers and rapists in our hearts. It's only a matter of self-control that many of us don't go there. You know the saying. "There but for the grace of Go, go I."

However, for anyone who truly repents, God grants forgiveness, INCLUDING YOU!

If He will do it for the worst of the worst, a murderer like the apostle Paul or King David, He WILL do it for you, too.

He's not a respecter of persons.

[metmom]

“There but for the grace of God, go I.”

[Lucas McCain]

I am very familiar with all the theological mumbo-jumbo, about sin and choice and gifts, etc., etc. People like you spout it endlessly and at the same time rail about superficiality.

The bottom line is, if someone such as myself, who examines carefully the message of the gospel and then says, “thanks, but no thanks, I honestly don’t believe it,” the result (assuming the Bible is true) is that I will be tortured beyond our ability to comprehend forever without end. I find that impossible to reconcile with the notion of an infinitely loving God. That’s one reason why I have so much trouble believing it.

[OneVike]

Yes, I figured it out after reading all your other responses.

I am guilty some times of what I warn others against. Jumping before looking.

Sorry.