Posted on 12/04/2013 3:17:41 PM PST by 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.
“When math assumes things are scale independent it departs from reality, and the proof is worthless.”
Math isn’t assuming anything. Math itself is scale independent. A function doesn’t change from scale to scale. 1 + 1 = 2, no matter whether you are adding 2 photons, 2 atoms, or 2 planets.
This proof deals with the impossibility of mathematical functions extending backwards to infinity to describe our observed universe. They proved such functions aren’t possible. You can’t wiggle out of that by saying the proof doesn’t work because of scale.
LOL I'd stay away from the mushrooms if I were you.
Btw, just so you know, "Q" is a figment of some liberal "scholar's" imagination, probably a DUer like you at heart.
Q is actually a character from a James Bond movie, not a phantom text that has never been found.
Unfortunately for people who write really ignorant posts like the one you did, and continue to do, you'll never understand the difference between reality and a movie, sort of like those believers in global warming who don't know the earth hasn't warmed in over 15 years in spite of their theories.
Congrats on writing the most ignorant post I've ever seen on FR, that takes some doing.
You use the ‘we’ like you think the rest of us are dumb to your disbelief, too. ... I actually feel sorry for you, dude. In Paul’s words, ‘Abraham believe God and it was counted for him righteousness.’ You just keep working at that unbelief, God will eventually break through your hard heart ... or not.
As for the things you claim about the authors of the Scriptures, I can only say you are very ignorant. Otherwise you would not try and claim Mark was not present during the life of Christ.
Even the most leftist of atheists readily admit that mark was peters nephew. Plus Mark was present when Christ was arrested.However, most of Marks information came from his uncle Peter.
You need to stop claiming you read the scriptures because your own statement prove you never did.
I will pray for you, because you tread on such shaky grounds that even Dawkins would call you a fool for the claims you make.
Just so you have something more to think about, consider the evidence we have for the authenticity of the Scriptures is greater than for any other piece of literature from antiquity. Bar NONE!.
In the last 2000 years there have been many, many men who are much more greater than you could ever hope to become, who have tried to discredit or destroy the Bible. Yet each and everyone has failed. the facts stand on their own that there is more evidence for the authenticity and accuracy of the Scriptures than for any other ancient book. No one who has studied these issues doubts the genuineness of the Bible. They may reject the message, but try as they have, they could not and neither will you, discredit the authenticity of the Scriptures or the authors.
Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.
The New Testament was written in first century A.D. There are some 20,000 manuscripts in existence. The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 100 years after the original. In contrast:
There are many more writings of the Church Fathers quoting sections of Scripture; we could reconstruct the entire New Testament from their writings alone. There were millions of man-hours spent in cross-checking the manuscripts. There remains only 1 percent of all New Testament words about which questions still exist; no questionable passage contradicts any Bible teaching.
The Old Testament has been more accurately transmitted to us than any other ancient writing of comparable age. The textual evidence is greater for both the Old and New Testaments than any other historically reliable ancient document. The ancient scribes were very meticulous. There were only 1,200 variant readings in A.D. 500.
The Masorites produced an official text in A.D. 500. There are other versions that confirm the accuracy of the Masoritic Text.
The quotations from pre-Christian writing confirm the text. The New Testament accepts the Old Testament as authentic, confirming the traditional authors, quoting from at least 320 different passages, and confirming the supernatural events cited in the Old Testament.
But then again, you would rather do this over mail so that the proof of your ignorance will never be seen by those who are not up to par enough to take you and your pathetic attempt at discrediting the Bible on.
I made an error, I meant to write that Mark was Barnabas’s nephew. he was the son of Barnabas’s sister’s. However he was present when Christ was arrested. He would probably have been about 12 to 14 at the time.
He was the young man who had his cloak taken from him when they tried to grab him but ran away naked from the garden where Jesus was arrested.
Also, Mark most likely got the information for his gospel from peter whom he traveled with to Babylon and most likely to Rome, when he met up with Paul while he was in prison just before he was beheaded by Nero.
For a decade now, we have had Mormonism adherents using nearly the same failed arguments as the poster to whom you addressed your excellent post. It is the Mormonism way to try and paint the Bible as unreliable in order to make a crack into which the fantasy novel from Joseph Smith may be injected In the case of the current naysayer the effort appears to be aimed at spitting on Christian believers. That is a sad soul which feels the need to do such in an effort to stroke their own ego. If no other source were used than the letters exchanged between the earliest Church Fathers dating to just 100 years after the Resurrection, the vast majority of the materials in the New Testament can be verified to a high degree. But the poster wants to have some phantasm upon which to build their disbelief, so the body of evidence must be reject out of hand.
Thanks for that post; it said everything I wanted to say better than I could have.
Thanks, but I am sure if you stepped back for a few you would have done as well.
Sometimes our anger at those who make outrageous and ridiculous accusations about the things we know to be true seems to leave us speechless and unable to come up with a proper defense.
God bless
Yes I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
Together in Christ we will always win, and they will always lose in the end.
Fine, you are dishonest. No problem. Bye.
keep in mind that the library of Pompeii was preserved, and and only recently became readable. The carbonized scrolls were preserved, and are now being read.
HEY PECKERHEAD..read my post again.
I believe in what was posted. What I don't believe in is unsubstantiated rumor.
I fully believe that the Bible is supported by historical documentation.
Documentation that gets better and more substantiated with each re-telling that happens.
Got That?
According to Descartes, if you don’t doubt, you don’t think.
According to God, if you doubt Him, you lack Faith and shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
I doubt Descartes. I don’t doubt God.
I think you owe OneVike an apology for that post
An impersonal 'it' does not provide the precondition for 'rules' or any other kind of normatively, epistemic or otherwise. So why would you expect jam today? Given your own apparent presupposition of naturalism, there is no foundation for your question.
You are the one who presupposes naturalism, not us, remember? Stay on your own side of the field. Or maybe in light of your epistemic relativism I should tell you, stay and non-stay on your own side of the field.
Cordially,
You start with the ad hominem and finish with it.
You made a dopey argument based upon your suggestion that I haven’t read the Bible, namely that God doesn’t judge people based upon their ignorance. I had presented an argument alluding to Scripture that indicates salvation is based upon faith and status: “in Christ,” and that ignorance (a form of disbelief) isn’t a entrance into Christ. That’s a straw man? You evidently can’t deal with it. It does require a modicum of reasoning skills.
Then you call me a leftist. That’s all you got?
To me the paradox of Jesus is that noone recognizes that the prophecies were available for forgers to create a pretend Jesus, long after his putative life, and then pretend that their ability to reference various prophecies was somehow evidence of the reality of their scam.
I believe he has run away knowing he could not defend that kind of idiocy, and you displayed a good deal of patience with his nonsense, answering him in a well phrased rebuttal.
IF he had returned (and somehow I doubt he will as he is far over his head in an area he clearly knows nothing about....well.....maybe he read Dan Brown along with some wikipedia......), I was going to ask him how he reads the following, meaning which book is it from, and what would it mean to the most elementary intellect, including a scholar:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
I await how he dodges my question and comment this time.
Re-read please - I never said God does not judge just that they will be judged on what they do know not what they don’t.
Furthermore, with Jesus Christ as my Saviour, God promises me mercy [forgiveness for all my sins] and grace [acceptance into Heaven].
My heart aches too for all of those ignorant of this promise from God but I have faith and confidence that the author of love will provide a way somehow someway [no I don’t have any scriptures to base that on, but I lost a dear and trusted friend early in my christian walk - and maybe b/c I was to naive about evangelizing those lost.
If you check the last words recorded in the 4 Gospels, Jesus tells us to spread the good news. And if you check the last page it says do not add to nor subtract from this book. So I take great pains to read and study this and to try try try not to misquote nor ignore context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.