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.

[redleghunter]

The beginnings of human life has not been a problem for the Hebrew and Christian. The Hebrew scriptures give us a clear understanding when life begins. If you look at the genealogies in the OT life was defined when a father “begat” a child and not the birth of the child. Since most of us here are familiar with the male role in this process I do not need to elaborate. But I confidently state the male role in “begetting” is VERY early in the process.

It is only when our Western society rejected our Christian roots, confusion ensued along with the notion that children were a burden to the pursuit of mammon. Convenience became the modern euphemism for cold blooded murder of defenseless life.

Your comparison of early human life to cancer is absurd and offensive. To state such a horrible notion no doubt shows the coldness of our society.

[OneVike]

As a former attendee of Evangel myself, I wasn’t too impressed with them.

Exactly what I thought. Thanks for clearing it up by proving I was correct about my assessment about them.

[Lakeshark]

Heh, not just liberal, but the guy's instructors must have been pretty far left, oh, and btw, maybe he thinks Algore learned as much as he did about the faith, probably read the same books since he came to the same conclusions.

I'm thinking this poster was one of the ones who wanted to take God out of the democrat platform..........or maybe he's schizoid, or as you suggest, a plant.

One thing for certain, the man (?) is extremely confused intellectually.

[redleghunter]

You are no doubt an intelligent man. Please begin to show that please. Where do I state these are my standards? Examine the scriptures and what I posted Will become crystal clear.

Sir, have you in your adult life examined God’s Word? If not and you want to get a look at things from God’s perspective read the book of Job.

[redleghunter]

Hammer meet nail. Yep, they heard the trains and knew who was getting on and where they were going never to return. I will post “180” tomorrow.

[redleghunter]

A three year old left alone would starve to death. An elderly person would too. A special needs child or adult would suffer and die. Are you promoting a Darwinian eugenics?

Do you think there should be mercy killing of the already “viable” handicapped? What restrains a society from dispensing with its most vulnerable?

[Diamond]

I suppose that if G-d is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow, that it would be jam yesterday, today and tomorrow. So let that be a hypothesis for a test of the supernatural.

Forming hypotheses for tests requires faith in notions such as the principle of induction and uniformity of nature. So I would like to know how you account for or justify your belief that you can take past experiences and project them into the future, a belief that has no foundation in observation or in sense experience. Have you investigated every single aspect of the universe in all places and times so that you can speak authoritatively? ? How do you know uniformity governs the whole world and the entire universe?

Now in Christian theism it is at least internally consistent to believe in the uniformity of nature because the Creator and Sovereign Sustainer and Ruler of the universe has revealed Himself to us in Scripture as the One who does not change, who is, the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8, to cite your source) and that we can expect regularities in the natural world.

My point here is not to take issue with your assuming the uniformity of nature. After all, every one does it. My point is, how do you account for or justify your faith in the uniformity of nature, given your antithetical premise of a non-theistic, random 'universe' of time + chance?

Cordially,

[OneVike]

As for the “Where is the body” question, one could also ask where is Peter’s or Paul’s body, or the Buddha’s body?

Buddhists normally practice cremation.

As an aside, Buddha himself was not a Buddhist, he was the teacher whom all after him followed. If you look into it, you will learn that Buddha did not practice what his followers practiced, he just taught about philosophical things that had not before been widely contemplated in his geographical area.

There are those who actually argue that he learned most of what he taught from a Christian traveler that did not quite get the whole message right when they heard it, and then when they shared it with him it got twisted a bit. Kind of the way you have been picking up bits and pieces from those who never quite accepted the truth themselves when they heard the Good News.

Thus, those who follow that theory of where his teachings were influenced by, also believe he may be saved. However, those who came after him began following his teachings and thus made a god out of him, instead of following the one true Triune God, Jesus Christ, whom he supposedly attempted to share with them.

Take it for what it is, only God truly knows who will be given eternal life.

However, as for all those who never heard of the name of Jesus, or His Gospel, and why should they burn in hell for not hearing it. I suggest reading a, "Eternity In Their Hearts". By Don Richardson. Richardson did an excellent job of showing how God speaks to all our hearts and that many people around the world were given the message of Christ, it's just that down through the ages the message got distorted.

For a good movie of how a tribe in the Amazon Jungle very well may have been handed down a twisted understanding of the message from their ancestors, may I suggest, "End Of The Spear". It is an excellent example of what Don Richardson is conveying in his book, "Eternity In Their Hearts".

[redleghunter]

Roasted goat...Good one:) I am going to use that one in the future if you don’t mind.

The interesting point missed is you always have an open invitation to be gathered with the sheep.

God did not leave us out there flapping either. He provided a Way to “get right” with Him. The entire purpose for God communicating with us through His Word. Faithful and obedient servants throughout history wrote it down. Amazingly He took our form to be tortured shedding His Royal Blood dying on a cross and three days later rising from the dead for us ungrateful dirty nasty sinners. So why would we have a bone to pick with Him after doing that and extending us an engraved invitation?

Deal is most don’t want to change and put on Christ. Most love their own ways and love their sin. So they pin the blame on God for roasting goats.

Hey let’s say I am your 19 year old son and you worked hard for 19 years saving money to send me your pride and joy to college. You even give me money to live comfortable there. What would you do if instead of bringing home “A’s” I was doing drugs and getting arrested? I am sure you would cut off the money and look for a way to get me help. But instead I decided to give you the middle digit and move into a crack house. I am sure you would keep trying to save me from myself and would leave the door open hoping I would come home. If I did you would rejoice your lost son has come home; if I stayed in the crack house I would die.

Now I ask...Would you allow a son who is still shooting up drugs in your house with your other children? I am sure you would not. Of course you would demand your rules be obeyed. And as I stated above you provided, in love, the way to get back in the house.

So the real story is me the son, I am roasting myself and you the dad provided the way to be the sheep.

[OneVike]

Normally nuts who say crazy things don’t leave much record at all of their ravings. The Unabomber was an exception.

I would be careful as to what you say. The man did nothing against you personally. All he did to you was to offer up His life as a sweet smelling aroma that was acceptable to His Father as a substitute for your sins.

Believe it or not, but be careful as to how you refer to his intelligence and character.

Just a word to the wise my FRiend.

[OneVike]

A Scientist looks at facts, evidence and theory, and tries to come up with experiments that gather new facts, measurements that quantify the new evidence, and new theories that explain the facts and evidence.

Yea, like global warming?

Or how about the once scientifically accepted Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man, Australopithecines, Zinjanthropus, Homo Habilis, Java Man and Peking Man (Homo Erectus), “Lucy”, and Richard Leakey’s new “tree of man”, all of which have been proven to be either a hoax or deformed humans.

Maybe we should discredit all scientists as your side does the church for following Greek philosophy on the flat earth beliefs. Which by the way, none of the ancient manuscripts ever taught a flat earth. It was humanism brought into the church that swayed the crooked Popes and Bishops to accept such humanistic Greek Philosophy.

[Hepsabeth]

OK, so God should not punish those who do that sort of thing?

What kind of God would not punish serial rapists or murders?

Would that suit you better?

What about their victims? Do they not get to see justice done for the crimes committed against them? How is that fair to THEM?

****************

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.

[redleghunter]

Bit of a straw man there, no?

Who says the victims did not submit to Christ?

Did the rapists and murderers who “get off Scot free” have godly sorrow leading to repentance leading to salvation?

[OneVike]

How do you account for an account in Numbers

A Star shall come out of Jacob;

You obviously do not have faith, so why would you try to understand something that needs some?

Let me ask you something, and this will require you to really put your thinking cap on.

How can, the then, greatest army the world had ever seen, drown in 5 feet of water? It's not a trick question. It's a question asked upon the heels of the scientific, geological, and historical understanding of the present day scholars you hold to be so correct today.

I really do want you to do your best at answering the question I asked.

By the way, as for the question of the star of Bethlehem? Maybe you should study the ancient texts found in and around the excavations of ancient Babylon to learn something about that way Babylonian Astrologers read the stars. I say that, because it was unbelieving, Pagan following Astrologers who wrote about following the Star to find the place where the birth of the King of the Jews would be born.

It's true that you can find an account of the Magi in the Gospels, but you can also find some writings about the star in ancient texts that were discovered in ancient Babylon.

It seems you claim to understand and accept scientific and geological teachings, but then you turn around and discard the scientific and geological facts that have been accepted by those very people for more than 100 years due to their findings.

You are one confused person, but I will pray for you.

Please remember to think hard about my question on how such a great army as the Pharaoh had, can possibly drown in 5 feet of water.

[Hepsabeth]

I didn’t say all of the victims of awful crimes would land in hell, I said any of them that weren’t Christian when they died. If someone isn’t Christian when he or she dies, isn’t that what happens, regardless of the circumstances of death?

The point was that God doesn’t always punish the perpetrators of the worst crimes. They have the exact same opportunity to go to heaven that anyone else does, no matter how heinous their crimes were.

[Tainan]

I will apologize and say the the "HEY PECKERHEAD" was over the top and not a polite way of responding to you.
Fo that part - -- I sincerely do apologize.
Rather ironic, and somewhat hypocritical of me to use an epithet such as that as I am one "those people" who have bemoaned the increasing lack of civility on FR over the last several years. And I find myself posting an uncivil comment such as that.

Ironic also, in that I agree with the basic gist of your post #105. What I did disagree with was the snark in the post.
such as:
"... I can only say you are very ignorant...."

Which, of course, could simply mean 'ignorant' in the lack of knowledge...but..
"...even Dawkins would call you a fool for the claims you make."

and...
"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."

Displays a marked lack of civility as well. However, I should not have responded in kind.
As I mentioned, I do agree with your comments on Biblical veracity; and I do applaud your defense of the Scriptures.
It is the 'snark' employed to make your points that prompted my crude reply.
I should not have sunk to that level. My apologies.

[Elsie]

Nice way to ignore the elephant in the room.

[Elsie]

Silent Spring by Rachael Carson sold a lot, but it didn’t have good science.

[Elsie]

Silent Spring by Rachael Carson sold a lot, but it didn’t have good science.

[Elsie]

If science was perfect wouldn’t we already know all the answers?

SOMEone apparently has them all!