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.

[OneVike]

Apology accepted, and I extend the same to you for my, as you put it, my snark response.

It is a character flaw that I try to reign in, usually with little success.

Thank God He is greater than I am and forgave me long before I was a glimmer in my parents eyes.

[redleghunter]

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.

Do you reject the Bible because it tells us if we reject God we are punished? Or do you reject the Bible because you don't believe it is authentic?

If you believe the message of Salvation is authentic but reject it, then that is akin to that sinking ship and someone offering you to come in the life boat but you refuse.

[ShadowAce]

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.

God is Truth--if you reject Truth, then you reject God. It is you making the choice of where to go--not Him.

[Elsie]

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

It seems to me they want to be 100% sure of the origin as well as the Subject of scripture before they'll put their faith in it.

---

But then one would claim, "That's not FAITH; but KNOWLEDGE."

[Elsie]

...they want to be 100% sure ...

Strangely; this requirement is not enforced in other areas of their life.

[Elsie]

I> I find that impossible to reconcile with the notion of an infinitely loving God.

Just where on earth did you get an idea that GOD is infinitely loving?

[Elsie]

You are forgiven. Go and sin no more...

/sarc

[Elsie]

If it were not for snarks; I’d hunt nothing.

[OneVike]

I need to correct my glaring mistake of claiming that Buddha may have been influenced by a Christian traveler.

I looked over the information I have and realized my glaring error in that Buddha lived some 500 years or so before God entered the world as the incarnate Christ.

He was more likely influenced by a Jewish traveler or even a Jewish slave maybe.

Now you all will inevitably hear and read about the Jewish and Christian religions being influenced by Buddha. However, the very idea is laughable since God gave Moses the law some 800 years before Buddha was born. So it would be impossible for him to influence the Jewish religion that existed for hundreds of years already.

In fact if the information gleaned from a copy of Buddhist Scriptures, belonging to the leading Buddhist teacher of ChiangMai Province in Thailand, is correct then it would seem that Buddha may have even believed that a Holy One would be born one day that would be the savior of mankind.(image from book below)

Buddha Prophesized about Jesus (Yeshua)

It is also the understanding of some that Buddha's understanding of the Holy One was influenced by Jewish teachings.

At that, I will leave it and allow you all to do your own investigation into the matter.

[Lucas McCain]

Try 1 John 4:8.

[Lucas McCain]

“God is Truth—if you reject Truth, then you reject God. It is you making the choice of where to go—not Him.”

Yes, yes, that’s very helpful. Thank you very much. All is resolved. I feel much better now (rolling eyes).

[ShadowAce]

Hey—you’re the one trying to pin the damning on God.

[Elsie]

I predict that in a hundred years my children will rule the earth.

[Elsie]

He was more likely influenced by a Jewish traveler or even a Jewish slave maybe.

I'd give credit to the Tower of Babel.

They all KNEW the Story; just re-told it in different languages.

[Elsie]

OK...

1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

So; are you saying that you believe THIS; but not the other?

[Lucas McCain]

Imagine that you have a child (possibly you do). Your son is somehow errant. He has committed some “crime” for which he refuses to repent of.

Could you, or any decent parent, take a belt or a stick and whip him endlessly? And then claim he damned himself? That he had a choice but rejected your offer of forgiveness? So he deserved to be beaten hour after hour, day after day? And then call yourself a loving parent?

We put parents like that in prison.

[Elsie]

He warned Adam - “You will die”

...and the rest is history.

[Lucas McCain]

I’m saying that the message of the Bible is inconsistent (dare I say contradictory?). And as such is difficult to believe.

A loving parent would not punish her child endlessly (And you in the peanut gallery, skip the stuff about how God doesn’t do the punishing, it’s getting old).

[ShadowAce]

As a parent, you warned him. You said that if he performed the "crime" in question, s/he would get a beating.

What kind of parent would you be if you said afterwards--"oh, well, I didn't mean it."

Don't forget--the "crime" we are speaking of here is NOT isolated sin here and there. We all commit those. The "crime" we are talking about is outright rejection of you as his parent. Refusal to listen to your teaching. Refusal to accept your discipline. Refusal to have anything to do with you. So--you kick him out. You banish him to a place where you are not. You let him experience his error without any more shielding.

[ShadowAce]

A loving parent would not punish her child endlessly...

As I said before--God is not the one doing the punishing.