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

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.

The virgin birth prophecy was a simple mistranslation from young girl in Hebrew to virgin in Greek, and the Hebrew version had been fullfilled already by Hezikiah.

You're probably WAY past arguing this point you made on Wednesday (sorry that I'm just seeing the thread), but I feel it should be answered. The prophecy given to the prophet Isaiah - who had been a reliable and authentic prophet for many other things that happened to the nation of Israel - was that it would be a SIGN that a virgin would conceive and bear a child and his name would be called "God with us" (the translation of Immanuel). What kind of "sign" would a young woman getting pregnant and having a baby be? That happened every day. Isn't it logical that it was talking about some kind of miraculous event - seeing as babies don't come from virgins who never had sex with a man. Then, consider that Hezekiah wasn't born of a virgin (his father was Ahaz) and his name isn't anywhere close to "Immanuel". So, I disagree that there was some "mistranslation" somewhere and scribes haphazardly wrote the Hebrew word for young woman as "virgin". Give them SOME credit, will ya?

As to the 300+ other Messianic prophecies God saw fit to include throughout Holy Scripture, that was His M.O. - He said it would be one of the major ways His people could know His word from the many false prophets and religions around at that time. He said He would tell them things BEFORE they happened so that when they DID happen, they would learn to trust in Him and believe.

I think it is ludicrous to think that a ragtag group of poor fisherman and lower class people would have had the skill or knowledge to pull off such a scam - it would be an impossible thing to do to time everything right and get everything down to the last detail. And what good did it do them? Most of them were persecuted and died as martyrs for their faith and because they would not reject what they KNEW was the truth about Jesus Christ. Consider this...many people die for a lie, but NO ONE dies for what they know is a lie. Think about this.

That being the case, I’m forced to the conclusion (assuming the Bible is true) that God planned the creation of humanity knowing ahead of time that most of that humanity would lost and would therefore suffer forever. I prefer to think of God as more benevolent than that. Somehow, that could have been avoided.

I think the TRUE benevolence of God will one day become quite clear. In fact,

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:4-10)

If we accept something like a biblical construct to reality, if I were God I would allow the saved to spend eternity in heaven, and consign the unsaved to extinction at death or shortly thereafter. No real hellfire. How about that? That’s what I call mercy.

Guys like Christopher Hitchens would have LOVED you as God. He said, while he was still alive (though I seriously doubt he's saying it now) that he couldn't imagine a WORSE way to spend eternity than worshiping and singing the praises of the merciful God. He'd be DELIGHTED to believe he would just cease to exist, be annihilated, poof! no more consciousness. Can you tell me how such a construct would be a deterrent to people who HATE God?

If God truly loved the whole of humanity that He gave His only begotten Son so whosoever believed in Him would not perish but have everlasting life, would not be condemned, would be redeemed not because they deserved it but purely by God's grace, then why wouldn't He want to have everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? But God is not a puppet master and we are not puppets. Choices of free will have consequences. A just and holy God would not be just and holy if rejecting Him cost nothing.

But your question presumes a biblical construct, i.e., that sin and judgment and hell are realities that need a solution. I’m no longer convinced.

I find it difficult to believe that someone would not find sin a reality. That would mean that there is no right or wrong, and nothing by which to make that determination.

Of course, if sin, wrong doing exists, then in order for justice to be done, it must be judged as sin and punishment must be administered.

Now, I can certainly see the problems people have with hellfire for eternity. There are precious few people I would not feel for if they spent their eternity there, but then again, some perpetrate such evil that I will not shed a tear for them.

That leaves, however, the reality of sin and judgment. While the consequences meted out can cause issues for sin, I think it would be the height of delusion to claim that wrong doing (aka sin) and judgment are not reality.

We as humans, even determine wrong and judge it.

It seems the real issue is not liking how God deals with it.

You note the subtle distinction between a creationist and a scientist?
A creationist supports conclusions that end with “because Creation”.
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.

Are you referring to science or the religion of Naturalism? Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith–based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well. Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

I once had a Sunday School teacher display is erudition by stating that the NT Greek word for Spirit was “Pneuma”.
Of course I immediately asked if he drove to church on spirit filled (aka pneumatic) tires.
He didn’t think that was helpful.

Actually he was being kind in not responding to your ignorance.

(1) as derived from πνέω (blow), of the movement of air; (a) blowing, wind (probably JN 3.8a and HE 1.7); (b) breathing, breath (2TH 2.8; possibly MT 27.50 in the sense "he breathed his last"); (2) as a condition and agent of life breath (of life), life spirit, soul (LU 8.55; possibly MT 27.50 in the sense "he dismissed his spirit"); (3) as the immaterial part of the human personality, spirit in contrast to the outward and visible aspects of σάρξ (flesh) and σῶμα (body) (1C 5.3; 2C 7.1); (4) as the seat of the inner spiritual life of man, the capacity to know God, spirit (AC 18.25; RO 8.16b); (5) as a disposition or way of thinking spirit, attitude (GA 6.1); (6) as an independent spiritual being, not perceivable by the physical senses; (a) of God himself spirit (JN 4.24a); (b) as the third person of the Trinity, possessed by and proceeding from God or Christ (Holy) Spirit (MT 3.11; AC 16.7; 1TH 4.8; possibly JN 3.8a); (c) as a demonic nonmaterial being, only evil in the NT spirit (MT 8.16; MK 1.23); (d) of an angel as a spirit-being (HE 1.14; perhaps 1.7); (e) as a bodiless human being ghost, specter, spirit (LU 24.37, 39) Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

So do you have a different value for Pi this week?

I suspect you are referring to the laver in 2 Chronicles 4:2

In describing the measurements of this laver, the circumference is given as 30 cubits (or 540 inches if the cubit was 18 inches) while the diameter is 10 cubits. However, circumference is arrived at by multiplying the diameter by pi (3.14159), and that total is more than 565 inches, an apparent, but not real contradiction.

The 10-cubit measurement was from brim to brim; that is, from one outside edge to the other. But verse 5 states that the width of the edge was a handbreadth, or about 4 inches. So the inside diameter was 10 cubits (180 inches) minus two handbreadths (8 inches). Multiplying 172 inches by pi, the total is 540 inches, the same circumference as given in verse 2.

All we can do is demonstrate the validity of the rules we know in a particular time and place.

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else. Douglas Wilson

If we are created in G-d’s image, then if G-d can judge, then we can too, in the lesser matters before us. Well; "we" used to be; but from the Scriptures that was a LONG time ago!

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 5:1-8

1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. ²He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.
³When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. ⁴After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. ⁵Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
⁶When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. ⁷After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. ⁸Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

And so; here we are today...

If we are created in G-d’s image, then if G-d can judge, then we can too, in the lesser matters before us. Well; "we" used to be; but from the Scriptures that was a LONG time ago!

Good Luck!!!

Job 40:1-5

1 The Lord said to Job:

2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”

3 Then Job answered the Lord:

4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”

If we were created in G-d’s image, then we may have changed, or G-d may have changed. If we changed, that would be evolution. We are assured that G-d does not change.

God does not change and we were created in God's image.

If we change, that would not necessarily be evolution. There's only one was to go from perfect.

Even the Bible tells us that corruption entered the world through sin.

So Christianity asserts that created man, being perfect was made prone to sin.

So would G-d, being most perfect, be most prone to sin?

Or would man being more prone to sin than G-d be less than perfect/

If it was a novel, one would say it had too many plot holes, and would reject it. Since religion depends on believing multiple whoppers, all this is perfectly acceptable.

How many people did Pontius Pilate have put to death for claiming divine privileges, equality with God?

Learn your history before you comment on it.

Just because you don’t know any indifferent sources, that does not mean they do not exist.

Do you acknowledge the simple historical fact that Jesus claimed to be God Himself? If not, how can you accept ANY historical claim in history?

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.