More information can be found at this site.
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.
Almah was young woman. The greek translated it to what we now report as virgin.
That means the old testament sign wasn’t a virgin. Rather that was the mistranslation.
Yes, the original prophecy was underwhelming. So was the reign of king Hezekiah.
Man’s standards are all that we have. G-d doesn’t have a web site to give us added guidance, he doesn’t send email, he doesn’t call us on the phone.
Unless he calls you and you are holding out on us?
The interesting thing is Job has won the argument. G-d doesn’t have any sin he committed. He gets an admission from G-d that G-d is acting arbitrarily, and because G-d is G-d, he can act arbitrarily.
G-d says “Shut up”.
Job shuts up.
And G-d never restores the children that were murdered. No doubt any real person in Job’s shoes would morn them the rest of his life.
Quite a leap in logic!
But it's NOT a novel: not even a novel strawman.
Do you have any sources, aside from the gospels, that claims Pontius Pilate had Jesus killed for claiming divinity?
***Once again, you have demonstrated how dark your idealogical blinders are. My comment was aimed at showcasing and framing just how rare such a claim is, and even more rare, how the enemies acknowledge the claim.
Rome was polytheistic, with a various Romans eventually being accepted as divine (Augustus, Romulus, Tiberius, Claudius and even Caligula).
***And how many were put to death for the claim of divine privilege attributable to the highest of gods, the king of kings? How many enemies acknowledge the claim? Learn your history. Answer these questions.
Do you acknowledge that Jesus claimed to be God Himself?
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln; how'd you enjoy the play?
Sure he did... just like Jonah.
What is your interpretation based on the MTV generation that all young women were sexually active? Check out the LXX.
So does a “young woman” or “maiden” mean for the time written that Judea had a bunch of Lady Gagas running around?
The word ‘almah’ (5959 as in Vines); virgin; maiden.
Even if you prefer “maiden” playing the lexicon game, in Genesis we are told Rebecca is a maiden who knew no man. So what type of maiden or virgin does not meet that criteria?
Again get your mind out of the 21st century gutter.
And you, obviously, thinks He should have.
Tell ya what: convert to Mormonism; follow all the rules, and you get to be a GOD.
THEN you can make the rules suit your tastes.
1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way leads to eternal lives; 26–27, The law is given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation are made to prophets and Saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
16Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in bheaven, which angels are ministering cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are aangels of God forever and ever.
18And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.
19And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and beverlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
21Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.
22For astrait is the gate, and narrow the bway that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the clives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
23But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that awhere I am ye shall be also.
24This is aeternal lives—to bknow the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath csent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.
25aBroad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the bdeaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they creceive me not, neither do they abide in my law.
There's a few misconceptions here. Christ conformed exactly to what scriptures prophesied about him. This isn't exactly the same as what the Jewish religion prophesied.
Christ was bound only to the law of God. He wasn't bound to the laws or tradition of man. He pointed this out several times.
On the other hand much of Christianity today has deviated as far from scripture, and sometimes more, than what the Jewish religion had and so they've re-invented Christ as what you perceive in your last paragraph.
Are you serious about getting to the simple historical truth of the matter? If so, I recommend the following book. If not, I gather you aren’t willing to come up to speed on history and you’re just here to troll. How will you answer this challenge?
Rome was polytheistic, with a various Romans eventually being accepted as divine (Augustus, Romulus, Tiberius, Claudius and even Caligula).
***Keep your eye on the ball. This is an attempt at deflection. Did Jesus claim Divinity or not? Learn your simple history.
It is as you say...
Your conclusion is illogical and demonstrates an ignorance of the purpose of "prophecy". From the Pulpit Commentary:
"A virgin shall conceive. It is questioned whether the word translated "virgin," viz. 'almah, has necessarily that meaning; but it is admitted that the meaning is borne out by every other place in which the word occurs in the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; Song of Solomon 6:8). The LXX., writing two centuries before the birth of Christ, translate by παρθένος. The rendering "virgin" has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenins, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless 'almah is translated "virgin," there is no announcement made worthy of the grand prelude: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold!" The Hebrew, however, has not "a virgin," but "the virgin" (and so the Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος), which points to some special virgin, pro-eminent above all others."
And I say, YES, He did claim to be God Himself.
Nope! Almah says "young woman." The point and force of that word, however, is "young woman JUST NOW arriving at the point where childbearing is possible." Prepubescent, but on the cusp, the verg, of being able to conceieve. Still, it requires a miracle for such a "young woman" to conceive. The implication of that is "virgin."
Man was not made prone to sin. He became prone to sin.
God created man with the ability to choose. Man had free will which he could exercise.
God could have created a world full of robots which had no choice but to serve and praise Him, but where is the love in that?
Love is not love if it is not freely given. It cannot be demanded nor programed into a being. For man to love God, he must do it of his own choosing.
More information can be found at this site.
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.