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.
So why disqualify sources that contain eyewitness accounts?
Do you have any sources, aside from the gospels, that claims Pontius Pilate had Jesus killed for claiming divinity?
***I need to do an oops here. I thought you said, “Do you have any sources, aside from the gospels, that claims Pontius Pilate had OTHERS BESIDES Jesus killed for claiming divinity?”
So I’ll begin addressing your original question. Yes, there are multiple sources asides from the gospels. If you read the book I suggested, you’ll find them. There is one significant source, a circular letter from the Sanhedrin (note that Sanhedrin records themselves were utterly destroyed by the invading Romans) and several other sources cited by Josh McDowell in “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.
because he distrusts ‘believing’ eyewitness accounts. Even though the evidence of COMPLETEly changed lives means nothing to him. It certainly meant something to the Sanhedrin, who were in enmity with christianity. At any rate, if he is honest, the testimony of the ENEMies of Christ will mean something. It is a good test of honesty.
Can’t find anything but error in your prattle.
>> “At that time the irrational numbers hadn’t been discovered.” <<
.
An incredibly foolish statement. Long before Pythagoras square roots were common computations.
Of course people calculated square roots. 2 is square root of 4. 1/2 is square root of 1/4. What one of Pythagoras’ students figured out was that ratios (which they used) were not sufficient.
The two stories we have is they either killed him by dropping him off the side of a boat, or they exiled him.
So you admit that sanhedrin records are not available. That is a start.
Suetonius wrote in his Life of Claudius: “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Of course, by the time Claudius was emperor, Jesus was already dead.
Note this is no assertion that Christ was god, nor that he was killed by Pilate. This seems to be a common trouble maker, no hint of the divine.
eye witness of what?
Babylonian Talmud “It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for 40 days (saying): ‘He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.” Sanhedrin 43a; df.t.Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9 (Another version of this text reads: “Yeshu the Nazarene.” Yeshu or Yehoshua is Hebrew (or Aramaic) for Jesus’in English this name is also translated “Joshua.” The Old Testament hero bore the same name as Jesus the Messiah. “Hanged” is another way of referring to a crucifixion; see Luke 23:39 and Galatians 3:13
So was he hanged, or stoned? What is the testimony? Where is Pilate? This account differs from the gospel, and can not be used as corroboration with the bible account.
Lucian of Samosate: Greek satirist later half of 2nd century spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians but never argued that Jesus never existed. “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...
Of course satire is a form of humor. Satirists would never let facts get in the way of a good joke. Besides, he is no eye witness. He was born after any putative Jesus would be dead. I can hear the satire dripping from his ‘distinguished personage’...
Just getting around to glancing through some of these posts.
The concept of either eternal life or a “poof” you’re done; based on your belief of Jesus; doesn’t make sense to me. It would seem that either people have no soul at all, or they have a soul, which would seem to have to follow some sort of spiritual law of everlasting. Sort of like the physical laws of nature that apply to ALL of us.
I can see the concept of no souls, and just “poof” when we die. And I can see the concept that people have souls that are everlasting. But the idea that some souls might continue, and others not doesn’t seem reasonable.
I read some book where the author made the case that ALL will see the glory of God, and be in his presence. And that those who don’t “like” God (like Christopher Hitchens perhaps), will be in agony as His light shines continuously on them.
I’m not so sure about that though, as sin separates us from God. So why would the sinful be able to be in God’s presence (but suffering because of it)?
Good question. Because there were eyewitnesses to what went on STILL alive when these writings were completed. So the eyewitness accounts had OTHER eyewitnesses around who could corroborate or discredit what was said by the eyewitnesses. I hardly think some anonymous writer could come out with a fictional rendition of Jesus' life and have it be accepted by the very same people who were THERE when the events happened. There were other "gospels" written than the four we have in the Bible but they were often from unknown writers or were written hundreds of years after the last living person of the time had died. That is one of the reasons why they aren't part of the Bible.
Just a guess, but it may have had something to do with the Pharisees trying to come up with the initial judgment against Jesus (which, like Stephen, would have been stoning). The Pharisees had been trying to trap Jesus with His words for a long time. But then the Pharisees became afraid of the people following Jesus, so they trumped up the political charges to hand Him off to the Romans.
Where of course he was traded for Barabas and ended up hanging on the cross.
But this testimony is not by an eye witness. Rather, he reports the common rumor, years later. If you accept this testimony, you have to accept the term 'enormities' for the early Christians.
Because we can not evaluate the eye witness, except when they make egregious falsehoods, such as an eclipse during the full moon, a star that hovers over a particular place on the ground, or even a virgin birth.
Then we can reject such testimony out of hand. Certainly a reporter who includes such impossibilities deserves derision, not belief.
In what verses do you claim Jesus identified himself with G-d?
I agree with you that ALL souls will go on after death - some to eternal life with God in heaven and some to eternal separation from God in hell. In Isaiah 45:22-24, we read:
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone are deliverance and strength.’” All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.
And also in Philippians 2:9-11
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
As far as the damned being able to still be in the presence of God for eternity, I would say no, I don't believe they will other than the idea that no one can flee from the presence of the Lord or go anywhere he is not also, just that no sin can ever enter heaven again and God cannot "look upon sin" because of His holiness. Hell is called "deepest darkness" and other terrifying things. It won't be a peaceful rest, that's for sure.
And I agree.
Those who would claim He did not say THE EXACT WORDS are being quite disingenuous.
Even when John the Baptist was having doubts, He did not SAY THE EXACT WORDS, but instead let the miracles speak for themselves.
Luke 7:22, Matthew 11:5
Why NOT???
They might have lied.
/devils_advocate_off
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.