Yup; it sure LOOKS that way!
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.
It has been taught:
You appear to 'have been taught' something different.
This might be correct; but it's outside my job description to try to guess about it...
Yup; it sure LOOKS that way!
John 10:32
Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
I guess you claim there was NO basis for this 'rumor'.
Tom and you are in the same boat:
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
27Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
This statement shows the extend of your unbelief.
Of COURSE they are 'impossible' - to you.
You seem to require DNA, YouTube videos and stereo, #3D holograms for 'proof'.
You have a head full of cotton.
The ancients computed transcendental functions 4000 years ago or earlier.
Made was NOT created prone to sin, but was given the free will to continue in good or sin. After sinning man and world were infected with the propensity to sin.
“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”- C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963)
I find it interesting that Darwinists deny the existence of free will. I can only conclude Darwin Religion teachers imply their students do not have the free will to not commit mass murder, hence two Colorado teenagers gun down their fellow students. Let us not forget it was the same survival of the fittest doctrine, which lead Hitler and Stalin to butcher millions. I suspect secular humanist teachers will soon be leading songs to the glory of Darwin.
So would G-d, being most perfect, be most prone to sin?
God is Holy and hates sin. That said, I never heard a Darwinist express hatred for sin. Indeed, most rejoice in evil. Let them all sing to the glory of Darwin.
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.
And the Darwinist continue fiddling, while their students dance to the glory of death.
It sounds as if you have been reading too many of the irrational G.A. Wells' books.
I take it math was not your favorite subject?
The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Je 17:9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society
You have a head full of irrelevancies.
They computed Pi to some degree of precision. They didn’t, until later realize that there was no ratio of integers that would exactly equal pi.
The discovery of irrational number is the discovery that integer ratios are not sufficient.
Calculating pi to some degree of precision, or even recognizing that a given degree of precision is ‘good enough’ is different from the realization that no degree of precision or calculation means can ever be exact.
Sin is meaningless to evolution. The closest it gets is ‘fit’ and ‘less fit’.
Free will is for humans. Other living things have less flexibility in modes of interaction. Only humans seem to be able to trigger ‘that is a sin!’ in humans. Humans can be pretty ruthless, poisoning weeds, killing varmits, industrializing cattle slaughter, and herding our fellow man into gas chambers. We classify some of those behaviors as ‘sin’ when we wish to reduce their frequency in the population.
Certainly dogs can love, yet I don’t think we would assert that dogs are capable of sin. Accept that, and you have a counter example that showes CS Lewis was wrong, that potential for sin is necessary for love.
I had a good hamberger a few days ago. I don’t think my hamberger can sin, and so that is another example where something can be good without the potential for sin.
Darwin wrote that evolution as he understood it was to be appled to animals. He also wrote that uniquely human characteristics such as charity to the injured, the poor and the sick would make application of evolution to humans problematic.
They are impossible, in the world as we know it.
If the author described a dream, then other things would be possible.
Do you assert that the gospel is true only in dreams, or do you accept that when an author describes an eclipse of the sun during a full moon that he or his source might have gotten his dates wrong?
I would be happy with a few emails or even a text message or two.
Like the old joke-
“He doesn’t call! He doesn’t write!”
Then do you admit that Jesus was put to death for claiming equality with God? It is perhaps one of the most best attested events in all of history.
From a previous thread...
This original article was one that I posted in 1994 on a discussion group. I notice that the paragraph about Lucien was dropped in my re-posting, and perhaps other information.
From: Kevin O’Malley k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
24-OCT-1994 14:28:12.94
Subj: RE: Evidence that Jesus Claimed to be God
Evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. Part II
**************************
Continued from previous post
****************************
Opposing Sources
Per Stauffer: “For if a confrontation of witnesses yields statements that agree on some points, then these points
must represent facts accepted by both sides. This principle certainly holds true if the historical traditions of
the two groups of witnesses are independent of each other. But it holds true almost as completely in cases where
the traditions intersect. For it is highly significant that the witness for the prosecution admits that the witness
for the defense is right on certain points; that he agrees with his opponents about certain common facts.”
Justin Martyr and Eusebius mention a circular letter issued by the Sanhedrin.
Martyr Quotes from it:
“...a certain Jesus of Galilee, an apostate preacher whom we crucified; but his disciples stole hime by night
from the cross; they did this in order to persuade men to apostasy by saying that he had awakened from the dead and
ascended into heaven.” Per JGGG jewish tradition for at least a century afterwards independently continued to
reject Jesus on the basis of his claim to deity.
Lucian, Greek satirist in 2nd century commenting on Jesus.
“...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore,
their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for
all
by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” Per JGGG,
“notice that Lucian specifically pins the blame for the worship of Jesus on ‘their first lawgiver himself.’
Pliny the Younger. (A.D. 61-112) Per JGGG
After killing christians, he sought advice from Trajan, mentioning that christians “affirmed, however that the
whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it
was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god...”
Jewish Polemic in commentary of Rabbi Eleazar Hakkapar (ca 170 a.d.) per JGGG.
“God saw that a man, son of a woman, would come forth in the future who would endeavor to make himself God and
to lead the whole world astray.... For it is said: ‘A man is not God.... And if he says he is God, he is a liar.
And he will lead men astray and say that he is going and will come back again at the end of days.’ Is it not so
that he spoke thus, but he will not be able to do it. “
Jewish Polemic : Per JGGG, Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea (ca 270) puts the words of Jesus into Balaam’s mouth:
“If a man says, ‘I am God,’ he is a liar, if he says I am the Son of Man,’ his end will be such that he will
rue it; if he says, ‘I shall ascend to heaven,’ will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to
perform it?’”
From JGGG:
“The first independent test of the validity and integrity of of the reports that we have discussed is a
telltale silence in all contemporary literature concerning the claim of Jesus’ deity. There is a complete ABSENCE
OF REBUTTAL. Although much was said to deny his deity, nothing was said to deny that he claimed it. (In fact, the
first real threat to the infant Christain church came from the Gnostics who wanted to deny his HUMANITY!) ....Paul,
writing within thirty years of the events themselves, confidently challenged his readers to check with any
eyewitnesses if they wanted to confirm the truthfulness of his message (1Cor. 15:5). THE FACT THAT JESUS CLAIMED
DEITY IS WITHOUT A CHALLENGER IN THE FIRST-CENTURY HISTORICAL RECORDS.” (emphasis changed from italics to CAPITALS)
This may be an argument from silence, but it is issued as a challenge.
Biblical evidence—Just a touch
Since most of the rest of the Bible was written before A.D. 90, there were many people who witnessed the events who
could have stepped forward if the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc. were unfactual. (per JGGG with citation of
demographic study)
Paul’s epistles include the following per JGGG:
1) that Jesus was the preexistent Creator of the universe (Col 1:15-16)
2) that Jesus existed both in the “form of man” and in the “form of God” (Phil.2:5,8)
3) that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and thereafter was seen by over five hundred eyewitnesses
(most of whom were alive when Paul wrote) (1Cor 15:4,5)
4) that prayer could be directed either to God the Father or to Jesus (1Cor 1:2)
5) that one day Jesus would return to earth as the divine judge of humanity (2Thess. 1:7-10)
“No first-century Jew — especially one steeped in Jewish orthodoxy as was Paul, trained by the great Rabbi
Gamaliel, fiercely monotheistic, a member of the sect of the Pharisees, and possibly even a member of the Great
Sanhedrin ... would teach these things about anyone but Jehovah Himself.”
Hebrews 1:8
“But unto the son He says,’Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter
of Your kingdom.”
John
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” v.14: “And the Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory...”
Mark
The beginning of the gospel of Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 with a significant alteration: “Behold I will send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the before me.” Mark-—>”The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God. As it is written in the prophets, “Behold I send my messenger before thy face...”
From ETDAV: Indirect claims of deity
of Jehovah Mutual Title or Act Of Jesus
Isa 40:28 Creator John 1:3
Isa 45:22,43:11 Savior John 4:42
1Sam 2:6 Raise Dead John 5:21
Joel 3:12 Judge JJohn 5:27 cf.
cf Matt 25:31 ff
Isa 60:19-20 Light John 8:12
Exodus 3:14 I AM John 8:58, cf 18:5-6
ps.23:1 Shepherd John 10:11
Isa 42:8, cf48:11 Glory of God John 17:1,5
Isa 41:4,44:6 First and Last Rev1:17;2:8
Hosea 13:14 Redeemer Rev 5:9
Isa 62:5 Rev 21:2,
+ Hosea 2:16 Bridegroom cf: Matt 25:1 ff
Ps. 18:2 Rock 1 Cor 10:4
Jer 31:34 Forgiver of Sins Mark 2:7, 10
Ps 148:2 Worshipped by Angels Heb 1:6
Thru out O.T. Addressed in Prayer Acts 7:59
Ps. 148:5 Creator of Angels Col 1:16
Isa 45:23 Confessed as Lord Phil 2:11
Kevin O’Malley k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
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.
