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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2056400/posts?page=5#5
To: blue-duncan; All
Here is a good place to start in an investigation of historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, right here on Free Republic. Blue Duncan transferred FF Bruce’s entire book text here, starting with Chapter one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1971569/posts
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? (Preface, Chapt. 1)
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm ^ | 1959 | F. F. Bruce
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:24:23 PM by blue-duncan
5 posted on Mon 04 Aug 2008 01:27:59 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. *************************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2056400/posts
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. “
Gosh that sounds like the rabbi is describing the AntiChrist.
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.
Of course we know that the Sannhedrin could not have crucified this Jesus, because the Gospel asserts that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
Oh, gosh, your sources disagree. Perhaps one of them made it all up? Who is wrong?
That would be the one that has impossible things in it.
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)
Name them. Gather their testimony. I will wait.
No, I don’t accept it.
I don’t have any eye witness testimony.
And G-d ain’t sending me emails on the subject.
Also keep in mind that the early church did not think the canon documentation adequate, so they concocted pious frauds.
Later, some were too obvious, and were not admitted to the canon. But the need to author fraudulent documents shows that the available documentation was, even at that early date, considered inadequate.
I agree with the early church that the documentation is inadequate. I just don’t think that fraud is an appropriate response to that inadequacy.
What an irrational statement; I think.
Yeah; indeed!
Ah...
That was before we humans got downgraded to animals: much because of Darwin's 'understandings'!
The excluded middle is extremely large.
Dang!
We sent a boat; and then a BIGGER boat and then a HELICOPTER; but the flood victim kept saying he was waiting to be rescued!
Does it REALLY matter WHY??
It's the RESURRECTION that gives ME hope!
The thief on the cross was saved without ever seeing the resurrection. If a guy won’t acknowledge simple facts of history, he won’t acknowledge the resurrection. So the best thing to do is focus on the death of Christ. Of course He died. And of course He was put to death for blasphemy, even his enemies acknowledge that.
Not to me.
It sounds like the 'rabbi' IS!Anti-Christ!
1 John 2:22-23
"Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
1 John 4:2-3
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."
2 John 1:7
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."
No, I don’t accept it.
***Your idealogical blinders have blocked off a simple view of history, one of the best attested events in history itself. Do you accept that Julius Caesar was a roman general who became the first emperor? How can you, when there are no eyewitness testimonies which reach your standard of history?
I don’t have any eye witness testimony.
***There were dozens. Paul wrote in Corinthians that there were many who were still alive. Even the enemies of Christ put out a circular saying that he was put to death for blasphemy. Your idealogical blinders are utterly irrational.
And G-d ain’t sending me emails on the subject.
***And neither is Julius Caesar. History is history, regardless of how important you like to think you are.
Hebrews 6:4-6
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
It's my prayer that you aren't THIS far gone; yet.
Thomas; you would not be satisfied.
'They' did??
I just KNEW that eye witnesses were good for SOMETHING!!!
Name them. Gather their testimony. I will wait.
***Name any other figure in history that meets this standard you have set up. I will wait. You throw out Hammurabi, David, Moses, Julius Caesar, Columbus, even George Washington with such an impossibly anti-scientific historical standard.
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.