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.
And which one of the apostles was there, a member of the Sanhedrin?
***What are you talking about? Have you gone bonkers?
Who was the eye witness?
***The Sanhedrin
Your witnesses turn to dust when you finally get to it.
***These witnesses were the enemies of Christ. Nowhere else in history do the enemies and friends line up so perfectly when they attest to a FACT. Jesus claimed to be God himself. Sanhedrin acknowledge it. Other enemies acknowledge it. Friendly sources acknowledge it. But you don’t. Because you’re so anti-christian that you throw out all of recorded history in order to cling to your irrational belief system. Matthew 5:7. It applies to dishonest people such as yourself.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
62. And Jesus said, I am—or, as in Matthew (Mt 26:64), “Thou hast said [it].” In Luke, however (Lu 22:70), the answer, “Ye say that I am,” should be rendered—as De Wette, Meyer, Ellicott, and the best critics agree that the preposition requires—”Ye say [it], for I am [so].” Some words, however, were spoken by our Lord before giving His answer to this solemn question. These are recorded by Luke alone (Lu 22:67, 68): “Art Thou the Christ [they asked]? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask [interrogate] “you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go.” This seems to have been uttered before giving His direct answer, as a calm remonstrance and dignified protest against the prejudgment of His case and the unfairness of their mode of procedure.
So once again, the gospels disagree on what is said, and what it means. Only Luke seems to get the plaintive protest. The other two synoptics have different contexts, and their I AM leads not to the Hebrew I AM, but Matthew’s ‘thou hast said it’. A mish mash of conflicting testimony. I wish you joy of your belief in it.
I would accept rounding. After all, in this physical world, even time has quantum aspects.
So the witnesses were interrogated by Mark, a very young man at that time? Were they interrogated by Matthew, one of the despised disciples of the heretic? Perhaps they were interrogated by John, who took care of the heretic’s mother?
How were the Sanhedrin questioned? who took their deposition? Or did it come to one of the gospel authors in a dream?
I see you’ve never been in a position to read 3 or 4 eyewitness accounts of the same event. Even when you KNOw they saw the same thing, it’s amazing how much they differ.
Historians know this issue, and they also know that when there’s slick agreement it is a sign of forgery. But you don’t seem to know this. You simply do not know what you are talking about, and wagering your eternal soul on what you obviously don’t know about is about as foolish as one can get.
The enemies acknowledge what was asserted to be the Christian belief, but that is different from having them acknowledge that Jesus said something.
Rather like the newspaper recounting the prosecution theory, rather than asserting that what the prosecutor said is true.
who took their deposition?
***Yet another requirement of history that NO OTHER figure from history would meet, ever. You throw out history in your quest to dispense with christianity. Look at the title of this thread — you are the irrational one, throwing out all of recorded history.
You assert that the central aspect of Jesus is the words of his assertion that he was divine.
And on this, that you claim as the central aspect, your witnesses either vanish into the ether, or disagree.
Not very convincing. Perhaps you can take your argument to a 3rd grade Sunday school, and convince them.
Interesting theory. Other than the fact that it holds no water, and throws out all other figures in history, it’s interesting.
Your position is irrational. No other figure in history can live up to this ridiculous standard you have raised.
You claim that Jesus is like no other figure in history. Great claims demand great evidence.
So produce the great evidence.
So produce the great evidence.
***Matt 5:7
The great claims we have already. The great evidence, we are still waiting for.
your witnesses either vanish into the ether, or disagree.
***Not according to the normal standards of history, only according to your standards upon which no other single person in ancient history could meet.
No, Jesus does not meet an irrational standard. He meets a rational standard of history.
Since you are not interested in rational standards of history, Matt 5:7 applies to you.
that isn’t evidence of your assertion, just as Matthew 5:5 is not evidence of my excellence in real estate transactions.
There is more going on here than real estate transactions.
You’re pushing an irrational standard. Simple.
That doesn’t mean there is any real good reason to meet such a standard. Simple.
Best wishes in your self-styled irrational standard for history and spirituality. There’s no doubt that it’s impossible for you to have arrived where you are intellectually with such a standard, because no one else in history could meet that standard.
Of course they could.
Napoleon left an extensive record. His opponents left an extensive record. His generals wrote. His inspector general of bridges left behind one of the greatest graphs of all time.
Julius Caesar left behind a book, written by himself. Augustus had various courtiers who wrote about him and his family. They were deified after death, and left much behind to include various statues and buildings, and the rostrum in the Forum. I decline to judge the nature of the divinity that was bestowed by men upon other mean, but that is what real events look like.
Jesus: no evidence of anyone writing about him for years after his death. He never seems to have written anything. Yet his followers make the greatest claims on the basis of nearly no contemporary evidence. Fraud
Mohammed’s followers conquered much, and after that developed the Qu’ran and Hadith to justify themselves. Another mismash of conflicting fables. The late authoring of the Qu’ran and its single version are explained not by fraud, but rather by the assertion that hundreds of people memorizing what Mohammed said, even when he was a small town bandit. Fraud.
John Smith invented books from whole cloth that differed from all the archeological evidence, by claiming magical translation. Fraud.
Great claims require great evidence. Meet the standard of evidence for Caesar, and perhaps we can talk.
Joseph Smith didn't die because he refused to recant his faith but because he was trying to get busted out of jail and got caught in the crossfire. Can you see the difference between him and, say, an Apostle who could not deny what he knew to be the truth and was willing to die for his faith? Please tell me you understand this difference?
Except when it comes to the value of pi and the inerrancy of Scripture.
You know, you'd be just as well off by manning up and having the integrity to admit that you don't believe because you don't WANT to believe, than to try to blame shift it off onto questioning the historical records and applying double standards as to what you accept as proof and setting up pretend scenarios that we know still wouldn't convince you.
It'd be better if you'd just admit that you have no use for the god that you have your notions about and that you don't see that He's relevant to your life. At least at that point, you'd be being intellectually honest and we could respect THAT.
I don’t have much use for Napoleon either, but think Nappie existed and did the things they say because there is lots of documentation of his doings.
You can’t argue from the minimal documentation on Jesus, and so you condemn me for asking about it.
So who is being dishonest? That’s right, it would be you.
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.