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.
When you accept or reject documentation based on who it’s documenting rather than its inherent adequacy, THAT is dishonest.
You’re not kidding anyone but yourself.
NOW you've aggravated our MORMON friends.
This is MY job!
JESUS: Hey Smith! Remember that boast you made about doing more than even I had done to hold the 'church' together?
JOSEPH SMITH: Where am I?
JESUS: Don't you remember? A few seconds ago you were in that jail.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah; but where am I NOW?
JESUS: Don't you remember? Does bang - bang ring a bell?
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah - that crummy gun I had was about USELESS!
JESUS: I hope you left instructions on how to hold your church together.
JOSEPH SMITH: Dang! I knew there was SOMETHING I was forgetting!
JESUS: Looks like there's a power struggle going on down there.
JOSEPH SMITH: Yeah; there was always SOMEone who wanted the power that I held - especially over the LADIES - wink wink.
JESUS: No need to worry about that now; remember what my friend Matthew wrote down?
JOSEPH SMITH: This? “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)
JESUS: That's it.
JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.
JESUS: Nah - it was right.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh well; it was fun while it lasted. My buds will still get it on with the girls.
JESUS: Uh; I'm sorry; in just a few more years; your followers will cavein to the United States government and abandon the 'Eternal Covenant' that you came up with.
JOSEPH SMITH: ME!? YOU are the one that told me to do that!
JESUS: Sorry; but you must have mistranslated what I told you. What part of Do NOT commit ADULTERY did you not understand?
JOSEPH SMITH: mumble....
JESUS: What did you say?
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, nothing.
JESUS: Well; it was interesting talking to you; but now I must get back to perparing a place for those who believe in Me.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, yeah; the Celestial Kingdom.
JESUS: No...
JOSEPH SMITH: The Telestial one?
JESUS: Nope.
JOSEPH SMITH: SUREly not the TERRESTRIAL one!!
JESUS: Nope. Didn't you read that the mind of man had NOT conceived of it? Paul wrote it down in 1 Corinthians 2:9.
JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.
JESUS: No; it wasn't.
JOSEPH SMITH: You SURE?
JESUS: Yes. Now I must be going: what did you say your name was again?
JOSEPH SMITH: Joseph Smith.
JESUS: Hmmmm. According to my Heavenly FAITHbook, you didn't sign in as one of my friends - sorry, I never knew you.
JOSEPH SMITH: But....
To how many binary points?
Lord; someone needs smacked with a 2*4 to 'get the message'.
My talking ass schtick ain't working...
The great evidence, we YOU are still waiting for.
Today; you'll get LOTS of 'documentation' about Mandela.
Believe every word of it!
or treat it just as skeptically as I treat pious frauds on the subject of Jesus.
So you don’t know how the testimony of the Sanhedrin got into the gospels either.
It is a great mystery.
Gosh, get this straight. You take any continuous ordered one dimensional set, and pick a point to any degree of precision you like. That partitions the set into two sets, and you can select either subset.
If you can’t pick one of two subsets, then you don’t know very much about your position at all.
I'll defer to those who know the names of the experts.
The sand is getting heavy in our sandals...maybe it's time to shake them off and let the foolish and senseless wallow in their blindness and deafness.
Julius Caesar left behind a book, written by himself.
***Earliest extant copies (7 of them) were written 800 years after his death.
Jesus: no evidence of anyone writing about him for years after his death.
***Many accounts were written of Jesus, most of which were before AD70. That’s only about 40 years after his death, not 800 — and there are 17,000 manuscripts of the new testament, far far more than Julius Caesar’s stuff.
You have idealogical blinders on, and not one figure of history can stand up to it. The standard you set up for Caesar is completely trounced by Jesus of Nazareth.
“The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”~F.F. Bruce.
Historian Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.”
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Christian authors wrote about Jesus soon after the events. By way of contrast, Plutarch’s biography of Alexander the Great, considered trustworthy by historians, was written more than four centuries after his death. Charlesworth has written that “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.” [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that “We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.” On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: “It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world.” [Harv.JesC, 11]
So did Plutarch write about Jesus? I must have missed that one.
I guess you missed the ‘by himself’ part.
Augustus Caesar and Alexander both also had cities founded in their name.
I think for things that can not be repeated, the veracity of the person who attests to them is important. Another important aspect is when: If someone can not be where he would have to be to make an observation, then you can discount the observation.
If it can be repeated (like a lot of science experiments) then who attests to it matters less. If you don’t like who attests to it, then you just do it yourself, and report your results. If nearly the same as another, they confirm or if they disagree, then you have the opportunity to do some really interesting science to identify why they differ.
http://www.gottnotes.com/PlutarchsParable.html
above link asserts that Luke (gospel author) was Plutarch. I don’t have an opinion on that, but thought I would share.
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.