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 he didn’t send emails, but you were convinced by the good behavior of others.
Not a bad reason to convert, and one that led me to convert once myself. Humans are very sociable animals, as anyone who tried to bet against the guy rolling in Craps (the odds are better) will attest.
I wish you joy, and thank you for your service in the Special Forces. De Oppresso Liber!
I would not like playing dodge ball against you.
Perhaps a courtesy of reviewing Greenleaf’s method is in order. You can blame the ancients for their approach, however we are now in the 21st century and can examine the same evidence they had.
God sure does like to write. Check out Exodus 24 & 34. He prefers stone tablets.
Why didn’t G-d inspire them to meet modern standards.
After all. G-d knew that we would develop these modern standards, right?
Anyone?
More ‘Jam yesterday,Jam tomorrow, but never Jam today.’
So you aren’t getting emails either? The noive of him!
have a link for greenleaf?
Greenleaf wants to admit the gospels as ancient documents.
Hypothetically a court could admit the gospels as ancient documents, but that does not mean that their specific contents are automatically acknowledged as facts.
Technically, the gospels are at best hearsay, and are thus inadmissible for that reason alone.
When considering the contents as possibly, but not certainly containing facts, one should ask if they contain obvious falsehoods. Certainly the behavior of the Star of Bethlehem is an obvious falsehood, and any document that has obvious falsehoods should be rejected.
Certainly an assertion of an eclipse during the full moon would be a falsehood.
The assertion that the Sanhedrin said what ever they said has no record of who in the Sanhedrin said it, nor to whom it was said that carried the tail to the author. Such pretended testimony is not even hearsay, and should be rejected as if it was never uttered (because it may not have been).
So using Simon Greenleaf’s method, the gospels testimony is rejected.
a
I further assert that the gospels bear the marks of forgery, with the synoptic gospels being largely copied from another document, (Q) with their contents being such that the people available when writing them could not have been eye witnesses of the events to which the documents assert. That leads to errors of fact, such as odd behavior of stars, eclipses of the sun during a full moon, manufactured testimony by persons not available to the author, and (ready...
Assertions that people rise from the dead.)
No amount of correct testimony (Pontius Pilate was governor) mixed in with falsehood is sufficient to give the testimony of ancient documents, only admitted under the exception to hearsay rules that is given to ancient documents, credence.
If the ancient documents are a mixture of falsehood and fact, the fact that the documents are ancient makes it difficult to determine which is which. So after the gospels show the marks of forgery and the inability of the author to restrict his testimony to fact, the whole document can be safety relegated to the category of pious fraud- and rejected from being admitted as evidence.
“The author of Matthew was not matthew, and probably didn’t meet Jesus.
The author of Mark was Paul’s secretary, and probably didn’t meet Jesus. It is likely that Paul never met Jesus.
The author of Luke was commissioned by one Theophilus, and probably didn’t meet Jesus.”
Good to see that you have changed targets from Robert E Lee to Christ. And that your tactics haven’t changed even though you’re after bigger game.
Matthew and John were two of the original Apostles.
Mark was Peter’s amanuensis, not ‘Paul’s secretary’.
Luke accompanied Paul and is mentioned in two of Paul’s letters.
It looks like you’ve been memorizing all the greatest hits from your favorite atheist website. The usual junk that any good apologetics source can debunk.
The Bible contains 66 emails from God.
Prior to reading Greenleaf's free book, may I suggest you take a look at Sir William Blackstone.
So he didn’t send emails, but you were convinced by the good behavior of others.
Wrong! His behavior provided me the reason to examine the evidence for the veracity of the Gospels. My mentor had 5 earned doctorates: literature, law, psychology, and two in theology. He frequently made the statement, " There is more than enough evidence in the Gospels to send ten men to the electric chair.
Not a bad reason to convert, and one that led me to convert once myself. Humans are very sociable animals, as anyone who tried to bet against the guy rolling in Craps (the odds are better) will attest.
I don't gamble, nor convert based on personalities, but look at all the available evidence, and then try to prove myself wrong. Anybody can prove themselves right on a subject, but it takes a strong person to prove themselves wrong.
Now try reading "Greenleaf's book with an open mind.
BTW, your knowledge of textual criticism is very flawed. Almost all Biblical scholars place Mark as having been written first, and we now have a probable fragment of Mark from the First Century.
http://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/22/first-century-fragment-of-marks-gospel-found/
Instead of letting skeptics define Christian faith as a leap into the dark, let me define it from a Christian pov. "Faith is an action, or a readiness to act, based on the evidence one has in the object or person of their belief."
So you listen to men like G.A. Wells. Listen to what a professional secular humanist has to say about your view.
G.A.Wells - retired German teacher, amateur theologian and the hyper-skeptics' demigod. Wells is not very well known outside of the skeptical community. It is the curious nature of his ideas which draws attention. There have been Bible scholars who have denied Jesus said the things attributed to him. Few, however, have joined Wells in denying Jesus very existence. Randel Helms, speaking to an audience of secular humanists at a CODESH "Institute for Inquiry" on "A Secular Humanist Approach to the Gospels," said sarcastically, "I think that you can deal with Well's notion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus [as follows]: Sure Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus. And monkeys could fly out of my butt."
I have the Pereus Classics Colllection, which contain 366 of Plutarch's writings in Greek and English. Luke and Plutarch are not the same person.
Seventy-one N.T. scholars date Mark as having been written between 59 and 64.3.
They place Matthew between 62.1 and 69.
Luke was penned between 64.1 and 68.4.
John;s Gospel is dated between 83.5 and 89.4.
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-ChronologicalOrder.htm
The Shroud rates zero on my evidence scale.
The Rules for scientific evidence have changed, but historical evidence is a totally different matter.
I will post this again for your benefit.
The story of the ancient world is recorded by several historians of old, such as Homer, Josephus, Tacitus, Xenophon, Herodotus—called “the father of history,” and Thucydides, who is credited as being one of the most trustworthy of ancient sources. All of them suffer in comparison to the historical pinpoint accuracy of Luke.
Luke was undeniably brilliant, possessing remarkable literary abilities and a deep knowledge of the Greek language. He was the only non-Jewish author of the Bible. Yet he wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else—28 percent. He was a physician and a scientist. He was a writer and a medical missionary. He has proved himself a historian of first rank. Here he tells us that before writing his Gospel, he did the work of an investigative journalist, recording his findings in an orderly manner based on careful investigation: “It seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (
With that in mind, remember that Luke painstakingly and confidently described the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in his Gospel, chapters 23 and 24; and he repeatedly made reference to the Resurrection in the book of Acts.
The brilliant Wilbur Smith said:
"Of all the writers in the New Testament, Luke was the one who knew better than any of them, from his own medical experience, that it was utterly impossible for a dead body to come to life again by its own power. He was also a man who would have no faith in such a great doctrine as the resurrection of Christ, were it based upon a vision, a hallucination, mental excitement, or the blowing of the wind, or the rattling of a window. It was the conviction of this scientist and scholar, true Grecian and true Christian, that the Lord manifested himself to his disciples in many proofs." To reject the Resurrection, you have to disregard the demonstrated reliability of one of the foremost historians of the first century, a man who has been proven accurate even in the minutia of his narrative. How accurate was Luke's historical record? He tied everything into history and gave us historical anchors all along the way, both in his Gospel and Acts. His historical pegs have proven accurate even in minute points. For example, notice the way he began chapter 2: those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register” (Luke 2:1–3).
Luke did not just say that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem. He said they traveled there because of a census instituted by Caesar Augustus and that this particular census occurred while a man named Quirinius was governor of Syria. A hundred years ago, critics had a field day with that statement, finding no evidence in history to suggest that Caesar ever issued such a decree. Furthermore (critics charged) there was nothing to suggest that Quirinius was ever governor of Syria at the time prescribed by Luke. Then a series of discoveries were made. Sir William Ramsay, the Scottish archaeologist, dug up first-century documents showing that the Roman Empire conducted a regular taxpaying census every fourteen years and that this system originated in the days of Caesar Augustus. Another document was found in Egypt, an edict of G. Vibius Maximus written on papyrus, describing the procedure used in such a census, directing taxpayers to return to their ancestral towns to register. Another inscription discovered by Ramsay in Antioch showed that with brief interruptions, a man named Quirinius functioned as military governor in Syria from 12 b.c. to a.d. 16.
Notice in the next chapter, Luke 3, how meticulously Luke nails down his historical references: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1–2)
Sound like misty legend and fabricated fable? Anything but! Luke tacks John’s ministry to the wall of history using six different pins. John the Baptist appeared when (1) Tiberius Caesar was in his fifteenth year of rule; (2) Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea; (3) Herod was tetrarch of Galilee; (4) Herod’s brother Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis; (5) Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene; and (6) Annas and Caiaphas were sharing the office of high priest. Most of these facts are easy to verify, but a couple of them caused problems. A hundred years ago, critics were attacking Luke’s reference to Lysanias, saying, “The only Lysanias mentioned in history was killed in 36 b.c., sixty years before John the Baptist.” But the critics were stilled when archaeologists excavated an inscription near Damascus, stating that a man named Lysanias was indeed tetrarch of Abilene at the time mentioned by Luke. The skeptics also made hay with Pontius Pilate. For most of modern history his name has been absent on every historical document we have from the ancient world. Critics charged that Pilate was a fabrication. But a stone I have personally seen and took a picture of was excavated in Caesarea. It has the name Pontius Pilate plainly engraved for all the world to see. He was governor of Judea during the very time given by Luke, and he was headquartered at Caesarea.
I mentioned earlier how William Ramsay traveled to the Middle East to disprove Luke’s historical references and how, to his great surprise, he found the writings of Luke accurate in their tiniest details. This is even more remarkable when we consider that every other historian in the ancient world—men like Polybius, Quintilian, Xenophon, Josephus, and even Thucydides—did not hesitate to misrecord the facts to suit their own purposes.
Sir you are entering the clown zone.
You would have to look at the rules governing previous testimony and deposition. Both are admitted as evidence given the capacity of the witness. Luke deposed numerous witnesses to gain the history of Christ’s life and ministry. Those witnesses were first hand accounts and are no longer available for cross examination of their testimony. However their deposition as presented by Luke is not thrown out of court when considering the preponderance of the evidence.
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.