Who is Jesus Christ and Who is Irrational? (Mike Adams)

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.

No I cannot accept the signatures are real on the Declaration. Some Masons obviously forged the document and all following ‘supporting’ documents are frauds based on the questionable technology of the quill in the 17th and 18th centuries. There is documented ‘evidence’ on our currency that a secret Mason cabal created the Declaration and forged the signatures. All the original witnesses are dead and we will never know for sure who signed the document. It could have been King George for all we know.

I mean, who really knows what was going on in that room the day the Declaration was signed. Sure we have the document, and people tell us from other documents that those are the signatures of the founders, even some of the founders claim in letters they signed it, but that is hearsay.

I mean for us to reject such testimony as this:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”Luke

And this:

“The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised,”Luke

And this:

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but 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.”John

And this also:

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.”John

And of course we have this:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.”Paul

To reject such testimony, we would have to reject most of our world history.

“After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6 AD, Iudaea (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius as prefect; at the same time Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes.[8] One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this.[9]

The Jews already hated their pagan conquerors, and censuses were forbidden under Jewish law. The assessment was greatly resented by the Jews, and open revolt was prevented only by the efforts of the high priest Joazar.[10] As it was, the census did trigger the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the formation of the party of the Zealots, according to Josephus.[11]

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to the census of 6CE. Most modern historians consider Luke’s account mistaken, since he also seems to locate the birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died a decade earlier”

Wikipedia article on Quirinius.

So here you go? Was Luke lying about birth during the reign of Herod the Great, or during the census of Quirinius? Or was Jesus born 10 years old?

See when a source asserts things that are impossible, then their testimony on other things that are unknown must be disregarded, once they are a proven fabulist.

No Article 32s or 15-6 investigations?

I have had my fill and have profound respect and understanding for Luke when he said the following:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” Luke

As you are probably familiar, the “handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” is akin to the 15-6 investigation file folder handed to an Article 32 investigating officer. In a 15-6 there is always a recommendation based on the evidence provided to either proceed with a 32 investigation or recommend non-judicial punishment and close out the investigation. So the first order of business for the Article 32 investigating officer is to review the previous statements, reports and claims. Luke is mentioning receiving such information here.

Now the second part:

“it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”

Luke here is telling Theophilus he is conducting his independent investigation of the matters handed to him (the “15-6”). Basically to put it in terms we both know well, Luke is proceeding with an Article 32 (grand jury) investigation. He has what was already compiled and using those materials for background goes out and embarks on his investigation. As you may be familiar, since you said you never did one, the 32 investigating officer cannot use 15-6 witness statements and depositions and enter them as evidence in his/her investigation or at the 32 hearing. That officer must go to each witness, swear them in again and question them. In most cases this is done at the hearing as both defense, government and 32 investigating officers question witnesses directly. Luke by saying he is investigating is not telling Theophilus he has referred to the scribbled notes of Mark and some circulating codexes, but that he is investigating. That means going to the source, the actual eyewitnesses to the events recorded in his Gospel (In Acts he himself at times is an eyewitness to events).

These statements to Theophilus are clear indicators we have a man in Luke who is sober, intelligent, and understood the investigative techniques of the educated of the time. Hardly a scared superstitious peasant who declares “believe this stuff I am telling you because if you don’t you are going to hell!” Not at all, it is a reasoned plea by a very sober and educated man who had his life changed by Christ Jesus. As Gary mentioned Luke was Greek and he knew the high standards of “proof” and “evidence” that culture demanded. Also, as we see from Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15, (Luke was a companion of Paul—same timeframe) there were hundreds of witnesses still alive in which Luke had access to the accounts from the ‘beginning’.

So here you go? Was Luke lying about birth during the reign of Herod the Great, or during the census of Quirinius? Or was Jesus born 10 years old? See when a source asserts things that are impossible, then their testimony on other things that are unknown must be disregarded, once they are a proven fabulist.

Luke 2:

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.(NASB)

Take a further examination of the time and the various multiple census decrees. Also the personage of Quirinius and his transient nature during those census decrees.

"As you are probably familiar, the “handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” is akin to the 15-6 investigation file folder handed to an Article 32 investigating officer. In a 15-6 there is always a recommendation based on the evidence provided to either proceed with a 32 investigation or recommend non-judicial punishment and close out the investigation. So the first order of business for the Article 32 investigating officer is to review the previous statements, reports and claims. Luke is mentioning receiving such information here."

That may be your interpretation, but is it not mine, and most assuredly, not Luke's. I am glad it works for you.

There are all kinds of investigations. The author(s) of matthew did one to look up any OT reference they could possibly find. Herodotus talked to travelers, and put down their stories.

Article 32 investigations are one kind. Grand Jury is another. IG investigations vary based on who is the IG. Safety investigations are another.

We don’t know much about what kind Luke chose. Given his errors, and his many accounts of miracles, he wasn’t very rigorous. Probably it is a ‘pious fraud’ intended to continue people in the faith, which he justified to himself as ‘this will be good for them’.

Kind of like Obamacare....

"In 1886, however, the theologian Emil Schürer, in his monumental study, Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ), closely criticised the traditional view. He raised five points which showed, he believed, that the Luke account could not be historically accurate: (1) nothing is known in history of a general census by Augustus; (2) in a Roman census Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have had to travel at all; (3) no Roman census would have been made in Judea during the reign of Herod; (4) Josephus records no such census, and it would have been a notable innovation; (5) Quirinius was not governor of Syria until long after the reign of Herod.[31] The suggested alternative translations have been described as "implausible" [32] and "almost impossible"."[33]

"Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel, [34][35] concluding that he was more concerned with creating a symbolic narrative than a historical account,[36] and was either unaware of, or indifferent to,[37] the chronological difficulty. In The Birth of the Messiah (1977), a detailed study of the infancy narratives of Jesus, the American scholar Raymond E. Brown concluded that "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."[38] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders ascribe this to simple error: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.[39] Fergus Millar suggests that Luke's narrative was a construct designed to connect Jesus with the house of David.[40]"

MSU method?

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.