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.
Firstly, you misquoted Matthew 27:65-66.
The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” NIV Matt 27:62-64
According to the BDAG the word used for guards is koustodia (Latin), and is a group of SOLDIERS doing guard duty. Clearly these are Roman soldiers, and my commentaries indicate as much.
Please consider the following, for a year or more if it seems right to do so, and then go back if you like and read my previous posts to you:
Passion first captures belief—only then does it allow intellect to weave a web in which to hold it. There is only one web bound to truth.
You’re a man with a heart—this is the vessel through which God can reach you. I hope you soften to him. I wish you peace and joy, and for your family also. May God grant you this.
Gary, you are being most unfair by attacking donnie’s false and misleading claims- those happen to be his most effective debating weapons. I suppose that you are going to follow this outrage by demanding that he stick to the truth.
The New Standard comments assert that the guards were temple guards, Jews who had the misfortune to draw duty during the Sabbath.
The whole thing about ‘we will have no king but Caesar’ strikes me as off. Of course the Jews had a king, and it was not Caesar- It was Herod. By contrast, when the Gospels were written, Herod was out of business, and Rome ruled directly.
Another anachronism that sounded good enough to people when written, but is very unlikely to have been said at the putative time of Jesus.
I didn’t misquote Matthew, rather I cut and pasted from a different version.
American Standard Bible.
62 Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate,
63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go, make it as sure as ye can.
66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them.
I note you leave out Pilates’s response to the Pharisees. What was that in the NIV?
The Guard at the Tomb
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”
65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.
So in the NAS version, Pilate asserts that have their own guards. In the NIV, Pilate gives Roman soldiers over to be commanded by the Pharisees, to me an unlikely event.
And just for a tie breaker, lets look at the Orthodox Jewish Bible.
62 Now on the next day [i.e., Motzoei Shabbos], which is the one after the Preparation, the Rashei Hakohanim and the Perushim gathered together with Pilate
63 and said, Sir, we remember that when he was still alive that mateh (deceiver) said, After shloshah yamim I am to stand up alive.
64 Therefore, give orders for the kever to be made secure until the Yom HaShlishi (the Third Day), lest his talmidim come and steal him away and say to the people, He has stood up alive from the mesim. And the last deception will be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said to them, You have a guard, go make the kever as secure as you know how.
66 And they went and made the kever secure, and, along with the guard, they set a seal on the stone.
It agrees with the American Standard Bible.
So your assertion that I was being deceptive is false. You accusing me of lying are yourself caught in your own lie.
I am not surprised that you would rise to the aid of someone willing to lie. I have seen you do it before.
Shame on you.
I have hundreds of commentaries, and I can always find one that is incorrect, however, I strive to arrive at the truth by examining my position in the light of all evidence attempting to find myself wrong.
The weight of evidence clearly indicates they were Roman soldiers acting as guards.
And your documentary evidence of Luke being a physician is....
crickets chirp.
Then provide the evidence. I posted two translations that say you are wrong. I can post others.
Is this the hill you want to die on?
“I am not surprised that you would rise to the aid of someone willing to lie. I have seen you do it before.”
You’re ‘mistaken’. I’ve never once risen to your aid.
But I do give you credit for sharing with us your skill in dealing in falsehoods and slander. You have a knack for it that few can equal. Not that I know many who would want your skill, but to each his own.
“Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas. “
Paul’s letter to the Colossians 4:14
65 ait illis Pilatus habetis custodiam ite custodite sicut scitis
King James
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
Douay
65 Pilate saith to them: You have a guard; go, guard it as you know.
Youngs Literal
65 And Pilate said to them, `Ye have a watch, go away, make secure -- as ye have known;'
Revised Standard
65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard[g] of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.
Mounce interlinear
Pilate said to them “ Take a guard go and make it as secure as you know how.”
Pilatos phēmi autos, echō · ho koustōdia; hypagō asphalizō hōs oida
So as was well known at the time:
Qui custodiet ipso custodes. If it meant so much to the Jews, why would they outsource their security measures? It makes no sense!
There you go again.
“Qui custodiet ipso custodes. If it meant so much to the Jews, why would they outsource their security measures? It makes no sense!”
Evidently infidels.org failed to provide donnie the information that the Romans ruled Israel, not the Jews.
The author is traditionally identified as Luke the Evangelist. Modern scholarship generally rejects the view that Luke was the original author, with the most that could be said being that Lukan authorship is “not impossible”. While the traditional view that Luke authored the gospel is still often put forward, a number of possible contradictions between Acts and Paul’s letters lead many scholars to dispute this account and for some the author remains unknown. Biblical Scholars are in wide agreement that the author of the Gospel of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Many believe that these two books originally constituted a two-volume work, which scholars refer to as Luke-Acts.
Most modern critical scholarship concludes that Luke used the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source Q document for many of Jesus’ teachings. Luke may also have drawn from independent written records. Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s,while other critics date it to the later decades of the 1st century.
“There you go again.”
Poor donnie.
All upset that there is a reason that Luke gets addressed as a physician.
And your pals at infidels.org had you believing that there isn’t any evidence. Who can an atheist depend on these days?
And that is why Herod was king of the Jews.
And that is why Pilate was, according to your interpretation, to put his soldiers at the command of the Jews...
This Herod guy? Ever hear of him? He had a job. What was it?
And here is the 1901 American Standard, "Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, 63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again.
American Standard Version. (Mt 27:62–63). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Note, you left out the chief priests.
“This Herod guy? Ever hear of him? He had a job. What was it?”
Herod was a client ruler, an ethnarch, installed by Caesar Augustus. Ever hear of him, donnie? Roman Emperor? The Herods were Idumaeans and not considered true Jews by the locals.
You really aren’t very well educated about New Testament history. But please do keep bringing up these ‘gems’ you find at your little atheist website. It’s like playing whackamole.
First, there is doubt that Colossians was authored by Paul. Second there is doubt that the gospel was written by Luke.
Third, I sure wouldn’t want him to practice on me, if he believed in the various cure methods that he recounts in the Gospel.
But congrats, you found a fraudulent reference, of a fraudulent author, in a fraudulent document. Hurray for you. I bet you feel proud.
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.