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.
There is that Q claim again. When Luke says:" 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."(NASB)
No doubt as Luke says earlier "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word...", he uses testimonies on hand. However, he then states he will investigate carefully from the beginning. This is clearly an independent background study Luke performed.
If Luke cribbed from Q and other sources, as you suggest, then what he would be doing is editing and not investigating.
Please check your Roman history. In 6AD Judaea province was formed under direct Roman control. So Pilate during the Passion of Christ was the Grand Poohba of Judaea.
Someone is lying or applying deception. I go with Paul writing this since the manuscripts have his name on them.
Either by accident or intentionally the history of the Judea province above omits what happened in 6AD. Judea was directly controlled by Rome from the deposing of Herod Archelaus in 6AD. From 6AD until 41AD the province of Judea was under DIRECT Roman control. Thus Pilate, at the time of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, death and resurrection, was the Grand Poohba of the Judea province.
Really, 100 years of silence? Are you familiar with Polycarp's epistle to the Phillipians?
Note there were two uses for Judea.
The Roman direct ruled part, and the larger province of Judea where Rome controled part and Herod was King in part.
Rather like New York State and New York City.
When Pilate was governor, Herod was his subordinate king of the Jews.
This layman agrees. That you used a layman to compare, I am a bit insulted:)
Good post CB. I have to say at this point only the “conspiracy theory” approach is an option for our FRiend.
yes, Polycarp quotes some of the beatitudes.
It may have been derived from Matthew, or from Q, or perhaps from Luke, but with a date for Polycarp’s letter as late as 140 AD, it would be 100 years after the crucifixion.
Everything Herod Archelaus ruled was made a direct province of Rome in 6AD. Specifically Judea where Jerusalem was and where Pilate had jurisdiction of. So on the matter of the Pharisees and priests coming to Pilate for a guard, Pilate was the Grand Poobah and not any of the Herods. It was not until the political machinations of Herod Agrippa in AD 41 do we see Judea and most of Palestine coming under him.
You are conversing with someone who at the age of 10 read his uncle's collections of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.
If you bother to go to the site you will see a man who knows his NT scriptures well. Again the letter is dated 110-140AD, but sheds some light on your claim that somehow there was a gap of 100 years between the ECFs and what was written and known. Polycarp seems to know the NT canon pretty well.
So you agree that it could have been 100 years after the putative date of the crusifixion.
It was an intersting site.
One wonders, if he was a disciple of John, why is he quoting Peter, Matthew, Luke, and Paul?
Yet Herod was visiting, had his own guard, and Jesus was sent to Herod, according to at least one gospel, indicating that Pilate recognized Herod’s authority over at least one Jew.
I thought he referred to you as the troll.
Ah well, to sheep other sheep are different.
The Romans were not known for haggling.
One famous Roman counsular, alone, went to support prebattle negotiations between a Roman client king and a neighboring king that was not a Roman client.
He drew a famous line in the sand in front of the neighboring king, and said ‘If you cross that line, it means war with Rome, war to the death.’ he continued drawing the line all the way around the king. The sap couldn’t move at all without going to war to the death with Rome.
After a few moments, the counsular rubbed out part of the line back towards the neighbor kings home.
The neighborhood king withdrew, went home, where he was soon assassinated.
I guess he heard about what the Romans did to women and children in Gaul.
Perhaps also Judea. and Germany. and Greece. and Spain. and Mauritania. and Italy. Of course the Britons didn’t make good slaves.
Romans didn’t mess around. When they won a battle the camp followers and captives were either killed outright, or sold into slavery. That is how the generals became rich, and how they gave their donations to their soldiers, so they gained political power.
Wikipedia has a different story about gaius Popillius and his line, and I don’t stand behind the details, but the shortness and abruptness of the Romans is supposed to be the difference between Mark and Luke or Matthew.
Crassus became the wealthiest man in Rome because of the quality of his slaves, and his monopoly on the fire department. Rather than Location Location Location his forte was Timing Timing Timing!
I figure the gospel of Luke is just another pious fraud, written after his death by someone who wanted to attach a name to his book so it would get a better reading. In that way it is like Matthew, or the Wisdom of Solomon, or Colossians.
Considering the church fathers put the martyrdom of Polycarp ca. 156AD, his letter must be dated earlier. As I stated John lived to just about the turn of the 1st century. Polycarp quoting other apostles and gospels tells us something very profound. That in his time as an adult with John before the turn of the century, he was very familiar with all the NT works and uses them in the epistle I linked. So it is no wonder he knew of Paul, Peter and others because Polycarp visited the churches they planted. Polycarp’s epistle shows that the epistles of Peter, Paul and John were widely distributed and preached.
There is another early to mid 2nd century church father who Eusebius and later Jerome point to for their church histories. That would be Hegesippus (110-180AD). Eusebius and Jerome use Hegesippus to confirm the testimonies of Polycarp and Irenaeus.
Might be Pilate saying yes you have a guard force that I am giving you.
Might be ‘You have your own guard force, and I give you permission to extend your operations to this place for this purpose’.
3 of the 4 gospel writers didn’t think it important enough to mention, or were not in on the joke.
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.