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.
Yep, I’m done with him.
Go troll somewhere else. Goodbye.
Matthew 10: ...12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town....
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
So now your position is the earliest manuscripts were all held at the Convent of St. Catherine?
The codex was purchased by Charles Lang Freer on a trip to Egypt in November 1906.[23] Metzger states: “It is only Greek Gospel manuscript of early date of which we know provenance. Though the exact spot in Egypt where it was found is not known, there are indications that it came from a monastery in the neighbourhood of the Pyramids.”[24] The writing is closely related to the Codex Panopolitanus (Papyrus Cairensis 10759), Henoch manuscript, found in Akhmim in 1886.
There is a subscription at the end of the Gospel of Mark, written in semi-cursive from the 5th century: “Holy Christ, be thou with thy servant Timothy and all of his.” The similar note appears in Minuscule 579. Hermann von Soden cited a number of similar subscriptions in other manuscripts.
It is located in the Smithsonian Institution at the Freer Gallery of Art (06. 274) in Washington, D.C., United States of America, and some of it can be viewed on-line. Complete images of the codex are available from the Rights and Reproductions office at the Freer Gallery of Art.
The manuscript is dated by the INTF to the 4th or 5th century.
So that is where I got the idea for marginal writings getting into documents.
You can read it if you get to the Smithsonian and have the right letters of introduction.
Have a wonderful day, and Merry Christmas!
No, that Tischendorf found some there, and other places stored manuscripts also.
As the Washintonian manuscript was at a monastary near the pyramids.
‘They were destined for the fire’ They had so many that they didn’t know how to or didn’t want to read that they had a practice of buring them. Other people used fire too, sadly.
Thanks for making that point. A rather important point.
That would make it tough on the Mormons if they visited that neighborhood.
Go in peace, and joy!
So what! There are several manuscripts with side notes that have crept into the text. They are easy to catch, and present textual critics with no problem.
I think the reason why it is old is because it was a bad copy and didn’t get used so much.
The best copies would be used up.
I saw a copy of the Magna Carta in Salisbury. It differed a bit from the official copies, and may have been an early draft, though still on parchment (before the invention of paper). The guy who discovered it was looking for old parchments that he used for coat linings, but thanks to a rigourous education he recognized the Norman French version of the Magna Carta. That is one of 3 contemporary manuscript copies, perhaps thrown away because the scribe left out one line.
Another example of ‘old copies last because they are bad’ trope.
I wonder what would have happened if someone had the doctrine you embolden when Jesus was preaching.
Oops, we know that= The Jews did have rules against teaching blasphemy, and sought, according to the Gospel to put Jesus to death.
And after that, their innovation was to adopt the rules of the Pharisees, and condemned any new innovator.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
You figure that, eh? On what basis? Because it's something YOU would do?
Projection much?
A fascinating theory which assumes everyone was burning manuscripts. You do realize multiple manuscripts are used in translation work.
A: The Lukan manuscript in Paris (P6) of Luke 3:23; 5:36 is dated by Philip Comfort to around 100 A.D. Of course, the Gospel of Luke was written prior to Acts. More on this is in the book by Thiede, Carsten P. and Matthew D'Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels (NY Doubleday 1996 206 pp.). However, while Thiede and d’Ancona date this as "not much later than 68 A.D., Philip Comfort is more cautious, dating this at 100 A.D. Aland et al's. The Greek Testament Fourth Revised Edition (1998) dated this as fourth century.
Well, there's a real solid basis for building theology on.....
Then I look at Wikipedia.
And that makes it written in stone, eh?
If that's what you're depending on for form you opinions on anything, it's no wonder you're so screwed up.
Oh, the irony! You don't even know if pelly is a human instead of a computer program, or robot selling insurance.
Too bad you don't accept God at HIS word.
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.