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.
Wherein does Karl Rove jump out of his time machine in your tale?
I hear you, I’m sure he was maybe like some of the folks I’ve known.
But it seems clear the author is looking for a well known person. I can’t really think of anyone off the top of my head, but I’m sure there are folks who would qualify.
Too bad, so many peaceful loonies end up dead, yet the murderous Manson is still alive. That seems wrong. (Getting off topic here, I realize.)
Well that is an article of faith for you.
Close enough to what? How would you know when it was?
There are arguments that Jesus was not born on 25 December, but his birth day was moved there for political reasons (shepards would not be in their fields by night that time of the year) to coincide with the Saturnalia, Mithra and Sol Invictus (winter solstice in the time of Romans).
It is a classic philisophical problem.
How do you bury a prediction so that it doesn’t affect the reality to become a self fullfulling prophecy? One thing you wouldn’t do is publicize it in the documents of an important religion. Science used a double blind experiment to ask such questions.
Like the ‘entering town on a donkey’ prophecy. Apparently there were claimants to that prophecy every few years. Bar Kochba rebellion started that way.
The virgin birth prophecy was a simple mistranslation from young girl in Hebrew to virgin in Greek, and the Hebrew version had been fullfilled already by Hezikiah.
I think you're probably wrong.
And for the record--Paul's meeting with Jesus is recorded in Scripture.
OK, let's say the universe was caused by the nature of that which existed before.
What caused that which existed before?
And it was........
Congrats.
“Close enough for government work” is a sarcastic expression... it means not really close at all, but we’ll just use it anyway.
Actually, some of that was semi-legitimate. At about 200AD Christianity really took off, and there was ridiculous demand for all sorts of details about everyone involved, many of whom left little behind. So while there was an honest effort to get information, there was also publication of just about anything anyone could find or fabricate.
So a lot of the early Christian conclaves were intended to separate the wheat from the chaff, and develop reliable sources for internally consistent doctrine.
Well why, if they knew him would three of the 4 gospel writers crib off either Mark or Mark’s now lost source “Q”?
If they knew him, they could write what they knew.
Just go through holy week and you find each gospel author has a different story. Simple question: There was a trial. Who tried him? They should all get the same answer on that one, right? Anyone? Bueller?
Yes, religions are irrational. At least Christianity is. It requires, by definition, transport out of the realm of reason into the dominion of Faith. One cannot reason one’s way to salvation, nor a communion with God. Those defy reason, and gloriously!
Paul never met Jesus before Jesus died. Paul was very impressed on the road to Damascus, but that doesn’t seem to be the same Jesus to me. Seems like drug addled reporting to me.
the Scholastics tried to claim reason. Thomas Aquinas had it all worked out... or thought he did.
Have you read “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross” by John Allegro?
Carl Rove not required.
In Christianity, it is a belief -- not a PROOF -- in God the Father, God the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. Unanswerable, unknowable, but certain.
Fortunately important things happened in a very dry climate, so we now have copies (and translations) of the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, and other early works that were suppressed, but copies were expensive, so they just hid them, and 1700 years later they turn up.
So when counting sources, would you count a book suppressed as heresy because it had theological error, or not count it despite it having similar accounts to other books that were not suppressed?
Or since sources could copy each other, do you discount all but the earliest?
Decartes was the founder of French scepticism.
“I think, therefore I am!” was his second proposition.
The first proposition was “I doubt, therefore I think!”
If you don’t doubt, then you are not thinking. Faith is what happens when you don’t doubt.
Lots of ‘accusations’ in your little ‘rant’. But it is somewhat telling you mention no sources for your position.
And so these 12 Scammers and also a Pharisee who HATED Christians then were willing to die/be killed for a scam? Really?
Peter was crucified in Rome and wanted that to happen with the cross upside down because he did not feel worthy to die as his Lord and Savior did. Yep definitely evidence of a scam there.
Saul, on the way to Damascus meets Jesus on the road. From there he is Paul, arguably one of the choicest of Christians. He died in Rome too, beheaded. That’s got scam written all over it.
Your critical thinking skills may need some brushing up. Just sayin.
Oh you poor poor person.
The exact date of Jesus’ birth as s not recorded. So, ultimately, it is not important. But does not knowing the exact date or day render celebration of that day impossible?
I would opine that it does not. We have that day/date to celebrate an event, the birth of the Savior of the world.
Good luck shopping at Wal-Mart for all your winter solstice gifts.
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.