Many people believe Jesus existed, but they choose not to
believe in anything that would require them to change their life and adopt His
teachings. I think there is a bigger
issue here. It is the issue that people
don’t want to change. People don’t want
to accept something to be true that would require them to live their life in a
way which puts God before themself. They
also don’t want to live in a way which would cause the majority of society to
see them as different. I have never
heard one person argue that they believe Jesus existed and that He performed
miracles, but they don’t believe that He rose from the dead or that He was the
Son of God. If you accept that Jesus
existed, you are probably doing so partly because of the historical accounts of
His life. I cannot believe that Jesus
would have been someone who was worth making historical accounts over for
generations if He did not do amazing things to get people’s attention. What he did was perform miracles and one of
those was rising from the dead. People
argue that He was just a good teacher, but a simply good teacher would not draw
this type of historical attention. The
reason why these historical accounts started in the first place was partly because
of His miracles, so to say that He didn’t perform any miracles at all is very
hard to believe. Therefore, if you are
going to believe that Jesus existed, which we have more than sufficient proof
to argue He did, then you have to believe that He performed miracles because
this is a big part of what got people’s attention and led to historical
accounts.
As well, the disciples all went into hiding when Jesus was
killed because they were afraid that this would happen to them as well. However; after they saw Him risen from the
dead, they dedicated their lives to preaching His message, and this led to all
of them, except for one (who I believe was Mark – I may be mistaken on the
name) dying brutal deaths because of the message they were preaching. It is simple common sense to come to the
conclusion that something radical had to have happened, and that something was
that they saw that Jesus rose from the dead and therefore had to be God’s
Son. As well, you argue that legend was
thrown into the accounts. What about all
of these other disciples, some of whom wrote books of the Bible. These are the men whom it is historically
accounted were thrown into prison, beaten, excommunicated and eventually killed
for the message that they preached. These
men preached the message after seeing Jesus Himself alive in the flesh, after
death on the cross. Therefore, to say
that the Bible is not believable is to say that the disciples who contributed
to it are part of that larger legend.
And at this point, it is no longer making any sense. We know that the disciples existed, we also
know that they died. And we know that
they died brutal deaths for preaching the message that they wrote in the
Bible. The Bible therefore cannot be
legend. You can try to argue that the
disciples were lying about Jesus (which obviously I don’t believe), but you
cannot say that they created a legend.
That would be like saying I added in legend to the life story of my
grandfather, whose life I witnessed. If
I told anything false, I would be lying about accounts of his life, but not
creating legend. And besides, if I did
lie about his life, everyone else who witnessed his life would call me on it –
and this would be the same with Jesus.
If the disciples were lying, then people would have called them on it. But again, I can’t believe the disciples were
lying, because no one is going run and hide, and then go out and die a brutal
death for something that they don’t know for absolute certain to be true. The disciples did exactly this, and they died
because they preached the message of Jesus.
They had to have known it was true, they had to have seen Him alive, or
else they would not have given up their lives for it. Below is hopefully a clearer view of my
argument:
1.
The
disciples went into hiding.
2.
They came out of hiding and died brutal deaths
for preaching the message of Jesus. They had to have seen Jesus alive after His
death.
3.
We know the disciples lived and died because we
have accounts of their writings, and if you believe that Jesus lived, then how
can you believe that His disciples were made up? That does not make sense.
4.
You cannot say that the Bible has legend thrown
in because the gospels were written by the people who lived alongside Jesus
during His life. Therefore, you can say
that they lied if you want, but you can’t say they created “legend”.
5.
It does not make sense to say that the disciples
lied, because we have historical account of their lives, and their deaths,
which resulted from preaching the messages of Jesus Whom they lived
alongside. They would not have been
willing to die for something they did not know to be true, and they were
definitely willing, because they knew that preaching Jesus message would likely
result in such outcomes.
Other people might say, “Jesus was just a good man, but He
was not God’s Son”. Well if He was not
God’s Son, then He was not a good man, because the message He was preaching was
one which gave people hope of salvation and eternity with Him in Heaven. It would not be “good” to give people this
false hope. You cannot say that Jesus
was just a good man, but not God’s Son.
Either Jesus was God’s perfect and holy Son, or He was a liar and
evil. You have to choose one position or
the other, but you cannot mix them.
(This is an argument formulated by C.S. Lewis).
I wouldn’t be so quick to say that the larger issue of disbelief is something akin to laziness, or hesitance to change. I think a significant percentage of disbelief should be attributed to the unbelievablility of the doctrine. I remember sitting in Sunday school as a child thinking “Really? Every animal was on the ark?” I can’t bring myself to believe that humanity has existed for 250,000-100,000 years, yet heaven only decided to intervene 2000 years ago in the most backward and rural part of Palestine through a human sacrifice. You must admit, having not been brought up in an orthodox Christian tradition, it would appear strange to the outsider.
ReplyDeletePoint # 1 & 2) I’d be careful about attributing the strength of the follower’s belief to the authenticity of divinity. I assume you’re in agreement with me that Mormonism is simply ‘Christianity with some stupid ideas piled on top’. I have no qualms in stating that. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith’s followers were willing to follow their leader into the dark. The Heaven’s Gate cult convinced their followers to die horrible deaths by ingesting cyanide. People have, and will continue to, die for the unjustifed reasons. I would say our willingness to do so is a tragic flaw in our species.
Point 3) I should clarify the existence of disciples. There probably were disciples named Mark, Matthew, John and Luke. No one is certain, but it is likely. However, we can say with great accuracy, that there is very little chance that John actually wrote his gospel. Theologians (but Christian and non-Christian) agree John’s gospel appeared in its final form between 90-100 AD, which would have made him over 120-140 years old when writing it. It’s unlikely that he someone in ancient Palestine could have lived that long. We know that the disciples were illiterate, so they couldn’t have actually written their gospels (which is proven by the simple fact that the first transcribed gospels were in Greek!!!). There are many other little facts too, such as Matthew being privy to information he could not have known and some minor timeline errors… Little things like that. I’m not saying that the disciples are made up. I’m saying that they most likely didn’t author their gospels. This fact isn’t disputed amongst serious biblical scholars, and I feel it should give someone pause. I don't think anyone lied.
Point 4) Even if I lived in Jesus’ time, and one of his disciples told me that he had seen a miracle first hand, I wouldn’t believe him. My reasons are pretty simple- eyewitnesses claim false miracles all the time. I want you to go onto Youtube and search for Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles. Prepare to be underwhelmed. The millions of people that followed this man claimed that these miracles were proof of his divinity. You and I surely agree that these are nothing more than amateurish hucksterism- yet his followers swear by them. Surely the illiterate peasants that followed Jesus weren’t less credulous than the millions that follow Sathya Sai Baba now.
I also agree with C.S. Lewis. I don’t think Jesus was a good man. If someone approached me and said that I needed to follow him or suffer eternal hellfire (a concept that Jesus seems to have created), sell all my possessions, forsake my family, disgrace the fine institution of marriage, and purchase a weapon- I’d tell him to sod off. My sense of morals and duties to my fellow man remains intact without his teaching.
I have a series of questions that you might be asked if you went to Saudi Arabia and met a Wahabi Muslim man. I think he’d ask you:
ReplyDeletei) Do you think Jesus was born of a virgin?
ii) Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine?
iii) Do you believe that the Prophet Muhammed flew from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged horse named al-Buraq, which left a hoof print which is still visible to this day on a stone within a mosque?
How should I confront competing miracles, and sort them out, when all are well attested by ‘historical’ documents with many eye-witnesses. Clearly, every faith can’t be right. What does a guy need to do to save himself from an eternity of torture?
Ugh... I always post without checking for grammar.
ReplyDelete