For those of you who are particularly averted to religion, I do not want you to think this discussion to be religious at all. This essay is an analysis of the preachings of one of the most (if not the most) important figures in history; Jesus.
Allow me to first to silence your doubts and protests claiming that the Bible is not credible. That, I think, is a futile attempt to excuse yourself from having to answer the questions that it has to offer. While the Bible has been translated several times, note that it has barely been revised. Note that by revision, I am referring to omission, addition, and rearrangement. While the Bible was compiled by religious leaders long after Jesus' death, they did not write anything in the Bible; they simply compiled manuscripts written by credible sources who actually witnessed the events they wrote about firsthand.
In relation to Jesus story, even if translation has muddied the story, there can be no doubt that Jesus did claim to be the Son of God; which here is the only fact you need concern yourself with. I say this in all confidence because the Bible says that Jesus said "I am the Son of God" too many times and in too many ways to count; even if the story is poorly translated, there can be no doubt that Jesus said that at one time or other. Furthermore, to Jesus' story there are four witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). A story is considered credible if two credible witnesses come forth with the same story. Jesus has double that number for his story; not to mention the witness of the letter writers throughout the rest of the New Testament.
Now that I have cleared your doubts as to whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he claimed to be the Son of God, you have a choice to make; or rather, an answer to give. Our answers to the question of who Jesus is range from lunatic, blasphemer, and false prophet to the Son of God, the Christ, the Savior of the world. But besides these, we have developed a kind of middle section that was developed by looking at his positive influence but ignoring his actual teachings. That is the section that claims he is a great moral teacher, a true prophet, an angel, etc.
I once read a book called Mere Christianity by the wonderfully brilliant author C.S. Lewis. Upon reading the book, my eyes were opened to an important fact regarding the conclusion "Jesus is a great moral teacher". This answer is ignorant of the facts. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If he is only a "great moral teacher", that means he lied about being God in the flesh. And if he is a human who lied about being God, he is not a "great moral teacher", he is a lunatic, a blasphemer, a false prophet, etc. And do not presume to say, "He was insane about claiming he was God's son, but other than that he had great insight morally." Who was the last insane person you met who you did not know was insane? Is not insanity a condition that consumes the whole person? If Jesus is insane, you cannot trust anything he says. He is a lunatic or he is Lord.
The "lunatic" conclusion is found the opposite way as the "great moral teacher" conclusion. One who says he is a lunatic looks at Jesus' teachings but ignores his influence. Jesus' existence is the dividing line of humanity (B.C. - A.D.), and he remained at the center of human culture for nearly two millennium. Undeniably, Jesus' influence at its core is positive; while people do indeed to awful things in Jesus' name, note that Jesus never told them to do those things and thus is not to be held responsible. That would be the equivalent of the damsel being blamed for the war between two feudal lords fighting each other to win her heart. When people actually do as Jesus told them, nothing but good things happen. They give to charity, they accept people (note that accepting a person is different from accepting their beliefs), they love, they forgive, they respect, they obey, etc. This is what Jesus told them to do. Can you, in good conscience, denounce a man with such a legacy as a lunatic?
Perhaps, even after this evidence, you insist that Jesus is a lunatic? Fine. But there is more weight than you think on saying such a thing, besides denouncing his legacy. By saying he is a lunatic, you are saying that mankind was foolish enough to put a lunatic at the center of his culture for nearly two millennium. And if you truly think mankind to be so feeble-minded, should not you of all people believe in man's dependence on a higher, wiser being? And if you believe that, than what being, among the world's religions, is more believable than Jesus?
Regardless of who you say Jesus is, this essay should remind us that any answer to this question is one with a substantial amount of weight and that Jesus, considering the scope of his influence, ought to be taken seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment