The following argument follows a few of the central points of Jesus' story with the attempt to use reason and common sense to prove that such occurrences did indeed happen. I have done little to no research regarding the credibility of the Bible, since internet sources have proven unreliable and wildly biased; whether to one side or the other. Instead, I will use reasoning over knowledge.
We are not going to concern ourselves with what is possible and what is impossible; not in this post; for it seems that every time we do we make fools out of ourselves. Did you know that when computers were first invented, many considered them impractical and were convinced that they would never be able to be built any smaller than the average bedroom? Yet here I am, typing this post out on a MacBook Pro about the size of a small binder. So let's not convince ourselves of what is possible and instead look at what is probable.
This post will not be able to arrest control of your skepticisms and theories (I doubt that any of my posts could). But I think it will pose some important questions. By continuing to be skeptical, are you being smart or cynical? This post will leave you with two conclusions to choose between. These conclusions are not right and wrong, since I was not there and do not know precisely what happened. Instead, almost as compelling, one conclusion will be logical and the other illogical. You have to decide for yourself whether or not to continue being skeptical or choose to believe the logical conclusion.
There is one major thing you need concern yourself with the Bible in this post; nothing else, just one. Did Jesus indeed claim to be the Son of God? I believe he did for a mounting number of reasons.
1) To Jesus's story, there are four witnesses: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each of them say, some more than others, that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Isn't a story considered credible when there are two witnesses with the same story? Yet Jesus has double that number, a fact that ought not to be overlooked.
Now, do not suppose that a lot of that information is second hand (for example, Mark told Luke and Luke wrote down what Mark said without having witnessed it himself). You should not do this because many witnesses have stories that the other witnesses don't have. In other words, while each account share similarities between each other, they are also each very unique.
2) Accounts of Jesus have him stating and restating that he is the Son of God too many times to count. Even if the story was exaggerated a bit, we ought not deny that he said that at one time or other. To suppose that Jesus didn't say something that this book says he did (and the book says he said it a lot) is being a little cynical, don't you think?
Besides, how do we assume that the story was exaggerated? Through translation, of course. But how do we assume that the Bible got translated enough to become exaggerated? After all, if one-third of this book was only about some prophet who claimed to be nothing more than a prophet, how do we assume that the demand for the Bible became great enough for it to be translated so many times that his story eventually became exaggerated? I personally think it illogical for "some prophet" to be famous enough for a book about him to be famous enough to be translated to the point that his claim as "some prophet" is exaggerated even a little, not to mention exaggerated to the point that he now claims to be the Son of God.
Besides, why haven't we found any Bibles from ancient times clashing with Bibles form modern days on this subject? If people are indeed skeptical on the matter, I imagine some archaeologist or other has looked into the matter. Why hasn't he published his findings, "The Truth of Jesus' Claims", or whatever he wants to call it? I'm just saying, that kind of claim is not twisted up that badly without someone smart finding out about it, no matter how late the finding may be.
Also, think of how quickly Jesus became the center of culture. Historical accounts say that by some 400 A.D., Rome had declared Christianity as the official religion of the empire. Are we to suppose that this overwhelming influence was exerted by the memory of "some prophet"? Illogical. Are we to say, then, that by now Jesus' story had already been exaggerated from "some prophet" to "Messiah"? Also illogical. Are we to suppose that Jesus' followers, immediately after his death, lied and said that he was the Son of God? Why would they do such a thing? For in doing this they were persecuted by the Jews.
Does a liar lie simply to lie, or is it to benefit himself? Would someone lie simply to lead others astray, or is it because they want to protect themselves? If the disciples did lie about their leader being the Son of God, they would not be protecting themselves but rather doing quite the contrary and condemning themselves. So this, too, is illogical.
Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God
I would next like to put forth the idea that Jesus did indeed perform miracles. "Whoa whoa whoa! Isn't this moving a little fast?" you may ask. I suppose it is. Still, there are no other really important things to analyze about Jesus' story. Would you rather we waste our time debating whether or not the disciples did miracles, or whether or not he indeed had 12 disciples? I'm not writing a book, its a blog post, and so I must concern myself merely with that which is important and that only.
So did Jesus perform miracles? I would think it logical to conclude that he did. I think we should take the Bible's word that Jesus was famous during his preaching. After all, he was exceedingly famous (overbearingly so) after his death. Are we to assume that during his whole life, people didn't bat an eye, but then afterwards they suddenly placed him at the center of their lives? And if those teachings could have so adverse of an effect from the mouths of others and on paper, why wouldn't they be as empowering from the preacher himself?
So it is logical to assume that Jesus was famous during his life, since he was so famous afterwards. He claimed to be the Son of God and he was famous. Wait, does not this sentence seem a bit oxymoronic? After all, when you see on the news that someone claims to be the Son of God, you merely think them insane. They are not famous, but rather infamous.
So, how could he claim to be the Son of God without seeming insane and rather becoming famous for it? We must assume that he was a very convincing Son of God. Now, how can he convince others so well with mere talk? Wouldn't he have to do some pretty miraculous things to convince people? After all, the Son of God is no small claim to make. You can't just talk people into believing something so completely ridiculous.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus was famous. Logically, in order for these two things to be true of the same person, that person would have to have performed some pretty miraculous signs to convince his audience.
Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus performed miraculous signs
I would next like to put forth the idea that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. I know, I know, I'm beginning to sound ridiculous. Remember, though, that those who try to arrest control of the possibilities always look foolish. Don't think of how impossible it seems. Only look at the facts and probabilities with me.
We ought to take the Bible for its word and agree that Jesus' disciples did indeed scatter after his death, as opposed to the alternative of continuing to preach about him posthumously. "What makes you say this?" many may protest. "After all, the followers of Joseph Smith and Muhammed didn't scatter after their leaders died." A valid observation. Still, there is something very different about Jesus as compared to these two examples. These two examples claimed to be prophets. There is one very natural thing that each prophet does. They die. It is not surprising when a prophet dies because it is understood that a prophet, while in possession of divinely inspired wisdom, will die one day. This lack of surprise allows the followers of a prophet to gladly carry on the legacy of that prophet, unhindered in their faith in the prophet's words.
While these examples claimed to be prophets, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. There is one important fact about the Son of God, as is true about any divine being, whether explicitly stated or implicitly implied. He cannot die. So in Jesus' death the disciples have not only lost their spiritual leader, an occurrence that is hard enough to have faith in the midst of, but in dying Jesus is simultaneously condemned a liar. His claims as the Son of God are proven untrue by his death.
But wait, something is missing from this story. As it is, the disciples did end up preaching Jesus' message to the world, and the world ended up being centered around his memory for millennia to come. So what then? Are we to assume that the disciples, now knowing that they had faith in a lie, decided to deceive the world through this lie? Illogical. Remember, the Jews condemned Jesus. Do you think they weren't also on the lookout for his followers? Sure, the disciples may be willing to endure suffering in the name of truth. But for the sake of a lie?
Even further, who on earth would be willing to suffer and die for a liar? And we're not just talking about someone who fires off a bunch of white lies, we're talking about Jesus Christ, who attempted to convince the world that he was the world's Master. If Jesus is indeed lying, and his death just proved that he is, then he is pretty much the most evil liar in history. After all, convincing people that you are the Son of God allows you to say pretty much anything and those who believe will accept it as truth. Now death has come in and exposed Jesus not merely as a liar but as a power-hungry tyrant. And yet the disciples suffered and died for him shortly thereafter? Illogical.
Are we to suppose that the disciples were crazy? I think we ought not to. After all, have you read the writings of Paul? Do they sound like the words of a crazy man? We may not always understand what he is trying to say, but is this because his words have no principle behind them or because the principle is too advanced for us to explain? Read some of Paul's writings, I think you will find the writing very informed and advanced.
Are we to suppose that the disciples were out for power? After all, Jesus died a famous man, upon whose words many hung. Perhaps the disciples found merit in continuing his legacy as a ploy for power? For some perspective on the question, allow me to ask you another one. During what time period do you consider the church to be less corrupt: 100 A.D. or 1000 A.D.? Historical accounts attest to the fact that it was more corrupt in 1000 A.D.
But why? What caused the corruption? The most obvious answer would be power. Weilding immense political and social power, the leaders of the church became corrupt, turning to dishonest methods to raise money, control the populace, etc.
If the original disciples were indeed after power, wouldn't the early church be more corrupt? Are we to suppose that the disciples had a 1000-year conspiracy to create an institution that would eventually wield corrupt power? Highly illogical. Does one exercise corrupt methods to achieve power for another? No. One who achieves power through corrupt methods achieves it to enjoy it for themselves. Consider this: how can one achieve power over others for others? Not only is this improbable, but is it even possible?
Some of you may protest, "Government has power over us. Would you consider that power to be against our best interests?" The answer is no, I consider government to be in our best interests. But here is my point: does the government really have power over us? Honestly, think about it. It has the authority to punish us for crimes and control things in our lives economically here and there, but unless you are conflicting with the government, its power over you is largely obsolete. Unlike the corrupt medieval church, which forced people to do certain things, government at its best has laws largely telling us what not to do, exerting power over lawbreakers but largely leaving the "righteous" alone. Corrupt power (what I called "power over others" in the paragraph above this one) is absolute and does not discern between righteous and unrighteous.
So the disciples didn't seem crazy, and it doesn't seem that they were out for power either. Yet still, they suffered and died for who? A liar? There must be more to the story.
Suppose that Jesus' death is not the end of the story. Suppose that the disciples saw one last miraculous sign re-igniting their faith that all the words of Jesus were true, giving them the willingness to endure pain and suffering. Now, this sign could not simply be, "Oh, I saw a bright light in my dreams that reminded me of Jesus! Surely, he told us the truth!" That sort of a sign does not change the fact that Jesus is dead, and the fact that Jesus is dead is what makes him a liar. The sign the disciples saw had to have flipped the truth of Jesus' death on its head. It simply had to. Otherwise, the disciples would have suffered in the name of someone they knew to be a liar.
But if Jesus rose from the dead, not only would he be welcomed back by the disciples as a teller of truths, but I imagine their faith in him would be even greater because of the rough days during his death. This could account for why the disciples were willing to suffer since the alternative, the idea that they suffered for a liar, is illogical.
Jesus died and is proven a liar. The disciples suffered in his name. Logically, in order for these things to be true of the same situation, Jesus had to have risen from the dead, proving to the disciples his rightness and explaining their willingness to suffer in his name. Any alternative not involving Jesus' resurrection is just as illogical as the next. Suppose the disciples stole his body from the tomb to convince others that he had risen. Suppose they saw a vision of Jesus on the throne while his mortal body was still in the tomb. Only resurrection turns back the fact that he is dead, which is essential because his death made him a liar, which made it illogical to suppose that the disciples suffered in his name.
Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus rose from the dead
And so concludes my job as Jesus' lawyer, so to speak. A part of me is outstandingly proud of what I have just written, another part of me rather shocked at the idea that this is even logical. Still, I cannot deny that it is indeed logical. Who is the master of logic? Are we? Hardly, we can only harness and use it for our own ends, or in my case, the ends of others (God). I hope to add more to my growing stack of apologetic arguments in Jesus' and God's favor. Don't wait for my next post. Believe now, if not for God's sake than for the sake of logic and reason and common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment