Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? (chapter 2)

   In this blog we will consider if Jesus was a liar. Josh wrote, "The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning." Josh continued, "To say what Jesus said and to claim what he claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be."
   C. S. Lewis, once an agnostic, didn't want people to be foolish and say that Jesus was a great moral teacher. They must realize that a good moral teacher could not claim to be God--if He wasn't! That would be a very bad (immoral) claim. Josh quoted Lewis saying, "You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

   F. J. A. Hort, who spent nearly 30 years studying New Testament text, said that the truth Jesus spoke couldn't be separated from His life. Josh quoted him, "Take away Himself as the primary (though not the ultimate) subject of every statement and they all fall to pieces."
   Kenneth Scott Latourette, historian of Christianity at Yale University, said, "It must be obvious to any thoughtful reader of the Gospel records that Jesus regarded Himself and His message as inseparable."
   Josh wrote, "If (Jesus' claim of deity) was false, then we have two and only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false." If He knew He wasn't God, He lied. Yet He taught others to tell the truth. That's hypocritical! Josh continued, "More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny." Certainly this wouldn't be the mark of a "great moral teacher". Why would He insist on a lie that would certainly lead to His crucifixion?
   William Lecky, a noted historian and opponent of organized Christianity, wrote, "....the simple record of these 3 short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the (formal discussions) of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."
   Josh quoted historian Philip Schaff who said that Jesus couldn't have been a liar because of His character and calm demeaner while prophesying His death, resurrection, the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the beginning of His Church - and these predictions have been fulfilled literally. Schaff concluded, "A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction."
   Josh quoted Schaff again, "How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience,could an impostor--that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man--have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age?"
   Josh concluded the liar section with, "Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?
   Next time we will look at "Was He a Lunatic?"

Sincerely,
Rick

What makes Jesus so different? 4

   Continuing with our topic that Jesus claimed deity, let's look at Jesus' trial in Mark's Gospel. (Mk 14:60-64) Josh wrote that this trial was "one of the clearest references to Jesus' claims of deity. The passage reads, "And the high priest arose and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, 'Do You make no answer to what these men are testifying against You?' But He kept silent, and made no answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven!' And tearing his clothes, the high priest said, 'What further need do we have for witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?' And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death."
   According to Matt 26:63 the high priest "adjure(d)" Jesus to answer. It means "to charge as if under oath". Josh continued, "An analysis of Christ's testimony shows that He claimed to be (1) the Son of the Blessed One(God); (2) The One Who would sit at the right hand of Power, and (3) The Son of Man Who would come on the clouds of heaven. Each of the affirmations is distinctively Messianic. The cumulative effect of all three is significant." The leadership understood each point and considered it blasphemy which was worthy of the death penalty.
   Josh quoted Robert Anderson who wrote, "No confirmatory evidence is more convincing than that of hostile witnesses, and the fact that the Lord laid claim to Deity is incontestably established by the action of His enemies. We must remember that the Jews were not a tribe of ignorant savages, but a highly cultured and intensely religious people; and it was upon this very charge that, without a dissenting voice, His death was decreed by the Sanhedrin--their great national Council, composed of the most eminent of their religious leaders, including men of the type of Gamaliel and his great pupil, Saul of Tarsus."
   Josh continued, "It is clear, then, that this is the testimony Jesus wanted to bear about Himself. We also see that the Jews understood his reply as a claim to his being God." So, then, they had 2 choices: (1) Recognize that He was correct and worship Him! or (2) Call it blasphemy and condemn Him to death as an imposter. Of course, they did the second to their eternal detriment. Josh quotes a lawyer, Irwin Linton, as saying, in essence, Christ's trial was quite different because He was not condemned for an act, but for His identity!
   Josh concluded the chapter this way, "The trial of Jesus ought to be sufficient to demonstrate convincingly that He confessed His divinity. His judges witness to that. But also, on the day of His crucifixion, his enemies acknowledged that He claimed to be God come in the flesh. "In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him, and saying, 'He saved others; He cannot save Himself. If He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we shall believe in Him. He trusts in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He takes pleasure in Him; for He said, "I am the Son of God."'" (Matt. 27: 41-43)
   It is very certain that Jesus' enemies believed that He claimed to be God!

Sincerely,
Rick