From: weinrich@cardin.rutgers.edu (Tim Weinrich)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:41:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

--------------------
	From: barnes@owlnet.rice.edu (Roderick Leon Barnes)
	Subject: Re: Please Prove it to me!
	Date: 24 Aug 92 01:14:55 GMT

		1)  Historians don't doubt that there lived a man named
		    Jesus who had a folllowing.
		2)  It is also accepted that there were disciples.
		3)  The writing of the disciples drew them neither fame
		    nor fortune.
		4)  The disciples were excommunicated, exiled and executed
		    because of the lives they lived and the Gospel they
		    preached.  Why would a man stick to a story that is
		    going to get him killed if recanting would make life
		    easier?  ANSWER:  He is convinced that the loss is
		    minimal and that his is telling the truth.
		5)  If you claim that they were crazy you must face the odds
		    that all of Jesus' disciples went crazy at the same time
		    about the same thing.  Is it the nature of crazy people
		    to produce well written texts that agree?
--------------------


   This is an interesting variation on an argument C.S. Lewis and
others use, which, as well as I can remember, try to establish that
Jesus must have been either God or an insane man.  Then they show that
its not very plausible that He was insane, so He must be God.  The
first part basically rests on the idea that a person would have to be
crazy to think that he is God (if he isnt), or to go around behaving
the way Jesus did if he did not actually believe it.

   (Thats a terrible oversimplification of the argument, by the way.
If you want the whole thing, read Lewis or, I think, Aquinas.)

   I've never found this argument very convincing.  Its tempting to
refute it by simply looking the arguer in the eye and pronouncing the
words "I am God".  Now, by his own reasoning, he has to accept that
you are either God or insane.  (Perhaps it \is/ crazy to utter such
blasphemes.  I dont know.)  The argument just doesnt seem to consider
that Jesus may have been an extremely good, devoted, and brave man who
also happened to prefer to lie, bare-faced and consistently, on this
particular topic.

   Of course, He had to be more than a liar.  There's all those
witnesses to all those resurrections and feedings and whatnot.  The
fellow must have been quite a magician (in the modern sense of the
word - that is, sleight-of-hand expert).

   Well, if He was an extremely good, devoted, and brave man who was
also an excellent liar and magician, maybe his disciples were fooled.
I would have been.  Maybe they were so sure that they were willing to
die for their beliefs.

   (Jesus's willingness to die was another matter, of course.  I guess
you'd have to assume that He was sure His lie was important and good
for the world to believe.  "I just have to keep my mouth shut another
few minutes and the world will be a better place for my death."  I
suppose people have died for less.)

   I personally think, at the bottom-line, your faith has to be just
that - a matter of faith.  I'm not talking about blind acceptance.  It
is important to know that your position is intellectually tenable.  It
is helpful to know that you position is as intellectually tenable as
the opposing positions.  And I firmly believe this is true of the
Christian position.  But history is, after all, an inexact science,
and I doubt you will be able to prove anything with certainty.


   Twinerik