Email
Bookmark
Print
Can Jesus's Claims Be Taken Seriously?
by Lynette Hoy In order to show that it is better to view Jesus as Lord than as either a liar or a lunatic, it would have to be demonstrated that there is some reason to take Jesus’ claims seriously. Do we have any reason, though, to take Jesus’ claims seriously? Many have argued that we do, that we have the strongest possible evidence that Jesus knew what He was talking about when it came to the supernatural. There is, it is argued, substantial historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, endorsing His claims to religious authority.
The Rev. Lee Strobel encountered a few messiahs in mental hospitals during his years as the Chicago Tribune’s ultra-skeptical legal affairs reporter. “I met people who said they were Jesus on a fairly regular basis, he said, but anyone can claim to be God. The question is whether they can back that up. That’s why the resurrection is so crucial for Christians.”
Did the resurrection happen?
The resurrection, it is said, was a divine endorsement of Jesus’ teachings, God’s confirmation that Jesus’ teachings were true. If this is correct, then there can be no doubt as to which of the three positions concerning above is the correct one. If there is significant evidence for the resurrection, then we have to take Jesus seriously.
Many have claimed that the Christian doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead is too fantastic to be true. Interestingly, the resurrection of Jesus has led people to conversion when they have sought to analyze it historically. The accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament has been subjected to rigorous historical analysis more than probably any other aspect of the Bible. What exactly, then, have these historical analyses revealed about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? A careful examination shows that the conclusion that Jesus rose bodily from the dead is the best explanation for the evidence surrounding these substantiated facts from history: Jesus died, His tomb was found empty, over 500 people witnessed Him after His resurrection.
In an essay by C.S. Lewis: What are we to make of Jesus Christ? from God in the Dock - he expands on the argument:
'There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and said 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said 'My son, you are still in the veil of illusion'. If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius 'Are you heaven?' I think he would probably have replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are not looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that Jesus was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects — Hatred — Terror — Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.
It is clear that in this passage Lewis goes further than he did in Mere Christianity. First, he says there is no parallel in other religions. No religious leader claimed to be God or a god. Lewis’ claim is that a belief in your own divinity would be such a fundamental delusion that it would undermine every aspect of your thinking.
Do Jesus's claims still matter today?
Related reading:
-Discuss The Da Vinci Code go to the blog
-Does a loving God condemn?
-The way to God