The Real Jesus--Part One: Who Was He?

*Wipes dust off page*
Hello! Remember me?
It's been about 10 months since I've blogged.
10 months?!?!?!?!
Wow...
This year has gone by so fast!
Wait a second..
Is anybody still here???
Hello?....*echoes*
Sigh. Oh well.

Since it's been so long, let me give you an update...
If anyone remembers  my last adoption post, the adoption fell through, unfortunately. However, now we are working on adopting a 12 year old girl from Bulgaria.
I'm pretty excited. :)

So, I just finished reading More Than a Carpenter by Josh and Sean McDowell. It was really good! So I decided to do a  three part blog series based on some of the points in the book.
Today's is figuring out who Jesus actually was. Everyone has an opinion on this.
Some say a madman. Others say a good teacher. Still others say he was just a legend.
Some say He was the Christ.

Let's start with the he-was-a-deranged-nut-case theory. If a random person came up to you and told you to leave your family, your work, your whole life, and follow him because he was God, what would you do? the critics ask. (I must interject--think about it the other way. Of course it doesn't make sense to follow an insane man claiming he's God. But then why did Jesus have large crowds following him? Were they insane too? Or did they realize he wasn't crazy?) On the surface level, it seems a valid claim. However, there's more to the story. Look at his character. At his teachings. You'll find that he has no other 'symptoms' of insanity. In More Than a Carpenter, they quote psychologist Gary R. Collins, who says
"[Jesus] was loving but didn't let his compassion immobilize him; he didn't have a bloated ego, although often surrounded by adoring crowds {again, my own interjection, but why would he be surrounded by adoring crowds if anyone could see he was deranged?} he maintained balance despite an often demanding lifestyle; he always knew what he was doing and where he was going; he cared deeply about people including women and children, who weren't seen as important back then,; he was able to accept people without merely winking at their sin; he responded to individuals based on where they were at and what they uniquely needed. All in all, I just don't see signs that Jesus was suffering from any mental illness... he was much healthier than anyone else I know--including me!"

Many psychologists and psychiatrists have come to the same conclusion. Jesus was defiantly sane.



Well, maybe he was just a good, moral teacher.
Many religions have no problem with Jesus. In fact they accept him as a good teacher or prophet.
However, this is illogical.
To put it bluntly, by believing him to be a good teacher means you also believe he lied.
You wouldn't call a liar a wonderful teacher, would you? Of course not. You wouldn't know when he or she was telling you the truth.
Jesus claimed multiple times to be God. He made it clear he was the Messiah. If I were to say that he was a good moral teacher but not the Messiah, then I am admitting that despite his 'good morals', he lied more than once. Or that he was crazy, but we already discussed that.
In fact, not only is that making him a liar, but also a hypocrite, as he and God the Father have taught that honesty is the best policy.
If he lied about his identity, and by doing so contradicted his religion (Judaism) and also the teachings he was trying to promote, would you trust his teaching as sound and good to live by? If he didn't even practice it and wasn't honest about it, would that make one think that that is the best way to live.
I should think not.


Then, of course, there is the claim that the story of Jesus belongs with the story of Santa Claus, the story of the Sandman, and the story of the Tooth Fairy.

Pretend.

Imaginary.

A legend.

But let me tell you something: Jesus was real.
There is so much evidence for this.
First off, lets take the Bible. If Jesus was a legend, then the Bible is just a book of fairytales.
How reliable is the Bible? Look at it this way: Many historians quote the ancient historian Thucydides. People don't doubt his accuracy. Let's make a little comparison.
There are about 8 known copies of his manuscript, dated about 1300 years after the original was written.
The story of many other ancient texts are the same.
The New Testament, however has over 20,000 known copies. Not only that, but they were written relatively close to the time that Jesus walked the earth.

So how do we know that we aren't just reading some make up stories from thousands of years ago?
In More Than a Carpenter, the authors use Luke as an example. Many, many, scholars agree to the historical accuracy of Luke's writings (The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts). He includes so many accurate details of things such as legal matters, places, rulers, and people that it is impossible to deny that he knows what he's talking about.
Add to that the fact that there are so many eyewitness accounts about Jesus, there is no doubt in many scholar's minds that Jesus of Nazareth actually walked the face of the earth. He actually was a man who lived. Some will say that the claims he made about himself are questionable, but we've already covered that. Also quoted in the book is Dr. Norman Geisler, who said
"Both the vast number of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus... as well as the nature and integrity of the witnesses themselves leave beyond reasonable doubt the reliability of the apostolic testimony about Christ."
We have many eyewitness accounts. Yes, they differ slightly, because they actually were written by individual people who had different points of view. You also must consider this: If these accounts are historically accurate, which we've already determined they are, what sense would it make for them to write them? We read not only in the Bible but in history that Christians were tortured brutally for their beliefs. They were ripped apart by wild animals while a crowd watched for amusement. They were burned alive at the stake. They were beheaded. All sorts of evil were inflicted upon them. If the apostles knew this was a story, why would they promote it? I'm going to cover this more in part 2, but think about it.
The Bible passes all historical accuracy tests with flying colors. If, therefore, the Bible is a true account, then all things in it are true. If all things in it are true, then Jesus was real. And if he is not an insane man, a moral teacher or a legend, then who was he?
I believe He was the Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 16: 13-16
¹³ When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

¹⁴ They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

¹⁵ “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

¹⁶ Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”