Who was Jesus?
Christians today are faced with this and other related questions about the real identity of Jesus. This one question is surrounded by a cluster of other related questions: What was he really like? How accurate are the Gospels? How much is fact and how much is legend? What are we to do about the miracles?
And the one key question is: Was Jesus really virgin born? Was He the Christ?
Anyone who has studied this matter, be it by technical texts, popular works, the omnipresent specials on The Learning Channel and The History Channel, and the articles in the slick news magazines that come out like clockwork every Easter and Christmas, knows that the so-called experts have no conclusive answer.
As to Christ, arguments can be made both ways. Thomas Paine, the author of the important pamphlet Common Sense, also wrote a book called Age of Reason. In it he criticized organized religion, the popular conceptions of God in his day, and did a textual criticism of the accuracy of the Bible. It is an important book for both true believers and non-believers since it explains where critics of Christianity come from.
On the other hand, Protestant Josh McDowell wrote a book called More Than A Carpenter. In it, he makes the case for the textual integrity of the Bible, and for the internal consistency of the story. This is also an important book to read for true believers and non-believers. Some of the points that Thomas Paine considers as slam-dunks are easily refuted. McDowell also raises certain issues that Paine ignores.
In a certain sense this volley and counter-volley of arguments is healthy. C. S. Lewis said that “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” (Weight of Glory, 58) The same would apply for both good arguments and bad arguments. The good arguments make the discussion more effective for both parties.
But the problem with this approach is that we are just dealing with arguments. As it were, the true believers and the non-believers are looking at the same set of data, and just putting a different spin on it. Some progress (or regress) is made in the margins of the discussion, but essentially have the same framework that Thomas Aquinas used back in the Thirteen Century. One side looks at the Bible and sees the word of God, the other a book full of contradictions. (Thomas Paine’s quip was that it took a revelation to understand the book of Revelation.) One side sees both stars and a divine order, the other looks at the stars and sees a cosmic system that somehow happened by chance.
It reminds us of the time that Sherlock Holmes and Watson went camping:
They doused the campfire, set up their tent, and went to sleep. About midnight Holmes elbows Watson and says, “What do you see?”
“I see the stars.”
“And what can you deduce from that?” Holmes said flatly.
Watson knit his brow. “Astronomically, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets with the possibility of life on them. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Theologically, it tells me that God exits, is powerful, and is a being of order. Horologically, it tells me that it is midnight. Meteorologically, it tells me that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.”
“Watson! You fool! It does not mean that at all!” snorted Holmes,”It means that someone has taken our tent.”
I am left with the same type of feeling after I hear the arguments. Watson had a lot to say after looking at the stars, but he missed the bigger picture—the missing tent. Similarly with these arguments there is “sound and fury” but in the end we are just left with an argument, which almost “signifies nothing.” Can we really come to a full understanding this way? Or are we at mercy of the quickest wit and craftiest mind?
Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Mormon Church, takes a different approach. To be sure, arguments do have their place. As a lad, Joseph Smith was convinced by what we call the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. He said:
“I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever, that he was no respecter to persons, for he was God. For I looked upon the sun, the glorious luminary of the earth, and also the moon rolling in [its] majesty through the heavens and also the stars shining in their courses; and the earth also upon which I stood, and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters; and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in majesty and in the strength of beauty, [with] power and intelligence in governing the things which are so exceedingly great and marvelous, even in the likeness of him who created them.”
“And when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed, Well hath the wise man said it is a fool that saith in his heart there is no God [see Psalm 53:1]. My heart exclaimed, All these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipresent power, a Being who maketh laws and decreeth and bindeth all things in their bounds, who filleth eternity, who was and is and will be from all eternity to eternity. And when I considered all these things and that that Being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth [see John 4:23], therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.” (“Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, [2007], 36–44.)
But this was not enough. Joseph Smith realized that such an argument could only go so far. He needed to have personal contact. That is why he prayed.
In the First Vision, Joseph Smith saw two personages. The first, God the Father, pointed to the second and said, “Joseph, this is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (JS-History 1:17) Christ then said, “Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee.” (Joseph Smith, History 1832)
This was the beginning of Joseph Smith’s tutoring on the nature of Jesus Christ. From then on, Joseph Smith became a different kind person. He became a witness in his own right. He was no longer dependent upon argumentation, or even the scriptures for that matter. He went right back to the source, God Himself, and that ended all of his confusion.
Almost two weeks before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith reflected upon his unique place as a witness of Christ. He declared:
“Did I build on any other man’s foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant.” (“Chapter 45: Joseph Smith’s Feelings about His Prophetic Mission,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), 517–27.)
See his point? You really do not need an argument for God if you actually seen Him, and spoke with Him face to face. It would be like beginning a philosophic discussion by having to prove (a) that you exist, and (b) that you are sane.
But Joseph Smith’s experience answers the questions about the historical Jesus. As Joseph Smith’s experiences show, the question is flawed. We cannot have a discussion about the historical Jesus simply because Jesus is not a historical figure. Jesus is an ever-present reality. In effect, Joseph Smith was echoing the words of the angels to the women at the tomb, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5) Once we realize that God is a present reality, the discussions about Jesus take on a whole new dimension: a personal dimension.
Twitter •
