Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Subodh Pandit

Is Jesus The Only? Part 1

Subodh Pandit


Subodh Pandit

Physician in North Carolina



  • October 27, 2012
    4:00 PM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2012 Advent HOPE Sabbath School.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.


Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

What we did last night was begin to describe my very personal search. What I'm showing you is what I went through myself.   I realized right in the beginning when I was doing it or somewhere in between that unless you become an honest inquirer, you will pull all the evidence to your own side. So if you are an unbeliever you will pull all the evidence to your side and if you are a believer you will pull all the evidence to your side.  And that wouldn’t  satisfying me because,  like last night,  we should not want to just win the argument. It is useless to win an argument on the wrong side. So you might feel very good about winning the argument,  but what have you done.  You haven't pushed humanity even one inch forward. You have pulled us back. It is much better to loose an argument than to win it on the wrong side.

So we stood right in the middle of this big question:  ‘Is there a God?” in evidence and we said there is, and  there is not.  And we said the best way to really come to the truth of the matter is to fight for both of them, and then fight against both of them and then see where the chips fall. That's what we did last night and what we call the Pan process. Pan is what we said was going across, as in pan American Airlines going across America. It is also panning,  sifting for gold, you differentiate or you separate  the mundane and from the valuable.  Like the  49ers did at Satchels Mill pan for gold.  And it also happens to be the first three letters of my family name.  

So the Pan process says you have 4 columns of argument.  If there are 2 options then for and against A and for and against B.  four columns of argument.  Now when you do that,  honestly, put the arguments down and fight for both sides, fight against your side, you will come to place where you will see the weight of evidence and that is all human beings can ever have.   You cannot have proof or the truth of the matter.  You can only have weight of evidence. That's called the Historical Legal method.  That is the whole basis of Jurist Prudence the world over.   Weight of evidence.   Nobody was then another guy actually murdered, but  the weight of evidence points this way or that way. That is the meaning of the weight of evidence.  

And we make major decisions by weight of evidence, all of us do.  So lets not ask for the ideal. Because we never had the ideal, because our brains are too small.  If we had all the facts we would have made an assessment, we don’t, we never will.  Nobody will have the whole gamut of all the information. So we will go by the weight of evidence.  When we did that it is very clear that beyond the natural there had to be something known as a supernatural. There had to be. Once he got that then the question I asked this morning was, “did that individual person break through the barrier of natural and supernatural and communicate anything to us?  Did he? And there are claims he did.  So did he speak or loudspeaker, or some burning bush, or a soft voice here or there? No.  He wrote it down.   And there are  people who say: “yes we have got it here”. 

We looked at few of them this morning.  The Buddhist Scriptures, the Hindu Scripture,  the Islamic scriptures, Judaic scriptures and the Christian Scriptures.  Remember that all of those are called scriptures.  We have our little circle that talks of scriptures they mean only this (bible) but no sir.  The word Scripture  does not only refer to the bible.  The Word Scripture is anything that is claimed to have come from the other side of the boundary.

The word of God, same thing.  So when we decide that this piece of literature known as the New Testament, has characteristics that places it the level historical report, that does not mean that you swallow it all.  It just means that you cannot treat it like a mythological or legend story.  In other words if you read something there that is unbelievable you just toss it off,  saying that it's a mythological story anyway.   That's what you do for a mythological story. If you hear something unbelievable then because it's a mythological throw it  away. You can't do it for this (Bible) because this is historical. So here even if you do not agree to some of what is there, what you have to do is treat like a document. And if you do not agree to the document then you must give a good reason for disagreeing, That's how you deal with the historical legal form of evidence. 

With that in mind let us do what we are going to do now.  We said that this  Literature (Bible) is historical not only is it historical it is just about the only established historical piece of literature in the world.  Can you imagine that? This thing that you have in your hand, we treated so mundanely, it's an absolutely unique piece of literature.  Two thousand years old. Just because you have it in your hand does not mean that it has lost any of its value, it is extremely valuable.  If you went around hunting and found this one and said ‘Hey this is a two thousand years old’ man you would have the whole world at your feet. “Can I read it can I have it” Or do they put on the side and say I will read it when I have time. 

It is not only historical, it's also the only piece of literature that says I am saying the truth here is how you can test me out.  No other literature in the world had the guts to tell the human race you can test me out.  That's the literature.

Now we turn to the founder. The flesh and blood founder. That is the one afternoon we will do two sessions

When I came to the founders I had to  make a premise (a foundation). I will only look at the flesh and blood founders.  So the mythological ones are out, the really big heroes. It has to be the flesh and blood founders.

Number two: I don't have any way of contra verting the claims of a founder.  I have no way. I cannot look at a founder and say “you said it wrong”  So when I decided I will ask my question and just take all of the answers at face value and simply put it on the table and see what happens. 

So last night we said we were are inquirers. An inquirer is one who does not take sides. Inquirer is one who looks for pieces of information just because you want to build up the databank.

The first question I asked is: So founders all of you are Great, can I know what is the highest claim you make for yourself?  I asked that because I am serious about my destiny. If you were going to say that you are in a weightlifting competition I wanted to go against a top notch weight lifter and I said “you are in this competition what do you think of your position here sir.”

“Oh about two hundred eleven pounds”

“Well how about you sir?”

“ I am champion, nobody will beat me.”

Who do you think I will go to?  I want to be champion. I want to be sure of getting to my destination. Can you see why I wanted to ask this question.

Give me your highest claim, because if you are just a mundane claim you can sit on this side. If you have the top claim I am going to follow you. I have no way of dismissing their claims. I am just going to ask you what your claim is. 

The highest claim that the Hindus made and the founders is not Vitra Vista ??? I mention him as an example of an author.  Vitra Vistra   is one of the authors of the writings of the Hindus. The highest claim that almost all authors made was a sage. A sage is a person who is very revered in society.  Tremendous piety, tremendous personality, poise, truthfulness, and a great grasp of the religious material in the community. That is a sage.

In Buddhism, Gautam Buddha the founder of Buddhism  says that he is the enlightened one.

Islam,  Mohammad Said he was the Seal of the prophets. Islamic traditions says that Allah sent down one hundred twenty four thousand prophets, at sometime during the worlds History. Twenty five of them are recorded by name in the Koran, starting with Adam and  Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael,  the twelve patriarchs, John, Jesus so many of them.  But the Seal of them is Mohammad. The seal means that which sets the final tone of the truth of the matter. So he said that he was the Seal of the prophets.

Then we come to Judaism, Moses says he was ??? a prophet and the law giver.

When it comes to Christianity He said He was the Son of God.  One look at that if you are want an inquirer, so nobody in this room is a Christian okay, nobody is, so behave like an Inquirer.  If you are an inquirer and you have told yourself that you are going to look for the highest claim, you can't controvert their claims, you are going to just look at them, can you see the highest claim? The line has to be drawn between Judaism and Christianity for the simple reason that the sage the enlightened one, the Seal and Prophets, and law giver  are all human.  This man’s claim He is not human, He's the Son of God. In other words He is God.  If you really are an inquirer  ??? at unbelievable.  He dresses like me, eats like me, goes to the carpenter shop every day to make a living.  He claims to be the Son of God. Jesus the  son of God, what makes you think you're the son of God? Not believable. Think, it is not believable.

If you are sitting in a ???? chamber it is very believable.  But if you're in the Inquirer that is not believable.  But here's the dilemma, I can not believe it as an inquirer, nor can I toss it out because it is not a mythological story.  Now can you see the importance of that first, is it mythological, or is it historical. If it is mythological my friends I would have tossed out wham.  But if it is not mythological, it is not legendary, so I'm stuck here I cannot believe it and I can not toss it out.  That's my dilemma. The only thing you can do is just be fair about it.

Okay lets look at both sides.  He said he is the son of God, and may be he is not. So now my question is, ‘what kind of people who are not god's call themselves gods?” Is that fair enough?  What kind of people who claim to be gods and they are really not god just humans. Four kinds of people:  those who are mad, deluded or complete liars and this is not an ordinary liar these are  pathological liar and number 3 megalomaniac or an egomaniac. We have in history those who were that; the Caesars of Rome and the pharaohs of Egypt called themselves gods.  Full of egomaniac strain.  ???? How do you decide about this?  Well see what happens if you ask what happened, when you look at  these four options. There are some characteristics of a delusional individual, the words come out very quickly, and they flit from one topic to another. You can not follow them so easy and there is an ethereal quality.  A young lady is playing with something and you go and ask who are you.  She says the little dolls she is playing with is the queen of England.  That is a deluded person.  So you look for the signs; is the mind is wandering all over the place and in every instance you're at the top. That's the deluded person. It's called the allusions of grandeur. That is a real diagnosis is made.

This quote that I am going to put up is an unusual quote because he was a well known  emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, the French general who conquered most of the then known world and found a world empire.  When they asked him in his exile “consider that person 1800 years ago from the little village called Nazareth and from Galilee who used to go around preaching.”  

“I am the emperor you want me to compare to that little bitty guy”

‘No he said something that is unusual”

So he Said “okay”

So in his exile years he studied the life of Christ and his teachings and this what he said.  “Everything in Christ astonishes me, the more I examine him more carefully and examine everything is above me, everything remains grand, a grandeur which overpowers neither history or humanity or ages or nature offer me anything with which I am to compare with or even explain it. Here everything is extraordinary.”

Do you know why he said those words ?  Because he confessed that he had formed a world empire and he stated how he formed it.  He said: “I formed it through bloodshed through deceit through military genius with a sword. That's how formed my empire. This man without picking up a single sword formed an empire that people will die for, and no one is going to die for me.  His words are different from every other I have seen on earth.”

That is why he said ‘that his empire astonishes me and astonishes me beyond words’

Sir Bernard Wran ??? said    “The day I read words of Jesus quoted more, loved more, believed more, translated more because they are the greatest words ever spoken and where is there greatness? Their greatness lies in the pure lucid spirituality and dealing clearly and definitively and authoritatively for the greatest problem that throbs in the human breast.”

I’ve not found a single scholar whoever said that he could be possibly crazy.  Noahs Ark not crazy.  What about a liar or an imposter?  Not likely, why because of the Sanhedrin trial. Now at the Sanhedrin Trial they asked the same question we are asking “are you really God, Tell us  If you are the Son of God.”

 Jesus was a Jew, thoroughbred Jew. He knew if He ever claimed to be the Son of God He was going straight to his death for blasphemy, He knew it.  Now here is a judicial setting, if you are on trial for murder say, and the punishment for murder was the electric chair or the gallows then if you had some good solid evidence that would save you from the gallows would you not bring it to the judge, to the court of law.  Say “here it is man I am innocent”.  Suppose you knew that you were guilty and your attorney came and said “you're done for buddy.  But I can pull you out if you tell 2 lies at this point and that point. Leave the rest to me, I will save you from the gallows”.  Now what will you do?  If you are in your right mind it would be a temptation.   There is no question about it. Why should I go to the gallows if I tell 2 lies and escape it?  That is if you are in your right mind.   So if you are in your right mind you will bring credible truth to save you from the gallows. You will also be tempted and might even bring falsehood to save you from the gallows. If you are in your right mind you will never bring falsehood to take you to the gallows. If you are in your right mind will state a falsehood.  Like me going back to my home and telling the family “I did not murder the fellow but the Judge wants me to say that I did it. So tomorrow morning I'm going to say that I did it and I am going to die.  Nice and we will have a party after that.” Right, no, that doesn't make sense at all. This man is asked this question, he knew if he answered yes he would go to his death.  And He answered yes.

This is the highest form of ??? evidence that we have. Maybe He was not the Son of God but he fully completely with conviction believed that he was the Son of God, enough to go to His death. You can not call such a one a liar.  You may say that he was mistaken, but not a liar. A liar is one who knows the truth and says something else. So He was not a liar.

Was He a megalomaniac? No.  In the east where I come from you are able to visit relatives 3 villages away and then you walk all the way. The first thing they do when you come to the doorstep is that a pot of water and wash your feet. I tell you it is very very refreshing. Yes.  I know I have had it done it is extremely refreshing. But who does it? It is the lowest one in the house.  If you have servants then the servants will go and do that. If you have two sets of servants, one who cooks your food and the other who works in the garden, then the one who works in the garden will do that not the one who cooks your food. So it is the lowest who washes feet.

At the time He and his disciples went to a place and it was time to wash the feet, but there was no servant to wash the feet. And they all looked at each other, who is going to do that job. No not me.  Then this man stood up took off his outer garments wrapped his waist with a towel and washed the dirty feet of his disciples. No egomaniac has ever been known to do that.

The pharaohs of Egypt will ask you to polish their shoes, you will polish their shoes, they will not polish yours. This man did it the opposite way. So honestly I can not call him an egomaniac.  Truly God,  it is  possible, but  once again it is tough if you are an inquirer. The man is not fitting in to any of the others. At the same time, God,  I don't know. Let me give him the best possible that as a human I can give, maybe he was a great moral teacher, even the best Moral teacher.  Listen to what CS Lewis says about that: “I am here trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing people often say about him and that is I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher but I don't accept his claim to be God.  That is the one thing we must not say, a man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. Why? Because He has told a lie.  He would be either a lunatic on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg or else he will be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice either this man was and is the Son of God or else a madman or something worse you can shut up for a fool,  you can spit at him or kill him as a demon or you can follow and call him Lord of Lords. 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.

Once a person says he is God, we either accept him or boot him out.   Don’t leave him in the middle.  There are no other two options.  If he says he is god he is crazy or he is a liar or the egomaniac, not worth your time, or He is God.  Can you see, you have to make a decision why is Christianity so weak, we had not made a decision yet.  We still consider him a good teacher.  If God you will fall at His feet if He is God.  You have no other choice but to boot him out. 

Richard Dawkins one of the worlds most vocal atheists today  Has written a book called ‘The God Delusion’, in that he says well there is one more option, he could have been honestly mistaken.   So let's see whether that could possibly be, practically.  Let me ask the ladies here do you think you might be honestly mistaken that you're the Queen of England? No.  Or you guys would you be honestly mistaken that you came here not in car but in space ship just from Mars just now. Just honestly mistaken.  No my friends you can be honestly mistaken where you left the keys or about a face in the crowd.  But you cannot be honestly mistaken as whether you are the Queen of England or you came in a space ship. You cannot be honestly mistaken as to whether or not you are God.  

You don't have to swallow everything I say. I am presenting my personal search, but when I'm presenting it like this it's very common that you would have questions. So go ahead write your questions down. We will have a Q&A period after the ending.

Let us continue, for lack of time I have left out one question, I'm going to the next one.   The next question that we are going to deal with is this: Mister Founder your teachings were pretty impressive,  all of you, what I would like to know is how did your life compare with your own teachings?  So I am not going to make the criteria of your life. Your own teachings will make the criteria for your own life.  How did you fair?  Is that reasonable?   Follow me and I will take you to the other land, and expect me to hang my eternal destiny on you. Then you had better matchup to something. So that's my question: Teaching versus the life of the founders. 

In Hinduism, when a man gives up all varieties of desire, for sense of gratification, that he is said to be in pure transcendental consciousness. A person who is not disturbed by the incessant flow of desires can alone achieve peace. These words ‘Sense of Gratification’ and incessant flow of desires can be many. There is one thing that you will find if you read all religious literature, sexual descriptions are very clear where it comes to the question of sensual desires. Okay. So don't run away from it.  Because that is what they said.  The Literature says it.  When you keep away from that, then you can do transcendental meditation, that is how it says.

Now Krishna is a higher founder.  Krishna is the eighth incarnation of the God Vishnal??  So his is the most described life, so we will look at that.  Amabusha?? was married to Radha??  and Radha?? was one of the girl cowherds in the place called Dudava???? Where Krishna grew up.  Now when he grew up there were hardly any guys around him, all of them were females. And he had his flute.  With the flute he would play beautiful tunes I mean lovely ones and seduce all of them. That is the story, it is written down there nobody can controvert it.  So when Advavan??? heard that  Krishna was committing adultery, he went in search of the couple.  But Krishan took the form of a god and escaped Advavan??? wrath.  What was Krishna doing?  Fooling around with someone else’s wife.  

No 2.  G????  was onetime a Hindu and this is what he said about the Hindu writings: “in our holy books tell us about gods, sages who the high-minded were addicted to  sensuous passions”.

So these are their writings.  Krishna was supposed to have married sixteen thousand wives,  and he was supposed to have fathered one hundred and eighty thousand sons.  Now that is unusual.  But in reference to the question of keeping away from anything sensual that must not have been very much time for transcendental meditation.  You know I'm not joking in one sense because you ask any Hindu scholar they get a little red-faced when you talk about Krishna 's sexual exploits. One day he went to the river where the girls were all taking a bath grabbed all their clothes and climbed a tree and he said if you want your clothes come one by one and get it from me. And this is written down there. So they did not keep to their own teachings.  

The same thing with Buddism??.  A venerable gentleman these are the words of G???? himself on the four  rules about offenses which deserve expulsion. Once again to do with sex. If a monk shall have sexual intercourse with anyone.  Now when he was born the prophets came and told his father, who was a king, so G???? his father was a king. Sab???  was his name G??? was a prince and the prophet told his father you have two choices,  your son will become either great world emperor or he will run around the countryside half naked looking for truth. What do you want your son to be?  So naturally the father said what I want my son to be a world emperor. So then the prophet made a stipulation.  Ok he will be a world emperor, but you must never let him set his eyes on old age, disease, suffering or death. Four things, if he sets his eyes on them he will not be a world emperor.   So the father said fine. He built special palaces one here for the winter, one there for the autumn, one here for the summer and he had them in storeys and he placed his son Senthaba???? always on the top floor never let him come down to bottom floor or to the palace grounds or even to the town because might see suffering and death. So how do you keep a young man out there?

Their writings describe how they entertained him. They entertained him with women  minstrels, with wanton ??? butterfly kisses, seductive ?????   He became a captive of these women who were well versed in the subject of sensual enjoyment and indefatigable sexual pleasure. On the night of the renunciation, he awoke to find the female musician sleeping, some with their bodies wet with  ???? and some with their dresses falling apart to disclose their nakedness. What was happening? It was a sexual orgy, from the age sixteen to the age twenty nine when he went out to look for truth on the countryside. Thirteen years every day, every week, month after month year after year that was his life.  That was why when he was searching this is what he said:  in the fulfilment of my vows I have plucked out the hair of my head and the hair of my beard, I have gone down to the water punctually thrice before nightfall to wash away the evil within. Good teachings, high ideals but you not sure.

How about Islam?  ???????? good to you  two three or four of them.  This is the only chapter in the Koran which says how many you can marry and even today even in our land here if you're a Muslim you can have four wives.  Four is the maximum. That is what the Koran says.   It's a tenant of their belief. You can have 1, 2, 3, 4 wives.  Mohamed had eleven.

Second statement ‘We, Allah, have given you, Mohamed, a glorious victory so that Allah may forgive your past and your future sins.  I didn't call it sins. What the Koran calls sin were found in him, and it needed forgiveness.  [He] Didn't keep up to the ideal.  Did not Allah find you in error and guide you Mohamed.  ????

Judaism:  you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, or bear false witness.  How about the these three great the Jewish faith.

  1. Moses:  so he looked this way and that way and when he saw no one he killed him  and buried him in the sand.  What is that?   Murder. 
  2. Abraham: he went into Hagar, Hagar is not his wife that is adultery.  Then he goes and tells a foreign king that his wife is his sister.  And the king had to tell him Hey you are bluffing,  why did you not tell me she was your wife. So this ??? Patriarch also faulted and fell.  
  3. David:  he sent messages to call her, meaning Bathsheba.  But she was not his wife. That is adultery right there. Not only that he plans to cover it up.  How does he do it?  So he set Uriah the husband in the forefront of the hottest battle and let him go there and die. He signs instructions and sends it in the hands of Uriah you take it and carry your own death warrant, go. This is cold-blooded premeditated murder.

If we learn nothing else, none of the three Hebrew greats were able to keep their position. Not Abraham nor Moses nor David. None, until you come to this man, Christianity.

I found twelve statements.  Lets look at all 12 of them.  They are in the writings.

Pilate:   Pilate was a roman governor, and Romans were not friendly with Jews.  Any chance to chop down a Jew they would take it.  Look at what he said:  indeed having examined him in your presence, Jews I have found no fault in this man

In the book of John he says:  I have found no fault in him at all.

Then he says the same thing about Herod. Herod also did not find fault.  So Pilate, Herod didn’t find fault.  Pilates wife writes a note to him during trials and says: Watch it,  I had a dream about this man you are trying right now, watch, don't do anything he is a just man.

Number 4  the Romans Centurion at the crucifixion when everything happened then he realized that this was different from all the others, and the natural calamity that happened  at that moment of His death. He said ‘certainly this was a righteous man’

How about the thief on the cross on one side, he told the one on the other side “hey buddy you and I are dying for our sins, this man has done nothing wrong. These five looked at him from a great distance away they were not his close friends. How about somebody who was really close, like John.  John observed Him from morning to night.  Day after day, week after  week, month after month, year after year, for three and half continuous years. Watching every detail of his life and in the end he said “in this man there is no sin” 

Peter same thing, ‘Christ without blemish and without spot’

Paul ‘He was in all points tempted as we are yet without sin’

Now we come to peculiar one the Koran.  Did you know that the Koran mentions Jesus in 93 verses.  In sixteen of them he is identified as Īsā ibn Maryam,  Jesus the Son of Mary. Not just any Jesus. In eleven of those verses he's identified as the Messiah, in the Koran. It says in chapter three verse forty six “he (Jesus) shall preach to man in the prime of manhood and shall lead a righteous life”. Jesus is the only founder who is mentioned in a book of another major religion and stated that he was good.

Disloyal Disciple, Judas. ‘I am the ???, he was innocent”.  Clear, irrevocable statement

Then comes number eleven this is peculiar also . You know you and I, let’s be honest, look into your life and see how you will stand in scrutinizing your own life. It is finished even before you start. There is not a ghost of a chance anyone can face your own record and say its fine.  It's a clean record, so look at our own conscience it's absolutely unusual to find somebody who looks in his own conscience and not only own conscience, he looks at his most avowed enemies who were thirsting for his death and says “can you find any sin in me”  And what is the answer? Silence. Now if you look to history and not just through religious history, you look through history you will not find one instance in which you could establish this as the truth, except here.   That a man can stand in front of his most avowed enemies and ask “ Can you find one mistake in me?”  and they say “Ohh”   Step back.  

Compare that with Kong Qiu.  Kong Qiu is his Chinese name, his western name is Confucius the founder of Confucianism. He said “How dare I claim to be a sage of ????.  I cannot even start that.”  But this man says “look into my life”, I can look into my own conscious it is absolutely clear. 

And then number twelve of the Sanhedrin's question again:  “are you then the son of God?” This is peculiar to me as I was studying this out. The Sanhedrin met at three levels.  They were not only the religious leaders, they were also the judicial body. They could take judicial action. They were judges all the members of the Sanhedrin.   It was a small little biddy thing, for example, that you took my stuff that I left lying down annoy it is mine,  oh wait we will go to the Sanhedrin. Three members of the Sanhedrin would be enough to form the Quorum for an ordinary deed.  When it came to a major deed then you need a Quorum twenty three.  You need twenty three judges to decide on it.  When it is a matter of national importance then it is what is called a full Council. The full council is Seventy members plus one, the Chief Priest. There is one record in which it was called the full council but we cannot establish it.  But we do know that there were multiple members of Sanhedrin not just one or two, definitely more than twenty three.

The highest bench we have today in the Supreme Court of the United States is nine judges at the highest. But here at minimum of twenty three judges, 23 judges judging one man ???? an open trial bring in the witnesses, bring in evidence because we want to convict this man.  They bring in evidence on evidence and one witness after another, we can’t convict him.  Then the priest against the law of the land, because a judge not supposed to be a prosecuting attorney, but he steps down from the prosecuting attorney and faces him and changes the whole question. It is no longer want you did or what you did not do:  who are you?  Can you see that? Who are you was of necessity to that chief priest because he wanted to put him to death and he could not put him to death by anything that he had done or not done. They had brought every evidence in the land and it did not find anything wrong in his entire life. That to me is the judicial testimony of this man, number twelve in our list.  Why did the chief Priest change the question from what did you do or what did you not do, to “who are you”. Because they could not find anything wrong in what he had done. And this is the one time in judicial history where the death sentence was handed down not for what you did or did  not do, but for who you were.

Twelve statements, look at the spectrum.  Enemies, Friends, aliens and your countryman you can’t say there was a bias here. This is the one place where we will have to agree. Fifteen million minutes of life on this earth in the midst of a wicked and corrupt generation every thought, every deed, every purpose, every work privately and publicly from the time he opened his baby eyes until he expired on the cross were all approved of God. Never once did our Lord have to confess any sin for He had NO SIN.

Finally in my search I find one in whom the theory has met its match in the practice.  One individual in whom the tenants of belief have been played out to the maximum in real life.  Therefore as an inquirer, I have to agree that here was the only life lived to an unblemished perfection.  Therefore He is the only one of the founders who could turn to you and to me with perfect credibility and perfect right to tell you and me “follow me”. 

Nobody else has that authority. For if you had followed anyone else you would still have made a mistake. Him and Him alone if you follow, you can make it clean to other side, without wisp of a mistake because that was his record, the only such records from the dawn of history until today. 

We have done two things now.  The book historical, and the only book that throws out a challenge saying test me out.  Pretty impressive.  And then we look at the man, he makes the highest claim: God. And then ultimately make the highest claim He lives such a life that you can't find no fault in him. Could it really be that he came from that realm bearing the message in Himself? Is it possible?  Ah ha  it makes good sense, so now my dilemma. I was a seeker and Inquirer. I know I have confirmation bias, we said that last night. Remember what Confirmation bias is? You want to have your beliefs sustained and established, so you look at all the evidence and make your belief open front. Was I doing that? That was a troubling question to me. Was I making the New Testament a little bad or was I making this man what I wanted him to be. So then I said no, it won't be right for me to continue in this way.  I am going to purposely look for points in which he does not come out first. Can you see what I was doing?   I'm trying to be fair. I am trying to find out whether I am being fair to myself. Am I pushing this person and the book up or not? I want to check myself. So now I am going to look for some things that he does not come out first.

The next ???? maybe not all three, but one or two he does not come out first. But He comes out best.


Embed Code

Short URL