What If Jesus Was Never Born?

Thank God He Was

Published on January 29, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

What if Jesus Christ was never born? What would it be like here and in the rest of the world? Would it make a difference at all? It is a thought provoking question isn't it? What if Jesus had never been born?

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in politics. Our representative form of democracy rests on explicitly Christian principles of church and state. So do our principles of free speech and religious tolerance. In fact, the very founding of this nation was motivated by the goal to establish a Christ-centered community. If Jesus was never born, there wouldn’t be a United States of America, at least as we know it today.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in education. The world’s oldest universities were all founded on Christian principles, so that students could grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The same is true of nearly every one of the first one hundred colleges and universities in America. Eventually people would have developed institutions of higher education, but there would be no Oxford, no Harvard, no Yale, and no Princeton. Furthermore, Christians have always been pioneers in promoting literacy and universal education. Even America’s public school system is part of the legacy of Puritan education. To this day, linguists are working all over the world, in the name of Jesus, to put native languages in written form and teach people to read the Bible.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in literature, music, and the arts. There would be no Messiah for Handel to write into his famous oratorio—no Christmas music at all. There would be no Pieta by Michelangelo, and no Last Supper by Leonardo. There would be no cathedrals in Europe, no Hagia Sophia or Notre Dame. There would be no Gospels and no New Testament, and therefore no story of the prodigal son, no parable of the good Samaritan, and no Sermon on the Mount. There would be no Divine Comedy by Dante, and no Paradise Lost by Milton.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in science and medicine. It was the Christian worldview—with its insistence on the rational order of the universe and man’s dominion over creation—that gave rise to modern science. Followers of Jesus Christ were also pioneers in the art of medicine. The first hospitals were established by Christians who believed they had a God-given responsibility to heal the sick.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in charity and the protection of life. It was the followers of Christ who first introduced the Roman world to disinterested benevolence, to helping someone who couldn’t help you in return. Pagans were amazed to see that Christians not only took care of their own needy people, but also provided for other people’s poor. It was also the followers of Christ who first abandoned the nearly universal practice of infanticide. The birth of Christ taught them to protect the lives of their own children, and to rescue foundlings and orphans.

Humanly speaking, none of this would have happened if Jesus was never born. What I have said so far is only just the beginning, of course, and it is also true that many wrong things have been done in the name of Christ—that is a topic for another occasion. But simply in terms of secular history, the life of Jesus Christ has had a far greater and more positive influence on the world than anyone else in history.

But to bring what I have said closer to home, if Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make to your own destiny. You would have no atonement for your sin, no resurrection from the dead, no hope of eternal life, and no Savior to call a friend.

What if Jesus was never born? But Jesus was born. As the angel said to the Christmas shepherds: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:12). And the rest, as they say, is history.

Link

Comments (Page 6)

OckhamsRazor

on Feb 02, 2008

Someone told me that some prophet said that the messiah (Jesus, yes?) would come from the line of David. Is that correct?

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

SoDaiho posts:

I believe Christians have a great religion, and they are welcome to it. I believe their path will lead them to God as mine leads me to God. As I wrote in my blog, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

KFC POSTS:

I think you're right. All paths will lead to God. I just don't agree we believe it will be for the same reason. I also believe some are following the God of this world and haven't a clue.

This part I highlighted KFC reminds me of Christ saying, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he suffers the loss of his soul?" Here he was certainly implying that not all paths of this world lead to God.

I just posted this comment on your blog SoDaiho.

Other than that all paths lead to God is a rather extreme statement. Some paths definitely do not lead to God...Christ Himself distinguished between the two roads declaring the way leading to everlasting life to be narrow and restricted, while the way leading to everlasting destruction to be broad and pleasant to those who are bent on doing life their own way according to their own self-satisfaction. St.Paul told the Corinthians that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of Heaven. In this sense we cannot say that all paths lead to God.

Each path can't lead to God becasue it's for God to say which path we will come to Him and not for man to tell God to be content with whatever men choose to do.

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

SODAIHO POSTS:

If you can make a logical proof of the existance of a first cause, I should like to see it. (Please note, I am not asking for a proof of God. That is impossible.) You keep talking about it, now please show me the empirical evidence.

I did perhaps you missed, like OCk said, on these long threads, it's easy to do. See reply # 76. and here is a part:

Ever hear of the law of causality?

It tells us that every effect must be due to a power or agent that caused it. Nothing in the world came into existence of itself...including the phenomena of the moral law dictated to us by inner voice of our conscience, of which, even you as a scientist cannot deny every person has.

Motion came from a mover; design from a designer, life from life and the moral law dictated to us by our voice of conscience from a Lawmaker or Lawgiver. The proof of causality is simple and irrefutable. A watch takes a watch maker, the Cosmos manifests design that supposes a Designer of infinite intelligence and power, whom we call Almighty God. The universality of belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is a forceful reminder of the fact that our human nature recognizes and is dependent upon the existence of God.

The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. It's the other way around...they have to persuade themselves there is no God. And no one yet who has attained such a temporary persuasion has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of God, they endeavor to grow out of it.

Another proof is the existence of law as it manifests through inanimate as well as animate nature. It evidences the existence of a LawMaker or LawGiver. The Natural(moral)law in particular is a constant reminder of the LawMaker enjoining us to do and not to do certain things.

Just as the proof of causality is irrefutable, that God exists is an established fact which is beyond a question of reasonable doubt.

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

SoDaiho posts:

However, when it comes to the belief that some Christians hold that theirs is the only path, and that their God, Jesus, is the sole gate-keeper to the Universal, Well, I see that as incredibly closed minded, if not obnoxious. It reveals a primitive, almost child-like, view of God and theology. But then, that's how fundamentalists stike me, spiritually handicapped, and unwilling to open their mind's eye.

Christians believe that Christ is the only path to everlasting life. We believe on the authority of Scripture and (for me, a Catholic, of Christ's teaching Church). With those two sources of authority, (both from God) how can that possibly be closed-minded?

Christ said, "Everyone therefore that shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in Heaven, but he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in Heaven."

Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true becasue we happen to believe them. Truth is consistent. If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, then you haven't got the truth.

On this specific point, either we Christians have the truth or you do in denying that belief in Christ as the only path to everlasting life is obnoxious, primitive, child-like, spritually handicapped, and closed minded. On what grounds are you basing your assertion?

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Feb 02, 2008

Someone told me that some prophet said that the messiah (Jesus, yes?) would come from the line of David. Is that correct?

Yes, why do I think this is a loaded question....lol?

It's called the Davidic covenant. Why do you ask? If you look in the NT in Luke and Matthew you'd see these two geneologies both go back to David.

Jewbu

on Feb 02, 2008

On this specific point, either we Christians have the truth or you do in denying that belief in Christ as the only path to everlasting life is obnoxious, primitive, child-like, spritually handicapped, and closed minded. On what grounds are you basing your assertion?

Lula, you and KFC both keep confusing truth with belief. Spirituality must be open, its a living process. A closed system, such as there is only one way and I have it, is prone to entropy. This is why, I suspect, so many splinter churches appear in fundamentalist church circles. I see some forms of Christianity as primitive because I see it as idolatry; its obnoxious because it limits our understanding of the majesty of God.

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

Ock posts #73

If there is a lack of evidence, I am inclined to not believe that the fact is a fact, but I do not mark it as "never going to be proven."

Is it not a fact in your mind that there is no God? It seem by this statement that you must have evidence for your unbelief. If so, what is it?

OCK posts:

For the scientific, evidence must be testable and repeatable. I can test that 2 + 2 = 4. Lula, if your argument is that we cannot believe anything we sense with our senses, and that even my belief that I am sitting here typing this is just a matter of faith that I'm sitting here typing it, then ok. That means NOTHING is provable. Not that God exists.

I can't see how by this example that you come to your conclusion that nothing is provable.

Now. Lula, you mentioned it requires faith to believe 2 + 2 = 4. I would submit that you believe in belief, not God. If you believed in God, would you look both ways before crossing the street? Would you cry instead of party at a funeral? Would you refuse if I asked you to take a needle and shoot air into your veins? Would you place your hand on a burning stove and leave it there - ignoring the pain because of your faith?

By faith we believe things. Now people do not believe with their feelings and emotions, rather they believe with their minds. Belief is a mental conviction. I look both ways before crossing the street becasue I'm prudent and have common sense...I believe in God most assuredly...for how many times have there been while driving that something bad happened and by the grace of God, we weren't killed? We say of these circumstances, "it wasn't our time". How about last week in the news, that window washer who fell some 40 stories and lived? It wasn't his time...if he didn't believe in God, I bet he does now! See how that might work?

Faith is an intellectual admission that a certain thing is true becasue we have not seen the reality ourselves, we reasonably admit that the one who has told us must be realiably informed (thus the teacher with the school children), and not intending to deceive us. Nor is faith involuntary. If I see an accident, I know that it occurred, and it is useless to tell myself that it didn't. But if I didn't see it, and was told it happened, then I can choose to believe or not. I can put my faith in what is told to me or refuse.

True Christian faith cannot lead one into error. We prove that God has said a thing and believe becasue He has said it. Doubt would be possible only could God be deceived, or deceive mankind. But He could not. God knows all things and is Truth itself. Also He has given abundant external signs to confirm His Revelation. We are right becasue He is right.

Faith is a virtue and a gift of God. Faith teaches some things which are above reason for the revealed truths known only to God must be above human thought. But while faith teaches some truths so profound as to be above natural reason, it never teaches any doctrine which is opposed to sound and rational principles.

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

Ock posts:

Someone told me that some prophet said that the messiah (Jesus, yes?) would come from the line of David. Is that correct?

KFC POSTS: Yes, why do I think this is a loaded question....lol?

I think it may have something to do with my saying:

Christ came into the world through a miracle; the Virgin Birth;

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Feb 02, 2008

I think it may have something to do with my saying:

Christ came into the world through a miracle; the Virgin Birth;

ahhhhhhh then Ock should know the rest of the story. If he checks into those two geneologies he'd find something verrrrrrry interesting!!

And I'm not talking about the fact that David's great grandmother was a prostitute!

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Feb 02, 2008

A closed system, such as there is only one way and I have it,

Sodaiho, it's not so much that I have it or Lula has it as it has us.

Think invasion of the body snatchers and you'd get some sort of funky way I'm speaking of.....but in a good way....

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

Ock posts:

Now onto proving unbelief. I cannot prove that any god does not exist. Nor did I ever claim that. Nor will I try to. As an example, I gave the Celestial Teapot. And if it wasn't clear what point that was making, I'll restate it too - in a different way.

Up in my bedroom right now is a leprechaun named Fred who rides a German Shephard. They are both invisible and inaudible and speak to me in my heart. Prove to me they don't exist. Do you not find that an inane thing for me to ask?

Well first off, you'd think it nonsense. But if I wrote a very clever book discussing all the great things that Fred and the Shephard have done to insure that I live forever (along with lots of threats that if I follow his evil counterpart, Doug the leprechaun who rides a Dachshund, I'll suffer forever) and buried it in my backyard, then who is to say that 2000 years from now there wouldn't be a group of people arguing as to whether or not Fred and the Shephard should be a part of high school biology classes?

It should be pretty obvious to all, regardless of what you believe, that this conversation can never come to a point of anything but "agree to disagree." The two "camps" live in different worlds and use different math for coming to conclusions. Each side thinks their way is the right way. Each has different definitions of "evidence" (or claim to - I don't really believe that last part and will describe it in a moment.) But suffice it to say, as long as religionists continue to claim that their evidence is as sound as scientific evidence, there's nothing to discuss. No harm, no foul...we just aren't going to agree because the religionists have removed any basis for discussing it by taking a short cut to knowledge and giving it a name. Faith.

I tell you what...as of Christ and Christianity...
You get hundreds of people who take what you say here on faith as true and die as martyrs for this in their name, and then have millions upon millions of other who believe it as well and then, I'll give it some consideration that they exist too.

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

A closed system, such as there is only one way and I have it,

Sodaiho, it's not so much that I have it or Lula has it as it has us.
Think invasion of the body snatchers and you'd get some sort of funky way I'm speaking of.....but in a good way....

Hey, this is good. I can relate...the amazing thing is that we are perfectly free to leave at any time...but beg in prayer to be wrapped in the freedom of His love! What peace...there is only peace in Christ.

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

LW posts:

BTW, Fred and Doug are real, and I shall very soon elevate them to the Godforms they deserve to be recognized as. Amen.

Look OCK, you have one follower already!

lulapilgrim

on Feb 02, 2008

Ock posts:

But suffice it to say, as long as religionists continue to claim that their evidence is as sound as scientific evidence, there's nothing to discuss. No harm, no foul...we just aren't going to agree because the religionists have removed any basis for discussing it by taking a short cut to knowledge and giving it a name. Faith.

There is no conflict between science and theology. truth is truth whether it manifests in theology which deals with the laws of God or expermimental science which deals with the laws of nature.

Placing theology in conflict with science is well, unscientific for it places science in conflict with science. Theology is a science, the science of religion, which treats of God, His nature, laws, attributes, etc.

What I've noticed is the conflicts when they do arise comes from pseudo-science whether it is in the sphere of theories, like Evolution or of false religion or ir-religion.

There is a harmonious relationship between theology and science. One tells of the source of mysteries, the other discovers and of the moral obligations they entail. Science is truth whether learned in a lab or a seminary.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Feb 03, 2008

There is a basic flaw in this kind of reasoning": contrafactuals cannot never be taken as an argument for anything, because History is a study of what happened. If, for example, an event did not take place, then we are not justified in retrospectively erasing the historical record. I do know that science fiction writers have a field day with the "ifs" of history, but it is not a worthwhile exercise.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!