McDuffie

We have all heard Jesus was lord, liar or lunatic. It is known as the Lewisian trilemma, or as I like to call it the Lewisian false trichotomy.

What do you think Jesus was?

BigBen

I think this belongs in Tilted Philosophy.

Oh, and I think this has been discussed before.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

clavus

He's a mechanic I know. He pronopunces his name HEY SOOSE.

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

the_marq

I can corroborate this; Jesus Built my Hotrod.

Lebell

moved to Philosophy.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

akito

agreed.. I think this topic more belongs in philosophy.

In any event though, I voted for liar.

My views on this are rather simple. I'm not doubting the fact that, at some point in time, a man named Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth. I'm just doubting the fact that he walked on water and did all those miracle things.

Remember being a kid and playing Telephone with a bunch of people? You would start with the word "bike" and it would go around the circle until it came back to you as "psychosomatic stewardesses constructing carbon fiber pants"?

Same principle, just that the guy started the word 2000 years ago and now it's to us.

McDuffie

It has, once... briefly... more than 2 years ago.

ShaniFaye

you might want to read some of the responses in this thread from 11/04 to 4/05
Who do you believe Jesus was?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

TexanAvenger

I don't see my choice up there. He was a man. Very probably a good man, but just a man.

Coppertop

I voted for cult leader that had stories made up about him after his death. Although cult isn't the word I would have chosen.

McDuffie

Probably a cult leader might be the best fit for you. That is what I chose. He was just a man. A man, who was probably a cult leader. And he was probably so beloved by his followers that the stories about him became more and more fantastic the farther it got from the actual events.

zen_tom

The poll smacks a little of bias - liar or lunatic seem to be much the same thing - you could ask the same question about Pythagoras, Plato, Richard Dawkins Shakyamuni, L.Ron Hubbard, Alistair Crowley, David Koresh(sp?), Joseph Smith Jr. or one of a hundred different religious or philosophical founders. I don't think the question asks anything new about these things. I'd rather ask whether the ideas and views that these people had have any validity or more interestingly, what things are in common with all of these views.

Grasshopper Green

I didn't vote because of this reason. I don't doubt he lived, I don't think he changed water into wine, but I also don't think his followers were a "cult" either.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

McDuffie

Actually, I have removed the bias of CS Lewis' LLL argument by adding realistic alternatives.

They aren't even close

If these religious leaders are regarded as a 'lord' in any sense, you are correct. When Lewis says "Lord, liar, or lunatic", he means "Lord" in a godly, universal sense.

Have you never heard of Lewisian apologetics? The question asks nothing new, yet it is asked daily by evangelists -- minus the realistic options that I added, of course.

irateplatypus

it may have been helpful to cut and paste some of Lewis' text to give shape to your poll questions. if i remember correctly, Lewis spends several chapters establishing his logical grounds for eliminating all but the LLL possibilities.

as i, and others, have said before... it isn't really fair to compare the early gospel formations to a game of telephone. it ignores both the true nature of the source material and the social context of it being passed on in a society heavily reliant on the preservation of an accurate oral tradition.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

McDuffie

No he doesn't. He barely touches on Jesus historicity at all. You may be thinking of McDowell, the hack-writer who co-opted the LLL argument from Lewis.

Lak

I believe what is meant by this is:
Liar - Jesus preached all these things and knew perfectly well he was taking everyone for a ride. (power hungry)
Lunatic - Jesus honestly believed in what he preached, even if in reality these thing were not true. (delusional, but otherwise good natured)

I vote cult leader w\ accompanying increasingly elaborate stories.

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

zen_tom

The only difference between a liar and a lunatic, is that a liar doesn't believe his own bullshit. I have absolutely no idea, nor any historical evidence to presume to know what what happening inside Jesus' head 2000 years ago. It just can't be done. I can't tell what someone across the room might be thinking, let alone a potential deity incarnate. If Jesus was Lord, then I guess it wasn't bullshit after all - again, I'm certainly in no position to say either way.

On the question of bias (not that it matters), they ask the same question i.e. Was Jesus a fake? That's two options for fake, a third suggests a cult leader (Also, what's the difference between a cult-leader and a lunatic or a liar?) which I'd suggest is also suggests fake, as does myth, and finally, a combination of lunatic or liar - i.e. another fake.

So, when you add it all up and the poll boils down to:
Was Jesus?
a) Not fake
b) fake
c) fake
d) fake
e) fake
or
f) fake

That's why it smells a little of bias - not a problem, we're not about to proove anything either way, here, just guage a range of opinions.

The option I would have liked would have been something to do with Jesus' words and deeds being altered and exaggerated in various aspects down through the ages - I certainly wouldn't suggest he was either liar, lord or lunatic - Rather, a particularly wise and gentle man with extraordinary compassion and understanding of his fellow men. But that's just my opinion.

martinguerre

it's a very false trilemma. i usually refuse to discuss it, on the grounds that it fundamentally mistates the nature of mental illness.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

irateplatypus

i am most certainly not thinking of McDowell. /shudders

looking at my well-thumbed copy of the Case for Christrianity (reprinted from Mere Christianity), I see a clear progression of ideas from the start of the book culminating in the 3rd chapter of the second part.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

McDuffie

This is not my argument. I have mitigated the bias of the original arguement by adding options 4-6.

eeef2

i believe that jesus is whatever u want him to be. since religion isnt concerned with fact, rather faith. Same goes for muhammed, joseph smith and anyone else claiming to be or know god(s) more personally than you.

asaris

But that's simply not true, at least in Christianity's case. If Christianity isn't true, that is, if Christ was not God and did not die and rise again from the dead, then "we are to be pitied above all people". And it doesn't make any sense to say that Jesus is whoever you want him to be. He was a historical individual, and so, just like any other historical individual, one can make true and false claims about him.

The point of the Lewisian trilemma is that it means to exclude the option "Good man, not God". I'd quote, but my copy of Mere Christianity is in a box. Lewis's point is that someone who said the things Christ said could not be merely a good man. Whatever else we might think about people who claim to be God, we don't think that it would be a good idea to think about them as an example.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

zen_tom

I don't believe Christ ever alluded personally to being God - yes it's stated in the gospels, but I'd rather attribute the labels of liar or lunatic to the people (who by the way are unlikely to have actually been the disciples named) who wrote the history for the consumption of the Gentiles.

I do think people are often capable of determining the difference between good and crazy - and would be surprised if 2000 years of civilisation and culture can be ascribed to the ravings of either a lunatic or a scam-artist. At the same time, I'm not ready to accept the divine aspect of Jesus' life. I'm forced to lean towards the "Good Man, not God" whether it was meant to be excluded or not.

martinguerre

asaris...we are to be pited among all people if Christ did not rise from the dead, not if Jesus was not God.

You're quoting off 1 Cor 15, correct?

Zen Tom is right to note that there are sayings that make Jesus sound like he claims divinity. Most occur in John. For instance, i one is reading Mark alone, there is really no sign that Jesus claims to be God, rather that he claims to have a mandate from God. If the Gospels don't agree, then I think this is a point on which Christians can disagree in good faith.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

asaris

I simply don't think that's true, Martin Guerre. Look, either Jesus claimed to be God or he didn't. But all of those people who knew him best, his close friends and followers, all believe that he did. What you claim to be disagreement between the gospels, I claim is just a later gospel filling out what was left unsaid in an earlier gospel.
Yes, I'm quoting from I Cor 15 (or whereever that is), but as far as I call tell, Christ's rising from the dead is generally adduced in the epistles as evidence for his divinity.

For the record, I'm not claiming that C. S. Lewis was correct in saying that to say "Christ was merely a good man" is to be confused. I think he was, but I don't know how to argue well for that conclusion. I AM going to stick to my guns and say that anyone who does not believe in the divinity of Christ is not a Christian. Christians have believed in his divinity from the very beginning -- what makes you so much smarter than these people to say "No, sorry, we've been mistaken for 2000 years"?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

tecoyah

I have stayed out of this for obvious reasons.....but please....Lets not allow this to degrade further than it has. There is no reason to debase anyone elses belief, as everything in here is simply opinion.

And we All have at least one of those

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

kramus

I voted Lord.

The thread reads as one with a broad base of thought and consideration - and has references about writings and logicicians which I know nothing about. So I'll just say my bit then.

I am pretty sure that there are a lot of Jesus type characteristics and stories that predate his birth by many thousands of years. He lived a life that attracted that ancient mantle, and did it in a transfiguring way due to the fact that he was a gifted polymath with off-the-scale social and human interests, and he was one of the rare true charismatics that bend history around themselves.

So he was a Lord because he is the Phoenix of the wisdom of our forbears, brought through him and his legacy and textured by philosophers and political figures over the last 2000 years to fit our 21st century intellectual endeavours.

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

jonjon42

I don't think at this time he was lord...but I don't think he was a lunatic either. I think to an extent he is part myth and part enlightened. A great man whose legend was passed around so much that it grew into these huge stories.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Seeker

He was a black sheep, an extrovert.. more seriously perhaps he was the first most self-actualised human.

Then I have to ask, what if the word and message of God was not directly whispered in his ear, perhaps there was a spiritual connection so strong as to 'tap into' or hear the message about life. I am amazed at the advice given in the bible that is still relevant to this day in regards to 'healthy living and perspective'... how does something like that come to be?

Son of God - perhaps..
Liar or Lunatic - I don't think so..
Myth - I think not..
A Cult Leader - perhaps..

What if perhaps he was an enlightened individual, and with the help of a God like essence, the followers perceptions were directed to give an overall view and story to the time and life of Jesus?

Interesting, yet eternally unknowable...

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

LoganSnake

Yeah, pretty much what I think. But I just think that he was a myth. Just another character in the story.

__________________
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

martinguerre

True enough...

Not true. I don't read that message in Mark or Paul...and i'm not alone in that reading, either. Luke and Matthew are debatable...i only see an outright claim to divnity in John. The other epistles are basically silent on the matter, AFAIK...

Which is why reading John back on to Mark or Paul is problematic. Why prioritize John like that? Why not read John through the lens of Mark? What justifies your choice in making that call? John was nearly cut from the cannon on several occasions. What makes it *the* authority now?

Check the tenses on the verbs. Egeiro in Mark and Paul is usually indicating that he was raised. Passive voice hides the actor, and it indicates, IMO, that God is doing the raising, not Jesus.

Well, i'm quite sorry to hear that from you. But, honestly...it was a big fight back then...The writings of the Patriarchs make it clear that divinity and the nature of Christ/Jesus was a major point of contention. You're mistaken to claim that this has been the uniform belief of all Christians through all time. The reason why there is a creed to state this is that not everyone was toeing the line in the first place. Boundaries like that indicate that there was *already* an outside.

I'm not smarter...and for what it's worth, i happen to be a trinitarian. but your argument does not reflect the bredth and tension with in the Christianities of history or the present.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

abaya

The tone of the discussion between perhaps the two most biblically erudite people on this thread is exactly what has turned me away from the church entirely. I cannot believe that a God of love would want us speaking to each other in this manner, and it saddens me to watch it play out on TFP.

And so, who was Christ? I used to call myself a Christian, a very strong one at that. Now, though, I suppose that I don't know whether or not Christ was/is divine, and because of that I cannot fit the evangelical mold. That's fine with me. I believe God, if he exists, would have me as I am, doubts and all. However, I don't think we can boil it down to a damned dichotomy... fake vs. non-fake. We are human. We have no clue. For all we know, Christ could be a manifestation of an incomprehensible (to us) being who spans time, fakeness and non-fakeness, existence and history... and blow us all away with how small we really are. And yes I read that Lewis book too, in my fervent Christian days... I practically worshiped Lewis. But he is just one voice. His perspective does not encompass all that Christ could possibly have been. Lewis was a human, just like the rest of us.

Personally, anyone who claims to know the answer to who Jesus was... I don't trust them. None of us has the authority to claim that "I" know (or at least, we can say that, but not to prove others wrong). And yet we start wars over this fact... in the real word, between whole nations, and even here on TFP.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

hannukah harry

what historical evidence is there for a historical jesus?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

asaris

Well, I don't remember the case as well as I used to, but as I recall, there is enough evidence that, at the very least, there was an itinerant rabbi named Jesus during the first part of the first century CE that it's simply ludicrous to think that this isn't the case. Think about it -- there are several writings, with very good provenance, all written within 60 years of his death, and some written within 20-30 years of his death, that say, if nothing else, that there was a guy named Jesus wandering around. Why on earth would you think that, not only did the apostles make up Christ's claims to divinity, but that he even existed?

Martin_Guerre: I don't really want to argue the point with you, since, for one, you're obviously more familiar with the scholarship than I am, and for two, I've done it before here (that argument was inconclusive, btw). But I do think that, if the word "Christianity" is going to mean anything, it needs to refer to a core set of beliefs, otherwise it's going to go the way of 'gentleman'. I happen to think that a good core set of beliefs happens to be the Apostles' Creed, though you could very easily convince me that even a couple of those beliefs are not necessary to be a Christian. I don't equate being a Christian with being saved, however. I don't know who's going to be saved; God could save all of us, though given scripture, this is unlikely, or He could damn all of us, though given scripture, this is even more unlikely, and with neither option could any of us justly complain. So I don't know if someone who denies the divinity of Christ is going to be saved, but I want to reserve the right to think that they're not a Christian.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

hannukah harry

at the moment, to the best of my knowledge, the only written 'evidence' for jesus (not his real name by the way) having actually lived in the area that is modernday isreal during the first century AD is the new testament. of which none of it was written less than about 30 years after his death, and doubtfully written by anyone that actually knew him, by the people whom the gospels say they were written by. i think there's good reason to think that jesus never existed and is nothing more than a myth.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

abaya

I'm curious, what is actually the point of reserving the right to think someone is not a Christian? What good does that actually serve anyone?

I do not ask these questions polemically... I am genuinely interested in this, because I was quite fervent about categorizing people in my Christian days... mostly to determine whether or not I needed to "witness" to them or not. I couldn't see them as just being human, same as me. These days I care much more about a person's character overall now, not about what label they are under.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

martinguerre

Well...not quite.

There is evidence outside of the NT. Josephus writes of Jesus in his work Antiquities.

Paul writes 1 Thessalonians in the late 40's, early 50's. That's about 20 years after Gogoltha. Granted, it's a hearsay account, but he does create a working record of there being a Christian community at that time for whom it is meaningful to talk of a man named Jesus.

We can argue over whether or not any of the Gospel writers knew Jesus directly. Mark is written shortly after the revolt in 70-2 AD. Frankly, i think its quite likely that the author knew Jesus directly...

Simply, i don't think that it's a very tenable position to deny that Jesus existed. beyond that, it's certainly more contested. but it seems to me to be a pretty thin argument to claim that he did not exist at all.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

hannukah harry

josephus wasn't born until a few years after jesus's death. to my knowledge, there are <b>zero</b> contemporary references to jesus. during the time he supposidly lived there were others (with contemporary documentation of their lives) who claimed to be the messiah, rise from the dead, perform miracles, etc.

considering what the world was like back then, it doesn't surprise me that people would be able to be convinced that jesus was real and did what he did. i think to believe in him based on teh current references we have is a pretty thin argument. i see no reason to believe in him just as you see no reason to believe that hercules once lived on earth.

my current personal belief is that he may or may not have existed. if he did, he was a normal man, maybe preached a bit. but that what was written about him is about as true as the harry potter books are.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

abaya

Ahh, now this brings up something interesting... can Truth be communicated through fiction? A similar idea has been proposed regarding the Lord of the Rings books (before the craze from the movie made everything a bit cheesy). And especially Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia books.

For me, I see a great deal of Truth in story... even something like Harry Potter. And that is why for me, it is almost irrelevant whether there was a historical Jesus... (I am not a Christian in this sense), because a fictional narrative can have as much power as fact. Thoughts?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran