Actscelerate.com

caseyleejones

I read somewhere...."Jesus was a lunatic, liar, or...

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11794 **12/6/19 6:25 pm**

exactly who he said he was. There is no other choice."

This has resonated with me when I first read it. I have friends who are very left wing dems who are quick to quote the bible regarding refuges or any cut in social services.

I have at times wanted to asked them where they stood regarding Jesus. Was He the son of God and the only way to heaven? Which most would say no. To which I want to reply, why are you quoting a liar or lunatic.

Question, are there any other option but these three?

Dave Dorsey

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 13654 **12/6/19 6:58 pm**

Yes, there is a fourth option. It was put forward by William Lane Craig and proposes that Jesus could have been a legend rather than a liar or a lunatic. That is to say, it's possible that the Jesus of the Bible is not the Jesus of history, and therefore claims about the lordship of the biblical Jesus do not prove the lordship of the historical Jesus.

However, C.S. Lewis (who famously popularized, but did not author, the "liar, Lord, or lunatic" trilemma) does offer a rebuttal for this in another work, "What Are We to Make of Jesus?" A good summary of the whole topic is available here - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/is-c-s-lewiss-liar-lord-or-lunatic-argument-unsound

Craig of course is an ardent defender of the faith. His criticism here was in the service of strengthening apologetic argument, rather than undermining the case for Christ. And in any case, I think you could ask "why are you quoting a liar, lunatic, or legend?" without taking any of the wind from your argument's sails.

caseyleejones

Good reply Dave....thanks...

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11794 **12/7/19 2:00 pm**

I'll check out the link....

UncleJD

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3139 **12/9/19 12:50 pm**

I'm not sure the 4th option is valid in the context of arguing whether Jesus was in fact "a good man". The 3 traditional "options" are in response to a person stating that Jesus was "a good man/teacher/etc..", (which I suppose is assumed that He actually existed) and Lewis's answer is based on the fact that "good person" is not an option. I suppose another tier of the argument could be presented in that first you have to answer whether he existed or not, then if he did the 3 options are presented, if he did not, then end of flow-chart and the question is moot (for the person making the "good" argument). But again, I assume if a person is saying that Jesus was simply "a good person", there is no need to bridge the first tier (whether or not He existed).

As far as the "historical" argument, we only have the actual history from Biblical and other near-first-hand records of the early Church and possibly Josephus, both of which either directly claim that Jesus claimed to be God, or not desputing that He claimed such as in Josephus' case (where it is reasonably argued that he knew of Jesus's claims that he was more than just another Jewish rabi). there are no "historical" sources for another Jesus at all (or if there are they are from gnostics or other 'sects', and not historically valid). In other words, as far as I've ever studied there is only ONE historical Jesus present in the extant of records. This then becomes a "is the Bible and tradition of the church a trustworthy source", which is another subject entirely. So as it stands there is but one "historical" Jesus so the argument could only be whether or not THAT Jesus (of history) existed or not, and hence it goes back to my earlier thesis of that not being a valid option in the context given by Lewis.

Note on Josephus' account. I acknowledge that the direct claim of Jesus being the Christ by Josephus is likely forged into the account by later century Christians (in particular the "if it be lawful to call him a man" and the 3rd day resurection) , but I believe nearly all scholars acknowledge the fact that Josephus said that Jesus was "Called the Christ", which is the basis on what I'm referring to as non-scriptural near first-hand historical document about the claims of Christ. Most also believe that Josephus actually called him a "doer of many good works (i.e. miracles)", furthering the historical Jesus.

Dave Dorsey

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 13654 **12/9/19 1:30 pm**

Good points, UncleJD.

In my opinion, the "legend" response doesn't challenge the historicity of Jesus, just the biblical narrative. In the context of the "good man" argument, someone could retort, "Yes, the Jesus of the Bible would clearly be God. However, the real Jesus of history was just a good man..."

I have been fascinated for awhile now by modern efforts to deny the historicity of Jesus. As far as I can tell, this was almost never challenged until our present day, and is still not challenged by any serious scholar. Bart Ehrman of all people wrote an entire book defending the historicity of Jesus. Yet there are today a number of scholars in other fields who are not educated on this point but are certain that the existence of a 1st century Jew named Jesus is completely mythological.

UncleJD

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3139 **12/9/19 1:53 pm**

I think we agree here. There is just no evidence to the contrary (that he existed and that he actually claimed to be or at least did not deny others' claims to be The Christ). Again, the Lewis argument supposes that the doubter is assenting to the historical view of Christ and His claims, not to an unfounded and untenable position that He never existed or claims made about him were well after His or his contemporaries' times.