christianity question

turnipmonster · #1 03-17-2005, 01:31 PM

I thought I'd make my own thread since I am curious about a specific point that I often hear. I'll try to paraphrase it, let me know if I get it wrong.

it's often said that either jesus was the craziest person who ever lived, or the son of god. this seems to be an either/or proposition. is it? if so, why?

--turnipmonster

PotatoStew · #2 03-17-2005, 02:29 PM

You're thinking of the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" trilemma, which says that he was either an evil liar, saying things he knew to be false and pretending to be something he knew he wasn't, or he was crazy, and thought he was devine when he really wasn't, or if he wasn't either of those, than he must have really been God.

However, many folks would say that this is a "false" trilemma -- there are other options, such as the possibility that elements of the gospel stories were made up, added on, or embellished. If that's the case, then one can't apply the Lord, liar or lunatic trilemma to Jesus, because we can't say for sure that the passages in question are an accurate representation of his behavior.

BluffTHIS! · #3 03-17-2005, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However, many folks would say that this is a "false" trilemma -- there are other options, such as the possibility that elements of the gospel stories were made up, added on, or embellished. If that's the case, then one can't apply the Lord, liar or lunatic trilemma to Jesus, because we can't say for sure that the passages in question are an accurate representation of his behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is merely lying by proxy and is thus included in the trilemma since Jesus did not write anything himself but instead allowed the apostles and their disciples to do so.

PotatoStew · #4 03-17-2005, 10:15 PM

But if this is the case then it isn't Jesus doing the lying, therefore it can't be used to draw any conclusions about Jesus' character. The (simplified) argument would be that Jesus being a liar doesn't fit with how he's portrayed in the gospels, so he must not have been a liar. But if it's the gospel writers doing the lying, then that undermines that line of thinking.

BluffTHIS! · #5 03-17-2005, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if this is the case then it isn't Jesus doing the lying, therefore it can't be used to draw any conclusions about Jesus' character. The (simplified) argument would be that Jesus being a liar doesn't fit with how he's portrayed in the gospels, so he must not have been a liar. But if it's the gospel writers doing the lying, then that undermines that line of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that the way Jesus is portrayed in the gospels, by the gospel writers, indicates that his character was such he wouldn't lie about those things, but that the gospels writers may have been lying about their positive portrayal of him in which case he actually didn't have a good character/valid message? This is a version of the paradox where you state that your next statment will be a lie and that statement is 'I'm a liar'.

PotatoStew · #6 03-17-2005, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that the way Jesus is portrayed in the gospels, by the gospel writers, indicates that his character was such he wouldn't lie about those things, but that the gospels writers may have been lying about their positive portrayal of him in which case he actually didn't have a good character/valid message? This is a version of the paradox where you state that your next statment will be a lie and that statement is 'I'm a liar'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. Also, please note that I'm not arguing against the gospels or Jesus' divinity, I'm just trying to explain why I (and many others) think the "trilemma" doesn't quite do the job that it attempts to (prove the divinity of Jesus). What I'm saying is this:

The idea behind the trilemma is that there are three options: Jesus is either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. If you can show that he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, then he *must* be Lord.

However, if it's possible that the gospel writers were lying -- and mind you it doesn't need to be all lies; maybe they just lied about Jesus' claims to divinity -- then it's possible that Jesus was neither Lord nor liar nor lunatic. He may have been a man who had a good character and a valid message who had some "exagerations" told about him by the gospel writers. That's one possible "fourth" option to the trilemma.

Also note that the "lies" don't necessarily need to be lies in the dishonest vindictive sense -- it could also be that the writers were adding elements to make a spiritual point, or communicate an idea allegorically.

Does that make more sense? Again, I'm not saying any of the above is actually the way it is, I'm just trying to show what I see as the flaw of the trilemma argument.

PairTheBoard · #7 03-18-2005, 01:31 AM

I think Jesus knew exactly what he was doing. He knew when he overturned the tables at the Temple that he would force his arrest and execution for sedition. He probably also pre-arranged for his body to be buried in an unmarked grave. He did this because he knew it would force his followers to concentrate on the spirit of his message rather than on his tomb. It was a master stroke of promotion which resulted in the transformation of the Western World. For all the arguments over theological peculiarities you can't argue with the Historical Results. The core message of Jesus continues to ring true with people and transform lives for the better despite all the sectarian disputes over Angels Dancing on Pins. This is a view of Christianity which is tolerated in many Mainstream Denominations. In Truth, Fundamenalist Christianity amounts to only a small segment of the Whole.

PairTheBoard

BluffTHIS! · #8 03-18-2005, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However, if it's possible that the gospel writers were lying -- and mind you it doesn't need to be all lies; maybe they just lied about Jesus' claims to divinity -- then it's possible that Jesus was neither Lord nor liar nor lunatic. He may have been a man who had a good character and a valid message who had some "exagerations" told about him by the gospel writers. That's one possible "fourth" option to the trilemma.

Also note that the "lies" don't necessarily need to be lies in the dishonest vindictive sense -- it could also be that the writers were adding elements to make a spiritual point, or communicate an idea allegorically.

Does that make more sense? Again, I'm not saying any of the above is actually the way it is, I'm just trying to show what I see as the flaw of the trilemma argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any misrepresentations by gospel writers as well as intentional lies by them or Jesus himself, all fall under the liar category of the trilemma since because Jesus didn't actually write the gospels himself, most of what we know about him and his message comes from those writers. The trilemma applies to Jesus and his message as we know both him and it from the gospels as they are actually portrayed since that is all we have concretely and not to any hypothetical Jesus someone might wish to substitute for same instead. Any misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise, vidictive or otherwise, by Jesus himself or the gospel writers, is still a lie since it is not the truth and thus falls under the liar part of the trilemma.

PotatoStew · #9 03-18-2005, 11:01 AM

I think we're going to be talking past each other here. Maybe it would be helpful if we explicitly agree on what the trilemma is saying. My understanding is that the initial premise of the argument is this:

Jesus was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or he was Lord.

Do you agree that this is the initial premise of the argument we're discussing?

turnipmonster · #10 03-18-2005, 11:33 AM

Jesus was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or he was Lord.

this is of course what I was thinking of. can anyone recommend any books that discuss this, preferably from both angles? thanks.

--turnipmonster