christianity question

[turnipmonster]

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]

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!]

[ 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]

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!]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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

[dr_venkman]

Jesus was a brown skinned, Mid-East terrorist (Function: noun: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. I.E: threat of plagues, disasters and an eternity in Hell) bent on unbalancing the power of the Roman government, reducing the amount of control they had on their citizens, and ultimately destroying the legitimacy of the Ceasar. He was so intent on proving that he was Lord that he went so far as to embrace martydom... not much unlike Jim Jones or David Koresh.

If he were alive today he'd be in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba... with all the other terrorists, under the watchful of the eye of the American military.

So when Bush says Jesus is on our side, he may be speaking both religiously and literally. Jesus is on our side alright... neatly trussed up, hogtied and locked away somewhere safe. He won't be causing any more headaches for the current bunch of Imperialists, by God.

[PotatoStew]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus was a brown skinned, Mid-East terrorist (Function: noun: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. I.E: threat of plagues, disasters and an eternity in Hell) bent on unbalancing the power of the Roman government, reducing the amount of control they had on their citizens, and ultimately destroying the legitimacy of the Ceasar.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be trolling... uh, I mean kidding. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." That doesn't sound at all like someone trying to destroy Caesar's legitimacy. Jesus was rather apolitical, and didn't really seem to be too concerned with Roman rule. I would love to see you actually try to back up your assertions with some data or reasoning.

[andyfox]

If someone today said he was the son of God, and believed it to be so, we'd think he was crazy, no? One would think there'd be a much higher chance of him being crazy than it being true.