Hi Everyone. I’ve been studying the “Lord, Lunatic or Liar” (sometimes called the trilemma) argument. As I understand it, the argument is as follows:
1. Jesus was either Lord, a lunatic or a liar.
2. Jesus was not a lunatic or a liar.
3. Therefore, Jesus was lord.
My question is about the second premise—that Jesus was not a lunatic or a liar. Since Jesus was rejected by men, and since his life ended in crucifixion, he almost certainly wouldn’t have had an incentive to intentionally lie about who he was. However, how can we know that Jesus wasn’t a lunatic? I see three possibilities:
1. The evidence points overwhelmingly in the direction that Jesus wasn’t a lunatic.
2. The evidence points overwhelmingly in the direction that Jesus was a lunatic.
3. The evidence does not point overwhelmingly in either direction.
As a disclaimer, even though I believe the basic story line of the historical books within the New Testament is true, I don’t think the first premise in the “Lord, lunatic or liar” is valid, because there are there are theoretical alternatives (especially that the Jesus of the Bible was a legend, or that he never claimed to be all that people believe he is).
Jesus was sent to earth by God, his Father. He is not God as error in translation claims. He is the speaker at Proverbs 8= Gods master worker. It is not God speaking. He as well speaks at Psalm 82 and asks God to rise up and judge the earth, proving he is not God. Infact Jesus teaches all. he has a God, like we do his Father-John 20:17, Rev 3:12--Most refuse to believe him over error in translations.
In 1822, there was a bible translation that compared the Greek to the English and proved a god small g belongs in the last line at John 1:1- New Testament in Greek and English-1822--Other translations had it correct as well-New Test an improved version-1808-- Literal Trans of NT-1863-- Concise commentary bible-1885--plus others--all rejected by those believing the error translated in by the religion that came out of Rome, to fit false council teachings.