Was Jesus a Liar?

[keiw]

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.

 

[Caroljeen]

Do you seek things that you don't think

1. you need, and
2. exist

?

If not, why would I seek your god?

"I will only appear to those that seek", he says? Well, unfortunately, he made me so that I will only seek that which appears.

But since your process is backwards - "seek, then evidence", instead of "evidence, then seek" - this has no chance of happening...

I only sought God because I had something going on in my life and had no where else to turn. I didn't know who I was talking to, if he even heard me, or would answer me.

You don't have to seek my God. Just reach out to the unknown God and he will make himself known to you.

Maybe there is no chance of that happening in your life at the moment...I'll continue to pray for you.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I only sought God because I had something going on in my life and had no where else to turn. I didn't know who I was talking to, if he even heard me, or would answer me.

But you thought he might be there - why?
In any case, I don't, so I would - can could - not seek him until I did.

You don't have to seek my God. Just reach out to the unknown God and he will make himself known to you.

How do I confirm that it is the god making himself known, and that I am not misinterpreting?

What do you think will happen if I "reach out"? I am not interested in "funny feelings" or "sudden convictions", because these things can't be confirmed externally.

Maybe there is no chance of that happening in your life at the moment...I'll continue to pray for you.

A god that only appears to desperate seekers is no god I would want to worship.

I cannot fathom such a god's motives - "I want him to know that I exist, but I will wait until he cries out in abysmal suffering before I tell him"?
Nah.

 

[Caroljeen]

But you thought he might be there - why?
In any case, I don't, so I would - can could - not seek him until I did.

How do I confirm that it is the god making himself known, and that I am not misinterpreting?

What do you think will happen if I "reach out"? I am not interested in "funny feelings" or "sudden convictions", because these things can't be confirmed externally.

A god that only appears to desperate seekers is no god I would want to worship.

I cannot fathom such a god's motives - "I want him to know that I exist, but I will wait until he cries out in abysmal suffering before I tell him"?
Nah.

He can be found by all seekers but I had to be in a desperate situation in order for me to seek him. Why would anyone seek God if there wasn't a need or desire?
Why do you waste your time with Christians in arguing against something you don't believe exists?

 

[Eightcrackers]

He can be found by all seekers but I had to be in a desperate situation in order for me to seek him. Why would anyone seek God if there wasn't a need or desire?

My point exactly - if your god demands to be sought by all, but will not evoke the need in all, he can have no cause for complaint (or, rather, reprisal) when those without the need do not seek him.

Why do you waste your time with Christians in arguing against something you don't believe exists?

Christianity exists whether or not its god does, and it's Christianity's beliefs - not its god - that I oppose.

There is a difference between opposing a religion and opposing its god, whether or not you see or acknowledge it.

 

[keiw]

I only sought God because I had something going on in my life and had no where else to turn. I didn't know who I was talking to, if he even heard me, or would answer me.

You don't have to seek my God. Just reach out to the unknown God and he will make himself known to you.

Maybe there is no chance of that happening in your life at the moment...I'll continue to pray for you.

God is not unknown. There are many truths about him in the bible. His name is YHWH(Jehovah)= The Father, the one Jesus pointed all to-John 4:22-24

 

[Caroljeen]

My point exactly - if your god demands to be sought by all, but will not evoke the need in all, he can have no cause for complaint (or, rather, reprisal) when those without the need do not seek him.

I believe that God does invoke the need in all by allowing circumstances to occur that will provoke unbelievers to seek his face. God also draws people to himself. What worked for me may not work for you. But no matter what God does to try to bring the lost, all of the lost, to himself, He won't force anyone against their will. Those who do not seek him when he has actively drawn them over and over again will have no complaint when they are judged.

Christianity exists whether or not its god does, and it's Christianity's beliefs - not its god - that I oppose.

There is a difference between opposing a religion and opposing its god, whether or not you see or acknowledge it.

I see the points you make against the Christian religion. Sometimes I don't have a good response against them. Nor do I have all of the answers.

 

[Caroljeen]

God is not unknown. There are many truths about him in the bible. His name is YHWH(Jehovah)= The Father, the one Jesus pointed all to-John 4:22-24

I was alluding to Acts 17.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I believe that God does invoke the need in all by allowing circumstances to occur that will provoke unbelievers to seek his face.

I don't know how you square this belief with the fact that so many people die without ever having seen the need.

God also draws people to himself.

If we don't know it's him drawing us, that's no good to us is it...?

What worked for me may not work for you.

He knows what will work for me - if I die without him ever using it, how can that possibly be my fault?

He won't force anyone against their will.

Force them to do what? Believe? By refusing to convince me, he is forcing me not to believe - despite what many claim, belief is not a choice.

To love him? My chances of loving him are zero as long as he doesn't convince me that he exists.

 

[The Pixie]

Yes, He did.
Since only God is the proper recipient of prayer and Jesus taught that He is the proper recipient of prayer (John 14:14) constitutes a claim to be God.

It is worth noting that you go to a gospel written about 60 or more years later. What is there in the earlier gospels that support the claim that Jesus said he was God?

 

[The Pixie]

Just as Jesus calls for all of His followers to become sons of God as He was a son of God, there's also the fact that Jesus calls for all of His followers to be "resurrected" as He was "resurrected". Jesus was speaking figuratively. In creating the mythology about Jesus that the NT writers wrapped around the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel, they repeatedly took things Jesus said figuratively and made them literal. As a couple of more examples: giving "sight" to the "blind", bringing the "dead" to "life".

The Jews expected the coming of the messiah to herald a general resurrection for all the righteous. We can see from 1 Cor 15 that Paul still believed that and was preaching it even after he was a Christian.

The idea that the resurrection for all was only figurative seems to be a later idea - presumably because it failed to happen.

 

[Fred]

It is worth noting that you go to a gospel written about 60 or more years later. What is there in the earlier gospels that support the claim that Jesus said he was God?

Not only does the Gospel of John teach that Jesus claimed to be God (John 14:14), so do Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Mark 14:62 (cf. Matthew 26:64; Luke 22:69)
And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (ESV)

The Lord Jesus referenced to what is taught in Daniel 7:13. This is very significant because in Daniel 7:14 He is the proper recipient of pelach (worship).

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): His kingdom embraces all the powers of heaven and earth (4:35), yet never ending dominion is given to a human figure, whom all nations are to worship (7:13-14) (4:504, Theology of Daniel, J. Baldwin, Editor: Willem A. VanGemeren, the boldface is mine).

 

[The Pixie]

Not only does the Gospel of John teach that Jesus claimed to be God (John 14:14), so do Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Mark 14:62 (cf. Matthew 26:64; Luke 22:69)
And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (ESV)

The Lord Jesus referenced to what is taught in Daniel 7:13. This is very significant because in Daniel 7:14 He is the proper recipient of pelach (worship).

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): His kingdom embraces all the powers of heaven and earth (4:35), yet never ending dominion is given to a human figure, whom all nations are to worship (7:13-14) (4:504, Theology of Daniel, J. Baldwin, Editor: Willem A. VanGemeren, the boldface is mine).

Only if "son of man" was understood to be God at that time.

An alternative translation of pelach in Daniel 7:14 is to serve or to pay reverance to (see here), and this would fit with a man who was appointed as God to be the king of everyone. Hence, Daniel says the son of man was given authority by God. That is how the messiah was understood by Jews and I would say by early Christians, including Paul and Mark.

 

[Fred]

Only if "son of man" was understood to be God at that time.

It was, because the only one properly receiving pelach is God.

In fact, the early Christians used the "Son of Man" in reference to praying to the Lord Jesus - and only God is the proper recipient pf prayer.

The Son of Man (Jesus) is God (Daniel 7:14; Acts 7)

Daniel 7:13-14 (13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. (14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages...

forums.carm.org

 

[Algernon]

The Jews expected the coming of the messiah to herald a general resurrection for all the righteous. We can see from 1 Cor 15 that Paul still believed that and was preaching it even after he was a Christian.

The idea that the resurrection for all was only figurative seems to be a later idea - presumably because it failed to happen.

You have this backward.

Jesus preached His gospel well before Paul wrote His epistles. Jesus meant it figuratively. Paul changed it to a literal resurrection as a part of his gospel. Christianity has the Pauline "gospel" as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus.

 

[The Pixie]

You have this backward.

Jesus preached His gospel well before Paul wrote His epistles. Jesus meant it figuratively. Paul changed it to a literal resurrection as a part of his gospel. Christianity has the Pauline "gospel" as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus.

You have this backward.

Jesus preached His gospel well before the gospels were written. Jesus meant it literally (and Paul repeated that belief). The gospel writers changed it to a figurative resurrection as a part of their gospel. Christianity has the "gospels" as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus.

 

[Algernon]

You have this backward.

Jesus preached His gospel well before the gospels were written. Jesus meant it literally (and Paul repeated that belief). The gospel writers changed it to a figurative resurrection as a part of their gospel. Christianity has the "gospels" as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus.

By all means, show how you determined that Jesus meant it literally. Also show how you determined that the gospel writer changed it to a figurative resurrection.

 

[The Pixie]

By all means, show how you determined that Jesus meant it literally. Also show how you determined that the gospel writer changed it to a figurative resurrection.

By all means, show how you determined that Jesus meant it figuratively. Also show how you determined that Paul changed it to a literal resurrection.

We do not have Jesus' actual words so we can only speculate. We know the Jews of Jesus time - which would include his disciples, his family. all his earliest followers - but excluding the Sadducees - believed there would be a resurrection for all the righteous when the Messianic age. Jesus' discussion with the Sadducees in Mark 12 indicates this was Jesus belief as well.

Mark 12:23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”​

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.​

How does that fit with the resurrection being figurative? There is an assumption behind that whole discussion that the resurrection was for all; the Sadducees were trying to argue against that, Jesus was arguing for it. If it was figurative, Jesus would sure have said so, as that neatly resolves the issue.

 

[unbound]

Blessed are the cheesemakers. Praise Gouda.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Lewis' trilemma is a product of faulty reasoning. That so many buy into it is a product of willful ignorance and motivated "reasoning".

1) Jesus never claimed to be God.

Not true. ''Before Abraham was born, I am'', was a direct claim, and His critics well understood by their reaction and further validation of the claim later in GoJohn. You being a man claim to be God....Am paraphrasing.