Lord,Liar or Lunatic

[sin_is_fun]

This is one question often asked by believers. "Either Jesus is lord,or liar or lunatic.Which view do you support?"

This question appears downright straight forward.It gives only 3 options.But the question is actually not straight forward and innocent as it appears.

The common man will hesitate a lot to say Jesus was a liar or lunatic..So then only the third alternative remains.

But I consider this question to be wrong.Why?

1.It doesnt include the other options.That is "Jesus never said those words"/"jesus never existed"/"He was misquoted"

Now these option changes the question to "Were the gospel writers liars,lunatics or true historians"?

There is no justification in asking the lord liar or lunatic question about jesus.Had he written a book we can ask that question.But he never wrote any book.What we have is "Reports on his words".So we have to question the genuineess of that report first before questioning the truthfulness of the speaker's words.

So the question should be "Were Matthew,mark,luke and john liars,true historians or lunatics?"

On further inspection we should still refine this question.Because this question implies that

1.Matthew,mark,luke and John existed
2.They wrote the supposed portions of Bible.
3.we have them exactly as they reported.

Bible passed on as oral traditions for some time.45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

So now the question becomes

1.The people who heard bible,memorized it and passed it to others did so without any change in its text for many years.Yes or no?

The theory of chinese whispers comes to my mind.When 20 people are in a room and we say a sentence to one person and if he passes it to others secretly, the statement that emerges from the last person will be totally different from the initial statement.They will be totally different.

when one sentence changes like this what about a whole book?

So the "Liar,lord or lunatic" is a wrong question according to me.

What do you all think?

[Cephus]

That seems pretty conclusive then! Very many millions believe in those. The Qur'an of course holds to the existence of heaven and souls, being a crude re-write, after the facts, of the Bible (imv, of course). The Vedas reflect belief in the immortal soul (atman), as do the Upanishads, as do religions of many regions and eras from the earliest, to those of ancient Egypt, to the ancestor-worship of modern Japan. Lack of belief in an after-life is very modern, as far as I can see, and, as is commonly reputed, there are no atheists in a sinking ship.

Argumentum ad populum That's a logical fallacy. Pretty much everyone once believed the earth was flat, didn't make it so. Do try again.

Where is the objective proof that what you write is true? And does the majority of humanity care about 'objective proof' anyway?

If they're intelligent they do.

[trencacloscas]

What evidence is there that the Bible authors were committing to record a pre-existent tradition? If they were, does it have any bearing on the truth of that record?

Archaeological, for starters. Check "The Hebrew Myths" by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai as an introduction.

[Tilia]

What evidence is there that the Bible authors were committing to record a pre-existent tradition? If they were, does it have any bearing on the truth of that record?

Archaeological, for starters. Check "The Hebrew Myths" by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai as an introduction

.
That may not be the evidence asked for. Produce the evidence here.

[gonkm]

There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

The 'evidence' in the Bible is about as convincing as the 'evidence' in the Qu'ran or the 'evidence' in the Vedas. They are just claims that are not supported by objective proof, or in many case, that fly in the face of objective proof. In fact, it's really no more objectively convincing than using H.P. Lovecraft to prove that Cthulhu exists.

Anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others does not accept the teaching of Jesus, who specifically told his disciples to walk away from those who did not accept their gospel.

Good, let's tell all the people who are pushing for a gay-marriage ban that they're not Christian. Let's tell the people who want to put creationism and the ten commandments into school classrooms that they're not Christian. That should cut down on the poll numbers quite a bit, don't you think?

Basically the evidence in the bible is no more than any other historical evidence. It can not be "proved" because the only statements that can be proved according to the scientific method, must be repeatable.

The true evidence for the bible exists within the heart. For those who are not relativists, it exists within a natural morality that each person finds within himself. Nobody quite live up to this morality if they are perfectly honest with themselves. But this I mean consistantly all the time. The apostle Paul said in Romans 7:19 "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. "

So the true evidence for the bible is in fact subjective. It exists when the holy spirit convicts you of your sin and makes you realize you need a savior. Because Jesus paid for your sins you can begin a new life free to do the "good works he has set before us". Whereas we were once slaves to all the ways of the world, money, pride, owning 'stuff', beauty, intelligence, power, etc., we now become slaves to righteousness, goodnes, love for others. By making Jesus our Lord we are set free from sin. We are forgiven. We live with a wonderful creator who cares, and is the meaning in what we do. In my quote from Paul above he says that the evil he does is not what he wants to do. Living in Christ, brings us more and more closely to doing and desiring to do the go that He brought us into this world to accomplish.

So we can argue back and forth about the exact wording of different parts of the bible and supposed "contradictions". But the bible is not and was not ever meant to be a logicians manuel. It is a book which tells the reality of the human condition. Much like Jesus who was both man and God, the bible was written by humans, but inspired by god. One think that is emphasized over and over again in the bible with no contradication is that Jesus literally rose from the dead. He confirmed his authority to forgive sins and his deity in this way once and for all. It is my understanding that the original followers of Christ died similar deaths, and this in my understanding edifies my belief that they were trustworthy if they were willing to go to such lengths to show to the worth that their faith in Christ was real. But again any belief in Christ does not start with deep knowledge of scripture, but the realization that one is a sinner or does wrong, and will have to pay for it some day, but that the good news is that Christ paid for it for them.

[Cathar1950]

sin_is_fun wrote:

Now these option changes the question to "Were the gospel writers liars,lunatics or true historians"?
There is no justification in asking the lord liar or lunatic question about jesus.Had he written a book we can ask that question.But he never wrote any book.What we have is "Reports on his words".So we have to question the genuineess of that report first before questioning the truthfulness of the speaker's words.
So the question should be "Were Matthew,mark,luke and john liars,true historians or lunatics?"
On further inspection we should still refine this question.Because this question implies that
1.Matthew,mark,luke and John existed
2.They wrote the supposed portions of Bible.
3.we have them exactly as they reported.

So the "Liar,lord or lunatic" is a wrong question according to me.

What do you all think?

Well finally some one defends Jesus. I don't think he is God so I think he sometimes needs to be defended from Christians.
The answer is Yes and Yes.
Lets put the blame where it belongs. The Bible writers! In this case the NT
writers. We also have to blame the people(comittee) hired by Constantine to decide what was the accepted text. Although there were traditions before that but they often disagreed.

Were the gospel writers liars,lunatics or true historians"?

They may have been the first two but not the third.
They were not trying to write history but propaganda in it's most genus form they knew. Who ever they were.
The Early Church record, according to most scholars and the records, didn't know who wrote them none were even mentioned until the 2nd century. later tradition gave them names which later scholarship has show to be in error. Due mostly to the dates and internal evidence.
It wasn't even good hearsay. We have no original sources or copies of copies.
We know there were addition changes and forgeries in the stuff we do have and we know lots was destroyed by those in power given to them by Constantine.
Tilia wrote:

It is useless to look for formal proof that Christianity is right or wrong; and indeed I think it is wrong to even seek to prove Christianity in that way. The charge given to the church is to preach the gospel, and to live it, as evidence of its truth; those who are to believe it will do so, and those who are not, will not.

He might have a small point here about useless but I question about what he calls wrong. I might agree on his "charge given to the church" there is no way of knowing this was the original charge. In fact the evidence seems to point in all kinds of directions.
I belive the kind of "truth" they talked about was in the living. Faith and belive are a walk, faithfulness, trust, and not a proposition.
But because they are Bible believers they are forced to argue a non winning battle.
Tilia wrote:

There is evidence in the Bible. Some may not consider it good evidence, and others may consider it very good evidence, but dislike that evidence enough to claim mendaciously that it is not good evidence, but evidence it undoubtedly is.

No it isn't! It may persuade you, but it isn't evidence. You have to have some kind of argument or question for evidence. You have a presupposed belive system, highly personal and quaint I might add, and a presupposed Bible.
Tilia wrote:

Anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others does not accept the teaching of Jesus, who specifically told his disciples to walk away from those who did not accept their gospel.

Which teachings of Jesus? There you go again deciding who is Christian.
They have been forcing them upon people for 1600 years. They all said they were Christians and killed anyone who didn't belive their form of worship or doctrines.
Tilia wrote:

Christians do not stay where they are not wanted. Any religion that practises enforced enrolment is not Christian, and if it claims to be, it is anti-Christian. The authentic Christian response is quite the reverse, i.e. to be extremely careful about who is accepted as being Christian.

This is not shown to be an historical reality.
but when it is pointed out;

I agree entirely, but of course this is not Christianity. It is actually the very reverse of Christianity, a false, toothless version of it to displace real Christianity, which threatens evil men and their pursuits. It is this unwitting testimony of false Christians that is powerful evidence that Christianity is indeed the truth.

How can that be any kind of evidence of the truth of Christianity that alone powerful evidence?
Tilia wrote:

What evidence is there that the Bible authors were committing to record a pre-existent tradition? If they were, does it have any bearing on the truth of that record?

Quote:
There are many books around the world in different cultures, even older and wiser than the Bible, why consider this one special?

How is it known that other books are wiser? The Bible has been a best-seller since before the invention of printing, despite opposition from religious and political agencies. How can that be explained?

Why do people buy pet rocks?
Tilia wrote:

Is that 'pushing' by democratic means, for democratic rights? Are Christians or any other group to be denied those means and rights?

It is if you are using the idea of an infallible bible or religion as your guide and force your views upon others. In fact it should be against the law.
But it is just against the constitution, for now.
Tilia wrote:

Christians tell them that, though very few want to listen, and even fewer to their reasons. But again, if one has democracy, one has to put up with people one does not agree with, and produce convincing arguments to persuade voters that they are wrong, and not whinge about them.

If they are being threatened with hell because they don't belive as you or live as you, I don't think it is persuasion but cohersion or "mental rape".
gonkm wrote:

Basically the evidence in the bible is no more than any other historical evidence. It can not be "proved" because the only statements that can be proved according to the scientific method, must be repeatable.

I think that scientific analysis can be applied. Einstein did his work with out repeatability and he was still doing science theoretical yes but still science.
I think archeology is now a science.

gonkm wrote:

So we can argue back and forth about the exact wording of different parts of the bible and supposed "contradictions". But the bible is not and was not ever meant to be a logicians manuel. It is a book which tells the reality of the human condition. Much like Jesus who was both man and God, the bible was written by humans, but inspired by god. One think that is emphasized over and over again in the bible with no contradication is that Jesus literally rose from the dead. He confirmed his authority to forgive sins and his deity in this way once and for all. It is my understanding that the original followers of Christ died similar deaths, and this in my understanding edifies my belief that they were trustworthy if they were willing to go to such lengths to show to the worth that their faith in Christ was real. But again any belief in Christ does not start with deep knowledge of scripture, but the realization that one is a sinner or does wrong, and will have to pay for it some day, but that the good news is that Christ paid for it for them.

The Bible, a collection of books, is not the only book to tell

reality of the human condition

It tells many precived realities among many others. There are many interpretations and questions, within Christianity and out side, concerning what it means by Jesus

rose from the dead

, as well as

Code: Select all

his deity.

I think he gave us(humans) the authority to forgive sins. Or maybe the responsiblity and joy. I question the idea that God needs a sacrifice or anything was paid or needed to be paid.
The good news was "The Kingdom of God" not Jesus.
Thank you for your support.

[gonkm]

I think he gave us(humans) the authority to forgive sins. Or maybe the responsiblity and joy. I question the idea that God needs a sacrifice or anything was paid or needed to be paid.
The good news was "The Kingdom of God" not Jesus.
Thank you for your support.

The authority to forgive sins ... but whose sins? I agree completely that we all have the authority to forgive those who sin against us. But what about someone who sinned against someone else? What I'm getting at is what if I did something to myself that did not hurt anyone else (like maybe getting drunk and passing out in the privacy of my own home). This may be considered a sin against myself and God. Does someone else "a better Christian" have the authority to forgive my sin (other than God)?

Also, what do you think "The Kingdom of God" is?

[Cathar1950]

Any one we can.
If Jesus could forgive sin then we can.
What makes you think you have sinned against God getting drunk.
He forgave when he healed someone.
People thought that sin caused all illness.
God forgives sins but I am saying Jesus was like us and not a half breed.

The Kingdom of God was about love, mercy and justice not about Jesus.

[gonkm]

Any one we can.
If Jesus could forgive sin then we can.
What makes you think you have sinned against God getting drunk.
He forgave when he healed someone.
People thought that sin caused all illness.
God forgives sins but I am saying Jesus was like us and not a half breed.

The Kingdom of God was about love, mercy and justice not about Jesus.

So if a good friend of yours rapes a 13 year old girl, you can forgive his sin? And God will uphold your forgiveness as making your friend righteous? Sounds like getting enough people with such power together, and you've got a bunch of rapists and murderers forgiving eachother into Heaven.

[Cathar1950]

gonkm wrote:

So if a good friend of yours rapes a 13 year old girl, you can forgive his sin? And God will uphold your forgiveness as making your friend righteous? Sounds like getting enough people with such power together, and you've got a bunch of rapists and murderers forgiving eachother into Heaven.

Sounds like you jumped to some unwarranted conclusions.
You also used an outlandish example and off the topic.
Your playing games. What ever you think it sounds like does not lead to your conclusion.
If a good friend of mine does that I would first be very surprized wouldn't you if your good friend did that. Do you think anything I think about forgiveness would stop rapes? Is that why you don't rape 13 year olds is because no one will forgive you but God thru Jesus. Does any of that count?
I may forgive his sin we all may even after 20 years in prison. Does God?
It is up to God. It would seem to me if you belive Jesus died to forgive sins then that would cause more rapes wouldn't it? I think there was a bunch of rapist and murderers forgiving each other and going to heaven they called it the crusades. And don't blame the Catholics it is the Protestants heritage also. Protestants burned a lot of "Witches" and Anabaptists.

[Cathar1950]

Calling someone Lord does not imply divinity. It is an act of honor.
A title, like Kings are called Lord.
I see no reason that God needs a sacrifice to forgive our sins. And we don't have to have a fallen nature to sin. There was no Adam and Eve, as described in the Bible, that brought sin into the world. Therefor no Jesus that was needed to take it out. Paul was pushing his lack of reasoning. It is something we work on it is the human reaching beyond their reach.
I think the Bible Believers suffer from magical cheap easy grace with no substance. God is Spirit or God is wind was one persons statement not a definition of God. "he will send his angels as spirits" I heard in hebrew it would be more like he sends the wind(s) as messengers. Makes more sense to me and it is kind of poetic.