C.S.Lewis Quadrochotomy : Liar, Lunatic, Lord or Lunatic Lord

[The Nice Centurion]

I posted this on Theology and Dogma, but since its about an apologetic argument lets make it a topic here.
(If you are not familar enough with C.S.Lewis original trilemma, please Google is your apologetic friend!)

[Replying to bjs1 in post #20]
But, friend, what if that claiming was right and still he was insane ???

Makes you shudder, no ???

In this case Jesus was some sort of Azag-Thoth with a beard and a flair for baptizing infants

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azathoth


Extending that theory it makes C.S.Lewis False Trichotomy " Lunatic Liar or Lord " untrue even in the case we take it as a true and sound trilemma.

For the trichotomy in itself proves itself unsound for leaving out the possibility four : " Lunatic AND Lord ! "

Of course most people know today, that Lewis Trilemma is unsound, cause it is false . There are lots more of possibilitys of what he was if he ever even existed. An that he never existed is one of the possibilitys C.S.Lewis forgot.

Therefore, to say it again, my debate topic is in frame as if the Trilemma would be taken as true.

So am I right that even that it would prove itself as untrue 'cause the trilemma itself proves that it must be presented as a Quadremma ????

Why Liar cannot be in connection with one or two of the other is because " Liar " here is understood as about his claiming to be Lord and he logically cant Lie to be Lord while being Lord.

But Lunacy is here understood as a general state of mind, therefore I choose that even in the frame of Lewis apologetic argument it can be connected with Lord!

Questions for debate :

1)Is all this my reasoning sound?

2) What about the possibility; "Jesus was led on"
He was nothing of the four choices, but something/someone managed to make him falsely believe he was Lord. Possibly one of the Apostles in his company was a hebraic David Copperfield or the real Lord or an alien with superpowers and disguised his deeds as alleged miracles of Jesus.
So Jesus was led to believe he was Lord without being Liar or Lunatic!

Am I right that this is the possibility that comes to mind first if C.S.Lewis had been forced to make it a Pentalemma bzw. a Pentachotomy ???

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I think some previous misunderstandings are cleared up, so I won’t add anything to those. Both of us should have halted the shift to talking about morality already, so I’ll do that now as that is obviously off-topic, but a good topic to pursue. If you want to have that discussion with me elsewhere, I’d be open to that.

As to the options (at least outside of Lewis’ direct context) for who Jesus is, we agree that Lord, liar, and lunatic aren’t the only options to consider. I say there is a fourth option that I call “legend” which I would include your “unreliable story” under, but you distinguish them. You also would split “lunatic” into two options, while I think delusion and mental disease would both be included under “lunatic”. I’ve nothing new to say on why I would treat those as the same.

And I’ve got nothing else than that.

Ok. Provided that there are other options that unseat the claims of Lord, in addition to Liar and lunatic, legend, untrue story, self delusion of Jesus part, you may add more or subdivide any of them. The point is that C.S Lewis' proposition is wrong and blinkered, by overlooking pretty obvious alternatives. Either he was dumb, deceitful or deluded, and it does't matter which, the apologetic is still failed.

And there's nothing I need to say beyond that.

[The Nice Centurion]

And that he never existed is one of the possibilitys C.S.Lewis forgot.

No, and I cannot imagine anyone who has actually read Lewi’s argument thinking that this applies. Lewis was addressing the concept of Jesus as a good moral teacher outside of a religious setting. Jesus’ moral teaching was built on his divinity, and makes sense when seen through that lens.

If Jesus is not God then his moral teaching was dangerous, destructive, and maybe even disgusting. Jesus himself was either a mad man or a horrific liar.

If Jesus did not exist and was created by someone else, that just pushes back who the mad man or liar was. If Jesus did not exist, or if he taught a more human ethic that was later changed by his biographers, then it is those biographers who were mentally unbalanced or among the most fiendish and despicable liars in all history.

Changing the words of Jesus from a human moralist to the character we see in the gospels would not be like the stories of Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves before founding Rome. Nor would it be like Homer’s take on Achilles. There is subtlety, nuance, and focus in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ claim to Divinity. If Jesus was a human teacher whose biographers later changed into a God, then those biographers deceived people intentionally and with great malice (liars), or they were delusional on the level of a man saying that he can climb a rainbow (lunatics).

The core of Lewis’ argument – that the moral teaching attributed to Jesus only makes sense if Jesus is God – holds true.

1)Is all this my reasoning sound?

No, it misrepresents what a trichotomy is. A trichotomy means that one of three options must be true. It does not mean that only one of them can be true. So a trichotomy would include the possibility that Jesus is a lunatic and the Lord, or that he was a liar and a lunatic, or that all three are true.

A trichotomy does not limit the number of options that can be true. However, taking 2 or more options as true is an unnecessary complication that would have been despised by William of Ockham (who coined Occam’s razor).

2) What about the possibility; "Jesus was led on"
He was nothing of the four choices, but something/someone managed to make him falsely believe he was Lord. Possibly one of the Apostles in his company was a hebraic David Copperfield or the real Lord or an alien with superpowers and disguised his deeds as alleged miracles of Jesus.
So Jesus was led to believe he was Lord without being Liar or Lunatic!

No. No sane person could be led to believe that he is literally God. Even we take a silly response like “Aliens!” it would still require an insane person to actually think that he is big “G” God.

One more possibility: Jesus was Lemurian. What if the prominent lost continent Lemuria was home of people who were all big "G" Gods. That way Jesus told the truth and was still fatally misunderstood by the Apostles because of their different culture, understanding and expectations.
"Lemurian" covers also all kinds of misunderstandings, cultural differences, aliens.

So not even God could make a person believe he is him without making him insane???

For this to work you would be saying that there is a God. Is that what you are arguing in favor of?
God could make a person believe that he/she is God. The only way to accomplish this would be rewire the person’s brain so that it did not function the way a normal brain does – which in practice is the definition of insanity.

I did not say there is a God, but while debating apologetics a God has room in a speculation.

A wizard with godlike powers would also do.

So God is not almighty? He is unable to just magic someone to believe he is him without rewriting his brain?

And it was only an example of how Jesus could have been Led on.

I say C.S.Lewis was creating an apologetic argument.

Then I say that you have not read Lewis.

Lewis in essence meant to say that Jesus could have been anything that begims with an L. !

Jesus teaching was copyed from Jainism.
Therefore no brandnew miraculous teaching!

No one familiar with both Jainism and the New Testament could reasonably think that.

Do read less C.S.Lewis and more Richard Carrier !!!

" Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend or Led on " is therefore the nicest Pentachotomy or Pentalemma !!!

Legend is just a re-write of the Liar and Lunatic options, pushing back who the liar or lunatic is by one degree. “Led on” is ridiculous. Since you have not responded the argument about why “led on” is false, there is really nothing left for me to say.

Legend does not mean : " Some Lunatic suddenly felt the desire to sit down and write a Lie! "

Legend can, for example, come to be if a story gets exagerrated over time. And often misunderstood maybe.

The perfect Heptalemma: " Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Lunatic Lord, Legend, Led on or Lemurian " !

[bjs1]

I did not say there is a God, but while debating apologetics a God has room in a speculation.

A wizard with godlike powers would also do.

Please limit yourself to options you consider plausible.

So God is not almighty? He is unable to just magic someone to believe he is him without rewriting his brain?

The Almighty cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot make a person both delusional and not delusional at the same time.

And it was only an example of how Jesus could have been Led on.

Then give us one example of “led on” that doesn’t require the person to be delusional.

I say C.S.Lewis was creating an apologetic argument.

Then I say that you have not read Lewis.

Lewis in essence meant to say that Jesus could have been anything that begims with an L. !

Alliteration: Noun; the occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent or closely connected words.

Jesus teaching was copyed from Jainism.
Therefore no brandnew miraculous teaching!

No one familiar with both Jainism and the New Testament could reasonably think that.

Do read less C.S.Lewis and more Richard Carrier !!!

Or try reading Agam Sutras.

Through if you are going to make bold claims about what Lewis wrote, you should first read what Lewis wrote.

" Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend or Led on " is therefore the nicest Pentachotomy or Pentalemma !!!

Legend is just a re-write of the Liar and Lunatic options, pushing back who the liar or lunatic is by one degree. “Led on” is ridiculous. Since you have not responded the argument about why “led on” is false, there is really nothing left for me to say.

Legend does not mean : " Some Lunatic suddenly felt the desire to sit down and write a Lie! "

Legend can, for example, come to be if a story gets exagerrated over time. And often misunderstood maybe.

Correct, and it makes no sense here. Lewis was making a point about Jesus as a moral teacher. If the words came from Jesus or from someone else, the end result is still a teaching coming from a man who is either delusional, intentionally trying to deceive people, or God.

In this case the timeline makes “exaggerated over time,” virtually impossible.

[The Nice Centurion]

Before I anwer your answers;

1)Please clarify here: Is the ... Uh what count are we? ... Lewis Heptalemma about Jesus saying he is God or about his allegedly sensational teaching or about both?

2)You think it to be a good and valid apologetic ?

3) Since you said nothing against Lemurian I understand that you accept the possibility that Jesus was from Lemuria into Lewis abomination of an apologetic argument?

4) More possibilitys:

Since we both agree that everything beginning with an L should be included, what do you think of " Left over from a spaceship " (alien) ?

Or Jesus was a PC game Char that somehow came to life "Leisure Suit Larry" or if you insist Leisure suit Jesus.

Or another possible possibility addition would be: "Lewis was just a Doofus"

"Liberal" If Jesus was a Liberal, could it not also explain a lot?

"Logical fallacy" Jesus was a logical fallacy given flesh.

"Landlord" Jesus was not Lord, but Landlord to the apostles. (Though that would go under " misunderstanding " and is covered by "Lemurian" !

"Lama" (only a fantastic human teacher)
https://www.gotquestions.org/quintilemma.html

But since this Lewis apologetic takes for granted that Jesus said he was God in person/Son of God/Full god and full human, wouldnt then Lama not already covered by Liar?

[bjs1]

1)Please clarify here: Is the ... Uh what count are we? ... Lewis Heptalemma

We are still in a trilemma. No new options have been presented.

about Jesus saying he is God or about his allegedly sensational teaching or about both?

It was about Jesus as a moral teacher in light of the fact that he consistently claimed to be God throughout all four Gospels and built his ethical teaching on that foundation.

2)You think it to be a good and valid apologetic ?

I think Lewis’ argument remains valid.

Since we both agree that everything beginning with an L

Only you think that. I was trying to find a polite way of saying that your words are absurd. Appreantly I was too subtle.

wouldnt then Lama not already covered by Liar?

You have said it yourself. All other possibilities put forth in this thread have been a re-write of the lunatic or liar option. Either Jesus (or his biographers) was insane or driven insane or someone took advantage of his insanity (lunatic). Or Jesus (or his biographers) intentionally set out deceive people in some of the most harmful ways possible. Or Jesus (and his biographers) was truthful.

Ok, technically there was also an ad hominin against Lewis. But ad hominins are not arguments; they are the last attack of those whose arguments have been proven false.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #25]

It was about Jesus as a moral teacher in light of the fact that he consistently claimed to be God throughout all four Gospels and built his ethical teaching on that foundation. 

I tend to agree with Lewis that Jesus could not simply have held an erroneous religious belief. If a man genuinely believed that he was God, and the belief was not true, then I would have to call him a lunatic. A man who believes himself to be a microwave oven is saner than a man who believes himself to be God.

That's the thing. The only place Jesus might have indicated that he believed himself to be God was in John 8:58, written c. 110 by a school with a high Christology for the 2nd Century.

This !!!

And all serious scholars today agree that Jesus never said to be God.

That he did is only a religious fundie perspective.

L.T. builds on that perspective!

So much to Jesus saying to be god.
(But for the sake of argument we shall go along with Lewis while debating his Emma, but nonetheless he got his base facts wrong!)
Son of god? Literary or metaphorically?*Barf*
Full Human and Full god? Really?In the Gospels?*Barf Blargh *

FACT 1 WRONG

Next Jesus was a moral teacher (Lewis assumes a lot) and built his teachinng on wrong fact 1.
You cant build on sething that doesnt exist.

FACT 2 WRONG

LEWIS: Jesus teaching was sensational, godlike wise and original new!
(Yeah right. Who is delusional now?)

FACT 3 WRONG

LEWIS: Unless Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic. Then his teaching was criminal and old stuff and satans school!
(That Lion-story-writer speaks against himself here. He cant have it two ways.)

FACT 4 WRONG AND A LOGICAL FALLACY.


AND WITH ALL THAT HOGWASH WE HAVE TO GO ALONG IF WE EVEN BEGIN TO DEBATE LEWIS EMMA.

BUT WHATEVER; HERE WE GO.

Oh and the abrahamitic god in the first century was not necessarily as understood to be as today or just back in Lewis time! But Lewis just assumes. So he got a

FACT 5 WRONG

Lewis wants to SHOVEL THE READER TO :LORD!

Therefore he give this word at the end of his Trilemma.

That is not Wrong fact, but bad and dishonest Behaving.

LETS CALL IT ERROR 6


Also for now lets call his emma a Hexalemma
I might have been wrong with Lunatic Lord if Liar and Lunatic are understood about wrongly calling oneself Lord it would be impossible to be two or three of Lewis origal emma at once.

Lets settle for now for:

Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend, Led on or Lemurian !

What do you say ?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #25]

Ok. That will do. If you want to conflate either Jesus of the gospel - writers as liars or lunatic, and even if one conflated Liar and lunatic into one category, it would still be not only be a valid alternative to 'Jesus really was 'Lord' but would (arguably) be a better alternative. It's what is argued here, but just the valid alternative to 'Lord' scuppers Lewis' proposition.

It is very much in the line of other invalid claims like the empty tomb to cosmic origins and OOB/OBE's to Abioogenesis - 'what other explanation can there be?' And. as we have often seen, alternatives are dismissed as opinion, without evidence and the views of biased unbelievers, and thus not worth listening to. But logically, an alternative hypothesis, unless debunked with logic and evidence better than: I see no reason to believe you' is valid, and sinks the 'no other explanation' fallacy. Lord, Liar or Lunatic being one of the more notorious, along with 'The disciples would not die for a lie'.

Below plimsoll line, these apologetics Fail.

[The Nice Centurion]

I did not say there is a God, but while debating apologetics a God has room in a speculation.

A wizard with godlike powers would also do.

Please limit yourself to options you consider plausible.

Hey, whats that?
You think that the illogical madness of a person Full God and Full Human at the same time can exist and a Wizard goes beyond your comprehension?

Question: If Peter the magician had taken away Jesus Full humanity AND Jesus Full godgonity, what would have been left?

So God is not almighty? He is unable to just magic someone to believe he is him without rewriting his brain?

The Almighty cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot make a person both delusional and not delusional at the same time.

He hasnt even the almight of a stage magician? Cant hypnotize someone?

And it was only an example of how Jesus could have been Led on.

Then give us one example of “led on” that doesn’t require the person to be Lunatic.

A thousand ways and more. Hypnotic, a migjty wixard lent Jesus his powers . . .

I say C.S.Lewis was creating an apologetic argument.

Then I say that you have not read Lewis.

Lewis wanted to push his readers to "Lord"! Yes or no? And why did Lewis put "Lord" last so to make the reader "arrive at the conclusion?"

Lewis in essence meant to say that Jesus could have been anything that begims with an L. !

Alliteration: Noun; the occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent or closely connected words.

I was ironic of course. Wanted to show how Lewis even enslaved metrics for his slimy apologetic.

[bjs1]

So much to Jesus saying to be god.

There are many threads on the topic of Jesus claiming to be God in the gospels. Feel free to jump in on any of them or start a new one.

For the moment will you agree that virtually everyone – more than 98% of those who have studied the gospels – agrees that Jesus regularly claimed to be God? Even the more extreme groups like historical Jesus scholars, whose stated goal is to find the human Jesus behind the Gospels, agree that the four Gospels present Jesus as the capital “G” God.

(But for the sake of argument we shall go along with Lewis while debating his Emma, but nonetheless he got his base facts wrong!)
Son of god? Literary or metaphorically?*Barf*
Full Human and Full god? Really?In the Gospels?*Barf Blargh *

Ah… “barf.” Well, how can I argue with such a well thought out and eloquently stated argument?

FACT 1 WRONG

Next Jesus was a moral teacher (Lewis assumes a lot) and built his teachinng on wrong fact 1.
You cant build on sething that doesnt exist.

Jesus’ teach was built on his divinity. Now it is possible that he was not God, which means that he was building on something that doesn’t exist. Hence the liar and lunatic possibilities. That is exactly what Lewis’ argument was about.

FACT 2 WRONG

LEWIS: Jesus teaching was sensational, godlike wise and original new!
(Yeah right. Who is delusional now?)

I’m not sure if “sensational” is the right word. I have not used that word.

It is true that very little of Jesus’ teaching was original or new. He built his ethical teaching on the Old Testament, redefining and explaining that teaching through his claim to be God.

FACT 3 WRONG

LEWIS: Unless Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic. Then his teaching was criminal and old stuff and satans school!
(That Lion-story-writer speaks against himself here. He cant have it two ways.)

Lewis did not speak against himself. Lewis accepted Jesus’ teaching because Lewis accepted that Jesus is God. Had Lewis rejected that belief, he would have also rejected Jesus’ teaching because, as Lewis correctly stated, if Jesus was not God then he was a fiendish liar or a mad man.

FACT 4 WRONG AND A LOGICAL FALLACY.


AND WITH ALL THAT HOGWASH WE HAVE TO GO ALONG IF WE EVEN BEGIN TO DEBATE LEWIS EMMA.

BUT WHATEVER; HERE WE GO.

I await an actual reason to reject what Lewis wrote. None has yet been provided.

Oh and the abrahamitic god in the first century was not necessarily as understood to be as today or just back in Lewis time! But Lewis just assumes. So he got a

Lewis wrote in 1952. What exactly do we know about the Abrahamic God that we did not know 70 years ago?



FACT 5 WRONG

Lewis wants to SHOVEL THE READER TO :LORD!

Therefore he give this word at the end of his Trilemma.

That is not Wrong fact, but bad and dishonest Behaving.
[/quote]

Because his argument is commonly phrased with "Lord" last? Are you being serious at this point?

If that is behaving dishonestly, how should people view your words?

LETS CALL IT ERROR 6

Also for now lets call his emma a Hexalemma

It is still a trilemma.

I might have been wrong with Lunatic Lord if Liar and Lunatic are understood about wrongly calling oneself Lord it would be impossible to be two or three of Lewis origal emma at once.

Lets settle for now for:

Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend, Led on or Lemurian !

What do you say ?

Still Liar, Lord or Lunatic. The others are just re-writes of those options, and you have yet to even attempt to provide a reason why they should not be seen as such.

[bjs1]

I did not say there is a God, but while debating apologetics a God has room in a speculation.

A wizard with godlike powers would also do.

Please limit yourself to options you consider plausible.

Hey, whats that?
You think that the illogical madness of a person Full God and Full Human at the same time can exist and a Wizard goes beyond your comprehension?

I have limited my options to those that I consider plausible. I asked you to do the same.

Question: If Peter the magician had taken away Jesus Full humanity AND Jesus Full godgonity, what would have been left?

I’m not sure how “Peter the magician” is doing this, but if he were to take away everything that makes up a person, then nothing would be left.

So God is not almighty? He is unable to just magic someone to believe he is him without rewriting his brain?

The Almighty cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot make a person both delusional and not delusional at the same time.

He hasnt even the almight of a stage magician? Cant hypnotize someone?
[/quote]

Stage magicians cannot create actual delusions. That is not remotely how hypnosis works. What you are describing is not hypnosis, it is magically inducing insanity.

And it was only an example of how Jesus could have been Led on.

Then give us one example of “led on” that doesn’t require the person to be Lunatic.

A thousand ways and more. Hypnotic, a migjty wixard lent Jesus his powers . . .

Again, that’s not hypnosis. And if a “mighty wizard” created a delusion, then that would be another example of insanity.

I say C.S.Lewis was creating an apologetic argument.

Then I say that you have not read Lewis.

Lewis wanted to push his readers to "Lord"! Yes or no? And why did Lewis put "Lord" last so to make the reader "arrive at the conclusion?"

Lewis said that there were three plausible options. He discussed Lord first, and then moved on to Liar and finally lunatic. Had you read Lewis you would know what you are talking about.

Lewis in essence meant to say that Jesus could have been anything that begims with an L. !

Alliteration: Noun; the occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent or closely connected words.

I was ironic of course. Wanted to show how Lewis even enslaved metrics for his slimy apologetic.

And I was pointing out how absurd it is to think that using alliteration is a significant part an argument or that it is means someone has “enslaved metrics.”