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 ???

[The Tanager]

Whatever you do or do not reject, Bible apologists reject science, often, when it conflicts with the Bible and you must know it.

Some do reject science, not all, and not the one you are talking to. I could say all kinds of things that atheist apologists make errors on that you, as an atheist apologist, don’t, but that is irrelevant and, therefore, irrational to mention unless it’s actually done in the case one is analyzing.

Dammit the resurrectio - claim itself is of a miracle because it conflicts with science.

How does it conflict with science? Science is the study of what naturally happens. If the claim was that Jesus’ body naturally came back to life, then there would be conflict, but that isn’t the claim, of course. The claim is that Jesus’ body supernaturally came back to life. Science has nothing to say for or against that because that is outside of science’s domain.

It doesn't mater. If Academics, Christian or non Christian, are unaware that the morality argument was done long ago, they have fallen behind and dropped out of the loop. All that is left now is denial of this fact, unwelcome to the Believers, Academically credited or not.

What loop? Not the experts’ loop. Are you advocating that your atheist apologetic loop that says the argument is done is a higher court than the expert, academic opinion of professional philosophers (many of which aren’t Christian)?

I see no reason to start a thread on a matter now in the realms of science and sociology and irrelevant to the theistic debate, and it is no longer necessary to entertain as an apologetic for religion, especially if you want to sidestep it here and not answer. I'll consider that a flooring of that apologetic pending any valid response from you.

So, in other words, it’s true because you say it’s true and it’s now my burden to prove your wrong even though you don’t give the actual support. That’s sidestepping your burden. If you end up wanting to correct that mistake, I’ll be around.

That's a debatable matter, assuming it is not an attempted evasion. Jesus might have reasoned that he should be the messiah (since John had failed) and he should now work out how to do it. I wouldn't consider that lunacy, or he might have really seen (as Mark claims) the Holy spirit descending on him. Deluded or lunacy I wouldn't like to say and it is an evasive quibble on your part anyway.

No, it’s not evasive. I’m claiming there are four options. You brought delusion up as a fifth one, but it sounds to me like it fits under lunacy. I’m asking for you to support the distinction. Lunacy, in this context, is believing one is God when they are not. That would be a lunatic thought (if it’s not a lie or legend, at least). Reasoning that one is God as well as seeing a hallucination gets you to that same point.

It might be necessary to start another thread or find one to revive. Apart from the contradictions that show that they are making stuff up (Luke inventing the penitent thief that nobody else has heard of) and contradictions like Matthew showing that Joseph lived in Judea at the nativity while Luke says it was Nazareth) I like David and the shewbread which Jesus could never have argued to the Pharisees, nor would they have failed to debunk it if he had, and also the blasphemy charge which only makes sense in Christian terms. Backed up by Herod, hearing 'King of the Jews' not only thinks 'Messiah' but rushes to scripture. This shouts a Christian authorship. As a makeweight I present babes and sucklings mistranslated using a Greek text. Jesus could NOT have said it.

Well, if you do or want to lay it out more clearly here, let me know.

As usual, if C.S Lewis was not less smart than he pretended, he was deliberately doing a strawman, as he should have known that there are other options. Mind, Faithbased thinking does overlook obvious options, and he is not the only one to just accept that the gospels are a reliable account. They are demonstrably not, but then, the Experts seem to have missed this, so understandably the believers would. It is wrong, if it is not a knowing strawman, intended to mislead. Lewis was a master of misinformation and propaganda. Bottom line, it is false, whether or not a deliberate fraud or a mistake by someone with a bigger mouth than brain. Mind, I like his stories

Even the smartest among us will miss things at times; no human is omniscient. To fault CS Lewis (or anyone) for not being that is a bit much. So is throwing out the “that’s just faithbased thinking for you” crap or its equivalent "that's just because you don't know God" crap some theists will throw out here. That isn’t rational support, but empty rhetoric. It says more about the one saying it than one's case or one's opponent. If it’s faithbased thinking, let your analysis show that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Whatever you do or do not reject, Bible apologists reject science, often, when it conflicts with the Bible and you must know it.

Some do reject science, not all, and not the one you are talking to. I could say all kinds of things that atheist apologists make errors on that you, as an atheist apologist, don’t, but that is irrelevant and, therefore, irrational to mention unless it’s actually done in the case one is analyzing.

Dammit the resurrectio - claim itself is of a miracle because it conflicts with science.

How does it conflict with science? Science is the study of what naturally happens. If the claim was that Jesus’ body naturally came back to life, then there would be conflict, but that isn’t the claim, of course. The claim is that Jesus’ body supernaturally came back to life. Science has nothing to say for or against that because that is outside of science’s domain.

I wish you'd keep track of the argument. My point is that bible apologists often do reject science, whether or not you do, and whether or not asserting the resurrection is rejecting science or not (arguably not, because they may accept science other than in God doing a miracle).

It doesn't mater. If Academics, Christian or non Christian, are unaware that the morality argument was done long ago, they have fallen behind and dropped out of the loop. All that is left now is denial of this fact, unwelcome to the Believers, Academically credited or not.

What loop? Not the experts’ loop. Are you advocating that your atheist apologetic loop that says the argument is done is a higher court than the expert, academic opinion of professional philosophers (many of which aren’t Christian)?

Not really, because it is the experts in DNA (philosophy is irrelevant here) and links to instinct, plus handles on sociological evolution and archaeology finding more law codes, that gave atheists the database - science is the database atheism regularly uses. So if the Bible 'Experts' are not equally up with developments, they have fallen out of the loop or would rather stay out and keep trying on the morality argument - which no longer works..
pre p.s Science has shown where morality came from. Philosophy may have a part in trying to sort out wrong or right, but it serves no purpose for validating the morality argument as indicating a god.

I see no reason to start a thread on a matter now in the realms of science and sociology and irrelevant to the theistic debate, and it is no longer necessary to entertain as an apologetic for religion, especially if you want to sidestep it here and not answer. I'll consider that a flooring of that apologetic pending any valid response from you.

So, in other words, it’s true because you say it’s true and it’s now my burden to prove your wrong even though you don’t give the actual support. That’s sidestepping your burden. If you end up wanting to correct that mistake, I’ll be around.

That would be a fair point if you did not try to make a win out of it. So just to make the bare case, DNA shows how instinct works. Anthropology and sociology shows how family and tribal instincts lead to ethics and morals. Even critters have social dos and don'ts. Increased social complexity led to rules and law codes. Moreover it is basically the same yet different in other cultures, similar to other human inventions like music, art and writing. Morality is no longer an argument for a god, even before we get to which one. Burden of proof (or debunk) back in your court.

That's a debatable matter, assuming it is not an attempted evasion. Jesus might have reasoned that he should be the messiah (since John had failed) and he should now work out how to do it. I wouldn't consider that lunacy, or he might have really seen (as Mark claims) the Holy spirit descending on him. Deluded or lunacy I wouldn't like to say and it is an evasive quibble on your part anyway.

No, it’s not evasive. I’m claiming there are four options. You brought delusion up as a fifth one, but it sounds to me like it fits under lunacy. I’m asking for you to support the distinction. Lunacy, in this context, is believing one is God when they are not. That would be a lunatic thought (if it’s not a lie or legend, at least). Reasoning that one is God as well as seeing a hallucination gets you to that same point.

I'm not going to let you pin the winning or losing on that piffling point, in case your were trying it, because I think there is a difference between delusion and lunacy (in one case, one has been fed wrong reasoning and the other is a malfunction of the brain - one reason I don't regard Christianity as insanity, just a mistake) but it is arguable and you don't get to make a big deal out of it.

It might be necessary to start another thread or find one to revive. Apart from the contradictions that show that they are making stuff up (Luke inventing the penitent thief that nobody else has heard of) and contradictions like Matthew showing that Joseph lived in Judea at the nativity while Luke says it was Nazareth) I like David and the shewbread which Jesus could never have argued to the Pharisees, nor would they have failed to debunk it if he had, and also the blasphemy charge which only makes sense in Christian terms. Backed up by Herod, hearing 'King of the Jews' not only thinks 'Messiah' but rushes to scripture. This shouts a Christian authorship. As a makeweight I present babes and sucklings mistranslated using a Greek text. Jesus could NOT have said it.

Well, if you do or want to lay it out more clearly here, let me know.

Ok, fair enough. And I'll risk the derail. The penitent thief is clear enough Everyone else thought that stunning event wasn't worth a mention? And one excuse that the others didn't see it won't wash - if Luke heard about it, they all did. Unless he made it up.
In the nativity, Joseph intended to return to Judea from Egypt. That was where he lived. He went to Nazareth for the first time to avoid danger. But Luke says they lived there and just went back there and no flight to Egypt. Separate invented and contradictory stories. I've got a million of 'em.

David and the shewbread (aside from the priests which may be explainable; Abiamelek was the priest in charge and Abiathar - just on memory - was High priest). Apart from the priest checking it was ok for David to have the bread, even if he'd pushed the priest over and just snaffled the bread, David was no angel or saint. If he did a sin it hardly excuses the junking of the sabbath laws. It is a terrible argument, but the Rabbis say nothing. Isn't it clear this is a bad Christian polemic? And yet for 2000 years no Bible expert I have heard of has even mentioned it.
Yes. The blasphemy charge is not one - many claimed to be messiahs but the Romans were the only ones who were miffed by that. The Jews either followed the fellow or ignored him. They did not put him on trial for blasphemy. Christians thought they might, because to them, Messiah is claiming to be divine.
finally Babes and sucklings was lifted by Matthew from the Septuagint (nobody else has that remark) and it differs from the OT quote. Jesus could not have said it - a Greek Christian who did not speak Hebrew nor understand the OT could write it.

As usual, if C.S Lewis was not less smart than he pretended, he was deliberately doing a strawman, as he should have known that there are other options. Mind, Faithbased thinking does overlook obvious options, and he is not the only one to just accept that the gospels are a reliable account. They are demonstrably not, but then, the Experts seem to have missed this, so understandably the believers would. It is wrong, if it is not a knowing strawman, intended to mislead. Lewis was a master of misinformation and propaganda. Bottom line, it is false, whether or not a deliberate fraud or a mistake by someone with a bigger mouth than brain. Mind, I like his stories

Even the smartest among us will miss things at times; no human is omniscient. To fault CS Lewis (or anyone) for not being that is a bit much. So is throwing out the “that’s just faithbased thinking for you” crap or its equivalent "that's just because you don't know God" crap some theists will throw out here. That isn’t rational support, but empty rhetoric. It says more about the one saying it than one's case or one's opponent. If it’s faithbased thinking, let your analysis show that.

C.S Lewis was either dumber than he thought he was, or he knew as well as I and a dozen other apologists that it is a false argument, but he used it anyway. And I can only take a rather jaundiced view of Christian apologists who try to wave it away or excuse it, because I have seen so much of that effort to smokescreen problems with Christian apologetics before.

[bjs1]

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.

[The Tanager]

Not really, because it is the experts in DNA (philosophy is irrelevant here) and links to instinct, plus handles on sociological evolution and archaeology finding more law codes, that gave atheists the database - science is the database atheism regularly uses. So if the Bible 'Experts' are not equally up with developments, they have fallen out of the loop or would rather stay out and keep trying on the morality argument - which no longer works..
pre p.s Science has shown where morality came from. Philosophy may have a part in trying to sort out wrong or right, but it serves no purpose for validating the morality argument as indicating a god.

Any atheist trying to say science shows us where morality comes from is making a philosophical argument to get there.

That would be a fair point if you did not try to make a win out of it. So just to make the bare case, DNA shows how instinct works. Anthropology and sociology shows how family and tribal instincts lead to ethics and morals. Even critters have social dos and don'ts. Increased social complexity led to rules and law codes. Moreover it is basically the same yet different in other cultures, similar to other human inventions like music, art and writing. Morality is no longer an argument for a god, even before we get to which one. Burden of proof (or debunk) back in your court.

I didn’t try to make it a win. All I said is that you didn’t bear your burden, but shifted it and that if you wanted to bear it, I’d hear you out. I basically agree with the bare elements you lay out above. Humans and societies of humans often act by instinct and education.

But we also need to see exactly where we disagree on all that comes next. Do you believe that morality is objective or subjective?

I'm not going to let you pin the winning or losing on that piffling point, in case your were trying it, because I think there is a difference between delusion and lunacy (in one case, one has been fed wrong reasoning and the other is a malfunction of the brain - one reason I don't regard Christianity as insanity, just a mistake) but it is arguable and you don't get to make a big deal out of it.

First, why are you so concerned about winning and losing in an online discussion/debate kind of format? One cannot be the judge of whether they won a discussion or not because they could simply be wrong, misunderstanding something, etc. To claim victory is a useless rhetorical tool that has no place in rational discussions and I’m doing no such thing.

Second, I’m simply trying to see if there is a reason to separate them out. I agree that there is a difference between being fed wrong reasoning and one’s brain physically malfunctioning. But, for the context of the ?-lemma, I don’t think that difference is enough to make a big deal about it being there. They both would result in Jesus thinking he is God when he is not.

Ok, fair enough. And I'll risk the derail. [1…numbers mine]The penitent thief is clear enough Everyone else thought that stunning event wasn't worth a mention? And one excuse that the others didn't see it won't wash - if Luke heard about it, they all did. Unless he made it up.
[2]In the nativity, Joseph intended to return to Judea from Egypt. That was where he lived. He went to Nazareth for the first time to avoid danger. But Luke says they lived there and just went back there and no flight to Egypt. Separate invented and contradictory stories. I've got a million of 'em.

[3] David and the shewbread (aside from the priests which may be explainable; Abiamelek was the priest in charge and Abiathar - just on memory - was High priest). Apart from the priest checking it was ok for David to have the bread, even if he'd pushed the priest over and just snaffled the bread, David was no angel or saint. If he did a sin it hardly excuses the junking of the sabbath laws. It is a terrible argument, but the Rabbis say nothing. Isn't it clear this is a bad Christian polemic? And yet for 2000 years no Bible expert I have heard of has even mentioned it.
[4] Yes. The blasphemy charge is not one - many claimed to be messiahs but the Romans were the only ones who were miffed by that. The Jews either followed the fellow or ignored him. They did not put him on trial for blasphemy. Christians thought they might, because to them, Messiah is claiming to be divine.
[5] finally Babes and sucklings was lifted by Matthew from the Septuagint (nobody else has that remark) and it differs from the OT quote. Jesus could not have said it - a Greek Christian who did not speak Hebrew nor understand the OT could write it.

[1] Why do you think the others had to include this detail for their purposes? Also, what would taking this out change about what we know of Jesus’ character and personality to where we couldn’t assess if Jesus was lord, liar, or lunatic?

[2] Let’s assume this is a contradiction. How does that change what Jesus said and did for us to assess his character and personality?

[3] Let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that Jesus is countering the Sabbath laws by pointing to a sinful act from David allowed by the priests? And that the rabbis would have argued that wasn’t a sin? I feel like you are going to respond and I’m going to be like “oh, of course that is what you were saying, I feel like an idiot”.

[4] Are you saying Jesus never claimed to be divine according to the biblical documents?

[5] Ancient writers were looser with direct quotations than we moderns prefer for sure. I see no problem with Matthew choosing to put the Septuagint’s phrasing in Jesus’ mouth in his Greek gospel. That would still be a way to get across the concept Jesus spoke about.

C.S Lewis was either dumber than he thought he was, or he knew as well as I and a dozen other apologists that it is a false argument, but he used it anyway. And I can only take a rather jaundiced view of Christian apologists who try to wave it away or excuse it, because I have seen so much of that effort to smokescreen problems with Christian apologetics before.

I don’t think the argument is a false one, but I’m opening to be shown differently. I also don’t think Lewis was dumb or insincere. As I think I hinted at earlier, and bjs1 brings up more directly, the context of Lewis’ talk could provide why he didn’t include that option there. Without that context, I do agree ‘legend’ is an option.

If I jaundiced my view of every particular atheist apologetic be previous encounters, then I couldn’t trust anything atheists claimed. Instead, I think it rational to take each atheist and their claims as they come without giving them my experiential baggage.

[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.

I disagree! For instance

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

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

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

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

[bjs1]

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.

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

Then I say that you have not read Lewis.

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.

" 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Not really, because it is the experts in DNA (philosophy is irrelevant here) and links to instinct, plus handles on sociological evolution and archaeology finding more law codes, that gave atheists the database - science is the database atheism regularly uses. So if the Bible 'Experts' are not equally up with developments, they have fallen out of the loop or would rather stay out and keep trying on the morality argument - which no longer works..
pre p.s Science has shown where morality came from. Philosophy may have a part in trying to sort out wrong or right, but it serves no purpose for validating the morality argument as indicating a god.

Any atheist trying to say science shows us where morality comes from is making a philosophical argument to get there.

No, they are making a science -based argument. As I was showing.In any sense other than a claim Genetics evidence is really 'philosophy'.

That would be a fair point if you did not try to make a win out of it. So just to make the bare case, DNA shows how instinct works. Anthropology and sociology shows how family and tribal instincts lead to ethics and morals. Even critters have social dos and don'ts. Increased social complexity led to rules and law codes. Moreover it is basically the same yet different in other cultures, similar to other human inventions like music, art and writing. Morality is no longer an argument for a god, even before we get to which one. Burden of proof (or debunk) back in your court.

I didn’t try to make it a win. All I said is that you didn’t bear your burden, but shifted it and that if you wanted to bear it, I’d hear you out. I basically agree with the bare elements you lay out above. Humans and societies of humans often act by instinct and education.

But we also need to see exactly where we disagree on all that comes next. Do you believe that morality is objective or subjective?

Subjective (instinct as a basis aside) , just as art literature and music, but you don't dismiss those as being invalid do you? The False theist claim is that an invisible being has to lay down the rules an that is presented as 'objective'. OR morals is some cosmic law, which it isn't. Sorry, it is what it is, not what we might like, and there is no case that religion makes it work better, never mind more objective.

I'm not going to let you pin the winning or losing on that piffling point, in case your were trying it, because I think there is a difference between delusion and lunacy (in one case, one has been fed wrong reasoning and the other is a malfunction of the brain - one reason I don't regard Christianity as insanity, just a mistake) but it is arguable and you don't get to make a big deal out of it.

First, why are you so concerned about winning and losing in an online discussion/debate kind of format? One cannot be the judge of whether they won a discussion or not because they could simply be wrong, misunderstanding something, etc. To claim victory is a useless rhetorical tool that has no place in rational discussions and I’m doing no such thing.

Second, I’m simply trying to see if there is a reason to separate them out. I agree that there is a difference between being fed wrong reasoning and one’s brain physically malfunctioning. But, for the context of the ?-lemma, I don’t think that difference is enough to make a big deal about it being there. They both would result in Jesus thinking he is God when he is not.

I agree. It is what I was saying, but presented as though it was something I was saying (I recall you brought matter up) and acting like you are correcting me. And you wonder why I see you as trying for wins? Small irrelevant ones, too.

Ok, fair enough. And I'll risk the derail. [1…numbers mine]The penitent thief is clear enough Everyone else thought that stunning event wasn't worth a mention? And one excuse that the others didn't see it won't wash - if Luke heard about it, they all did. Unless he made it up.
[2]In the nativity, Joseph intended to return to Judea from Egypt. That was where he lived. He went to Nazareth for the first time to avoid danger. But Luke says they lived there and just went back there and no flight to Egypt. Separate invented and contradictory stories. I've got a million of 'em.

[3] David and the shewbread (aside from the priests which may be explainable; Abiamelek was the priest in charge and Abiathar - just on memory - was High priest). Apart from the priest checking it was ok for David to have the bread, even if he'd pushed the priest over and just snaffled the bread, David was no angel or saint. If he did a sin it hardly excuses the junking of the sabbath laws. It is a terrible argument, but the Rabbis say nothing. Isn't it clear this is a bad Christian polemic? And yet for 2000 years no Bible expert I have heard of has even mentioned it.
[4] Yes. The blasphemy charge is not one - many claimed to be messiahs but the Romans were the only ones who were miffed by that. The Jews either followed the fellow or ignored him. They did not put him on trial for blasphemy. Christians thought they might, because to them, Messiah is claiming to be divine.
[5] finally Babes and sucklings was lifted by Matthew from the Septuagint (nobody else has that remark) and it differs from the OT quote. Jesus could not have said it - a Greek Christian who did not speak Hebrew nor understand the OT could write it.

[1] Why do you think the others had to include this detail for their purposes? Also, what would taking this out change about what we know of Jesus’ character and personality to where we couldn’t assess if Jesus was lord, liar, or lunatic?

[2] Let’s assume this is a contradiction. How does that change what Jesus said and did for us to assess his character and personality?

[3] Let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that Jesus is countering the Sabbath laws by pointing to a sinful act from David allowed by the priests? And that the rabbis would have argued that wasn’t a sin? I feel like you are going to respond and I’m going to be like “oh, of course that is what you were saying, I feel like an idiot”.

[4] Are you saying Jesus never claimed to be divine according to the biblical documents?

[5] Ancient writers were looser with direct quotations than we moderns prefer for sure. I see no problem with Matthew choosing to put the Septuagint’s phrasing in Jesus’ mouth in his Greek gospel. That would still be a way to get across the concept Jesus spoke about.

You are still trundling the goalposts. Didn't I say this was risking a derail? It is NOT about Lord liar or lunatic. Do try to follow the argument.

Youposted:

If you want to provide an argument that supports this positive claim that the documents are not reliable in giving us Jesus’ teachings, go ahead and I’ll share my thoughts here or in another thread if you think it off topic.

I said:

It might be necessary to start another thread or find one to revive. Apart from the contradictions that show that they are making stuff up (Luke inventing the penitent thief that nobody else has heard of)
The point about the penitent thief is that the others must have known about it if it happened. Thus the best theory is, Luke made it up. That's the point. Them point about the Nativity is the same - the gospels are not to be trusted.
Ys the whole Shebread argument is to validate that abbath breaking is ok, because Davisd ate the Shewbread and that the Rabis are supposedly silenced discredits the passage as in any crdible way being a record of what Jesus actually said.

That is the point, not what the gospel claim about him or say he claimed about himself. Do try to follow the argument or leave the goalposts alone, whichever it is. I need not comment on the miserable 'they wrote differently back then' evasion. If we can't understand what they wrote, why should we credit anything they wrote?

C.S Lewis was either dumber than he thought he was, or he knew as well as I and a dozen other apologists that it is a false argument, but he used it anyway. And I can only take a rather jaundiced view of Christian apologists who try to wave it away or excuse it, because I have seen so much of that effort to smokescreen problems with Christian apologetics before.

I don’t think the argument is a false one, but I’m opening to be shown differently. I also don’t think Lewis was dumb or insincere. As I think I hinted at earlier, and bjs1 brings up more directly, the context of Lewis’ talk could provide why he didn’t include that option there. Without that context, I do agree ‘legend’ is an option.

If I jaundiced my view of every particular atheist apologetic be previous encounters, then I couldn’t trust anything atheists claimed. Instead, I think it rational to take each atheist and their claims as they come without giving them my experiential baggage.

Legend? Where does 'legend' come into it? It is about whether - taking the gospels account as what it is, Jesus as represented was more likely Lord rather than liar or lunatic? Do try to follow the argument. Look, suppose we drop trying to score cheap points and get back to the debate which is about Lord Liar or lunatic, which appears to be accepted as a false argument (of course it's False - it is either is valid or it isn't, and if a case can be made for Liar or lunatic, the proposition fails as the only option) and whether Lewis knew it or not is peripheral. The subsequent argument seems to be about whether Jesus actually could be a lunatic or mistakenly convinced he was the messiah or might be.

That is more on point that taking my remark about Christian apologists who try to use that false argument and making a pointed jibe at atheists in general in your particular opinion of them, which is hardly relevant.

[The Tanager]

No, they are making a science -based argument. As I was showing.In any sense other than a claim Genetics evidence is really 'philosophy'.

They are making a philosophical claim about scientific data because the scientific measurements don’t spit out “therefore, morality is nothing but this data”.

Subjective (instinct as a basis aside) , just as art literature and music, but you don't dismiss those as being invalid do you? The False theist claim is that an invisible being has to lay down the rules an that is presented as 'objective'. OR morals is some cosmic law, which it isn't. Sorry, it is what it is, not what we might like, and there is no case that religion makes it work better, never mind more objective.

Of course I wouldn’t say something is invalid just because it is a subjective feature of reality. Okay, so to you morality is subjective. To make sure we mean the same thing by that, you think moral opinions are the same kind of thing as differing ice cream tastes, am I correct? Torturing an innocent child is like eating pistachio flavored ice cream to you (assuming you don’t like that taste), while being nice to it or indifferent or however you interact with children is like eating cookie dough ice cream (assuming you like the taste of that glorious masterpiece)?

I agree. It is what I was saying, but presented as though it was something I was saying (I recall you brought matter up) and acting like you are correcting me. And you wonder why I see you as trying for wins? Small irrelevant ones, too.

I’m sorry because that wasn’t clear to me. In post 6 I talked of what I saw as four distinct options and you said in post 8, in direct response to post 6, that “Jesis being deluded, is one other option, …” But now you are saying it’s not one other option and you saying “is one other option” doesn’t mean it is one other option? Surely you can understand my confusion there.

You are still trundling the goalposts. Didn't I say this was risking a derail? It is NOT about Lord liar or lunatic. Do try to follow the argument.

That’s not risking a derail, but openly derailing. From this quote

Now, back to the topic. Jesis being deluded, is one other option, and rational and hoping God was intending him to succeed rather than deluded,is also another option. But of course, nothing in the Gospels being credible without question is another, so the very basis of what Jesus said and did to assess character and personality fails anyway. Do you see how limited the C.S Lewis' options are, so as to be a flawed apologetic, if not actually a strawman?

I thought you were connecting the two and saying that we can’t even begin to answer this trilemma because we don’t have any reliable data to judge Jesus as lord, liar, lunatic from. It risked derailing if I didn’t keep that context in mind, but I guess you just meant “I’m completely moving the discussion to something else” by saying “risking derailing”. Okay.

Legend? Where does 'legend' come into it? It is about whether - taking the gospels account as what it is, Jesus as represented was more likely Lord rather than liar or lunatic? Do try to follow the argument.

The OP questions whether there should be more than 3 options. I addressed that, taking it out of Lewis’ direct context. Doing so, I think legend should be included as a fourth option because it doesn’t make Jesus out to be the liar or the lunatic, but someone else. That’s a perfectly valid way to understand and take the OP.

In Lewis’ context, as I’ve said, the trilemma seems complete to me because of what you say above.

That is more on point that taking my remark about Christian apologists who try to use that false argument and making a pointed jibe at atheists in general in your particular opinion of them, which is hardly relevant.

That’s roughly my point, so stop taking those jibes and stick with the argument itself.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, they are making a science -based argument. As I was showing.In any sense other than a claim Genetics evidence is really 'philosophy'.

They are making a philosophical claim about scientific data because the scientific measurements don’t spit out “therefore, morality is nothing but this data”.

No.That is wangling the use of logical reasoning (which philosophy supposedly does) and trying to call it philosophy, which these days is different, and to call it 'philosophy' is semantic confusion, and to the pretend that takes morality out of the area of science even if science is providing the answers, is frankly dishonest.

Subjective (instinct as a basis aside) , just as art literature and music, but you don't dismiss those as being invalid do you? The False theist claim is that an invisible being has to lay down the rules an that is presented as 'objective'. OR morals is some cosmic law, which it isn't. Sorry, it is what it is, not what we might like, and there is no case that religion makes it work better, never mind more objective.

Of course I wouldn’t say something is invalid just because it is a subjective feature of reality. Okay, so to you morality is subjective. To make sure we mean the same thing by that, you think moral opinions are the same kind of thing as differing ice cream tastes, am I correct? Torturing an innocent child is like eating pistachio flavored ice cream to you (assuming you don’t like that taste), while being nice to it or indifferent or however you interact with children is like eating cookie dough ice cream (assuming you like the taste of that glorious masterpiece)?

No more than preferring anchovies on your pizza rather than pineapple means no more or less than playing music according to the rules and just banging way as you like.

You asked for it "It's all right to do that - If you know what youre doing". (GeogeIves, Charles' father)



Do you understand that agreeing the rules is not the same as personal tastes in food? If you can't I have to conclude I am talking to a brick wall.

I agree. It is what I was saying, but presented as though it was something I was saying (I recall you brought matter up) and acting like you are correcting me. And you wonder why I see you as trying for wins? Small irrelevant ones, too.

I’m sorry because that wasn’t clear to me. In post 6 I talked of what I saw as four distinct options and you said in post 8, in direct response to post 6, that “Jesis being deluded, is one other option, …” But now you are saying it’s not one other option and you saying “is one other option” doesn’t mean it is one other option? Surely you can understand my confusion there.

Without going back (you make enough work without that) and quoting out of the context, let me try to clarify. Lord Liar or lunatic is invalid because there are other options - such as the accounts of what he acted like are not to be trusted. In that respect lunatic is irelevant whether you take that to include both delusion and mental disease, which I see as different things. I may point out Christian apologists as deluded (e.g misled and mistaken) but would not say they had mental disease. Hope that sorts the confusion you seem to have caused yourself.

You are still trundling the goalposts. Didn't I say this was risking a derail? It is NOT about Lord liar or lunatic. Do try to follow the argument.

That’s not risking a derail, but openly derailing. From this quote

I will rise above 'thanks for admitting the derail' but I reject the accusation that I was derailing.

Now, back to the topic. Jesis being deluded, is one other option, and rational and hoping God was intending him to succeed rather than deluded,is also another option. But of course, nothing in the Gospels being credible without question is another, so the very basis of what Jesus said and did to assess character and personality fails anyway. Do you see how limited the C.S Lewis' options are, so as to be a flawed apologetic, if not actually a strawman?

I thought you were connecting the two and saying that we can’t even begin to answer this trilemma because we don’t have any reliable data to judge Jesus as lord, liar, lunatic from. It risked derailing if I didn’t keep that context in mind, but I guess you just meant “I’m completely moving the discussion to something else” by saying “risking derailing”. Okay.

It really doesn't matter. That there is another option to those three means the argument fails. I don't know why you are fussing over irrelevancies like (so far as I can tell) whether lunacy covers being badly mistaken or not. The risk of derail was (pretty obviously) validating the reasons WHY the gospel accounts of Jesus; behaviour might not ve reliable. I did not want that to misdirect the thread. That should have been obvious.

Legend? Where does 'legend' come into it? It is about whether - taking the gospels account as what it is, Jesus as represented was more likely Lord rather than liar or lunatic? Do try to follow the argument.

The OP questions whether there should be more than 3 options. I addressed that, taking it out of Lewis’ direct context. Doing so, I think legend should be included as a fourth option because it doesn’t make Jesus out to be the liar or the lunatic, but someone else. That’s a perfectly valid way to understand and take the OP.

In Lewis’ context, as I’ve said, the trilemma seems complete to me because of what you say above.

Ah ok. Yes, 'legend' could be another (fifth after 'unreliable story') option. 'Mythologists' may go for that one. I actually think Jesus was a real person. Someone else...covers a lot of ground from Tamuz to Didymus. Better be more speciic.

That is more on point that taking my remark about Christian apologists who try to use that false argument and making a pointed jibe at atheists in general in your particular opinion of them, which is hardly relevant.

That’s roughly my point, so stop taking those jibes and stick with the argument itself.

Don't make 'em and I won't talk about 'em.

[The Tanager]

[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.