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]

When I started doing online atheist apologetics back in the days of Farell Till and Cliff Walker, C.S Lewis' 'Lord Liar or Lunatic' was already debunked even while Pascal's wager hadn't been.
The fallacy name escapes me but 'Bifurcation' lor 'False dichotomy' doesn't seem to be it; but the problem or cheat is offerring limited options and omitting the more likely one (which isn't wanted ) Which is that the report is not reliable, the claims are made later and no assessment of what Jesus was even doing, let alone his mental state, can be based on a false record of what he said or did. That said, in fact Liar or lunatic or at least, mentally unbalanced, is more likely than C. S. Lewis would even think, let alone entertain. Aside Jesus's immoderate outbursts, his false and contradictory statements and that one (John's is the same as Holy Week) violent action in the Temple, makes him seem, frankly, a bit crazy.

As to liar, the four signs make more sense as set up fake miracles to impress the followers. The healing at a distance is only done where they are told it worked. Jairus' daughter (again the synagogue ruler in Capernaum) is only witnessed by three trusted cronies to swear to everyone that the girl was restored. The Bar Timaeus planted outside the gate of Jericho for a show healing and then he tags along with the group, who know his name. Then we have Lazarus, and that is a fake from the start with a note sent from Bethany - not to Galilee, but to Peraea where Mary knew Jesus would be waiting for the signal that the fake healing was all set up. And the biggest fake of all - the resurrection. That's what I once thought, though I now don't trust the gospel record. No more than I trust C.S Lewis and his apologetics. I like his stories, and Screwtape letters, too. but his apologetics arguments are false and crafty.

[The Nice Centurion]

I wrote already that for most people this is already debunked, and want to discuss if not Lewis debunks even himself unknowingly.

Mark Also that Lewis order of enumerating the choices tries to be as suggestive as possibly by making " Lord " outstanding as third choice!

Poetically Liar, Lord or Lunatic would make more sense than Liar, Lunatic or Lord!

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't know. I can only explain (for anyone who missed it) why the famous 'Lord, Liar or Lunatic' apologetic fails as a fallacy, apart from which, not everyone credits that the gospels may NOT be a reliable account of Jesus' actions and sayings anyway.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

1) I don’t think your reasoning is sound. In context (it seems to me), Lewis is saying either (a) Jesus was Lord, (b) knew he wasn’t but lied [liar] or (c) thought he was when he wasn’t [lunatic]. So, lunacy can’t connect with lord, either. Logically, one can’t think you are a Lord when you aren’t and be the Lord.

2) I would gather that Jesus being led on would be included under the ‘lunatic’ option. Even if someone else tricked you into thinking you are the Lord, if you aren’t the Lord but think you are, then you would rightly be called a lunatic.

3) I do think there should be a fourth option, though, which you did bring up early in your post: Jesus never existed/claimed to be Lord. People usually call it “legend” to fit the L-theme.

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem there is just who the real Jesus was and whether the records are to be trusted.
Even if they are, we can see someone who either was wrong because he was not 'Lord' even if he thought he was, or he was Lord. and God was keeping information and even facts from him. My money is on 'he thought he was Lord, but he wasn't'.

In an earlier 'Theory' I had, I supposed he faked him miracles - which is what they look like - but he still thought he was Lord, and the fake miracles was to get the support he needed. because (as we know ) God doesn't do majjick, but operates unseen through apparently normal events, which require Faith to understand are God's works.

So Lewis' trifurcation - false dilemma, or is that something else? - fails because there could be many things going on other than those rather game - rigging limited options he wants in place, even if we credited the records of Jesus' saying - which I don't. C.S Lewis' apologetic swished down the tube long before even the morality argument did, and that vanished as a viable apologetic back in the 80's - 90's.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #6]

1. I completely agree that if “legend” is included, the question there becomes whether the records are to be trusted that Jesus existed and claimed to be Lord. I think this is the weakest of the four options, with the “lunatic” answer being the likeliest of the three alternatives to “Lord”.

2. I don’t see more than these four options, but I’m open to hearing if there should be more.

3. As to arguments by or like or using elements of Lewis’ arguments and the moral argument vanishing as viable, there are two points. One, that is completely false as those arguments are very much alive in the contemporary academic philosophical literature, with an uptick over the previous generation in that regard. If you truly believe this, then you simply aren’t engaging with what the academics are. Two, even if it wasn’t talked about much currently, there could be any number of reasons why certain arguments go out of vogue, with it still all coming down to the actual merits of cases, which must be addressed not rhetorically dismissed.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #6]

1. I completely agree that if “legend” is included, the question there becomes whether the records are to be trusted that Jesus existed and claimed to be Lord. I think this is the weakest of the four options, with the “lunatic” answer being the likeliest of the three alternatives to “Lord”.

2. I don’t see more than these four options, but I’m open to hearing if there should be more.

3. As to arguments by or like or using elements of Lewis’ arguments and the moral argument vanishing as viable, there are two points. One, that is completely false as those arguments are very much alive in the contemporary academic philosophical literature, with an uptick over the previous generation in that regard. If you truly believe this, then you simply aren’t engaging with what the academics are. Two, even if it wasn’t talked about much currently, there could be any number of reasons why certain arguments go out of vogue, with it still all coming down to the actual merits of cases, which must be addressed not rhetorically dismissed.

It ill behooves the Bible apologists to appeal to 'academics' when they reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible. Tot often, I have seen 'Academics' turn out to be Bible experts who know what's in it front to back and yet don't see any of the problems. 'Babes and sucklings' I have never seen anywhere else and the two donkeys is dismissed or ignored by these Academics and experts, so don't you go appealing to that Authority as anyone is open to question, especially experts in a book of dubious old stories.

The morality arguments is of course done, for the following reasons (at risk of a digression of the thread), the insistence on an objective basis by the Theists is as silly as demanding a cosmic law of art or literature. The best you will get is evolved instinct.
There is no indication that religion contributes much to morality - rather increased secularisation has improved it.
Third to finger pointing at secularists makes the theist side look bad - secularists do right without hope of reward other than making society run smoothly - the believers do it because they hope for divine handouts.
finally, we can do without appeal to ignorance. We may not know 'were morality comes from' but that not only does not mean a god (name your own) but the go - to hypothesis is evoled social instincts which are still going on. No god necessary.

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?

[The Tanager]

It ill behooves the Bible apologists to appeal to 'academics' when they reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible. Tot often, I have seen 'Academics' turn out to be Bible experts who know what's in it front to back and yet don't see any of the problems. 'Babes and sucklings' I have never seen anywhere else and the two donkeys is dismissed or ignored by these Academics and experts, so don't you go appealing to that Authority as anyone is open to question, especially experts in a book of dubious old stories.

It ill behooves the atheist apologist to claim the Christian apologist is doing something they aren’t doing. I don’t reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible because I don’t think the Bible is a science textbook making scientific claims.

The academics I’m speaking about are actual academics, Christian and non-Christian, some of which are also Biblical experts and some who are not, but not for what I’m appealing to them for. And even these academics I’m talking about are open to question. The point is that you are out of touch with current academics (including non-Christians and Christians who aren’t theologically trained) if you think the moral argument and others are officially done.

The morality arguments is of course done, for the following reasons (at risk of a digression of the thread), the insistence on an objective basis by the Theists is as silly as demanding a cosmic law of art or literature. The best you will get is evolved instinct.
There is no indication that religion contributes much to morality - rather increased secularisation has improved it.
Third to finger pointing at secularists makes the theist side look bad - secularists do right without hope of reward other than making society run smoothly - the believers do it because they hope for divine handouts.
finally, we can do without appeal to ignorance. We may not know 'were morality comes from' but that not only does not mean a god (name your own) but the go - to hypothesis is evoled social instincts which are still going on. No god necessary.

No, it is not done, of course, as evidenced by the current philosophical literature that still speaks to this from Christians and non-Christians. These are conclusions you have that deserve to be pursued, so if you want to back them up, then start another thread, tell me about it to make sure I don’t miss it, and I’ll share my thoughts there.

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.

How is this different than Jesus being a lunatic?

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.

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.

Do you see how limited the C.S Lewis' options are, so as to be a flawed apologetic, if not actually a strawman?

I definitely don’t think it is a strawman, as he would have been appealing to questions he and people he knew had. But I said “legend” should be added, so I do think his trilemma is limited. You haven’t shown the tetralemma/quadremma (whatever it should be called) is flawed, but keep sharing more points and you may get me there.

[TRANSPONDER]

It ill behooves the Bible apologists to appeal to 'academics' when they reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible. Tot often, I have seen 'Academics' turn out to be Bible experts who know what's in it front to back and yet don't see any of the problems. 'Babes and sucklings' I have never seen anywhere else and the two donkeys is dismissed or ignored by these Academics and experts, so don't you go appealing to that Authority as anyone is open to question, especially experts in a book of dubious old stories.

It ill behooves the atheist apologist to claim the Christian apologist is doing something they aren’t doing. I don’t reject science out of hand when it conflicts with the Bible because I don’t think the Bible is a science textbook making scientific claims.

Whatever you do or do not reject, Bible apologists reject science, often, when it conflicts with the Bible and you must know it. Dammit the resurrectio - claim itself is of a miracle because it conflicts with science.

The academics I’m speaking about are actual academics, Christian and non-Christian, some of which are also Biblical experts and some who are not, but not for what I’m appealing to them for. And even these academics I’m talking about are open to question. The point is that you are out of touch with current academics (including non-Christians and Christians who aren’t theologically trained) if you think the moral argument and others are officially done.

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.

The morality arguments is of course done, for the following reasons (at risk of a digression of the thread), the insistence on an objective basis by the Theists is as silly as demanding a cosmic law of art or literature. The best you will get is evolved instinct.
There is no indication that religion contributes much to morality - rather increased secularisation has improved it.
Third to finger pointing at secularists makes the theist side look bad - secularists do right without hope of reward other than making society run smoothly - the believers do it because they hope for divine handouts.
finally, we can do without appeal to ignorance. We may not know 'were morality comes from' but that not only does not mean a god (name your own) but the go - to hypothesis is evoled social instincts which are still going on. No god necessary.

No, it is not done, of course, as evidenced by the current philosophical literature that still speaks to this from Christians and non-Christians. These are conclusions you have that deserve to be pursued, so if you want to back them up, then start another thread, tell me about it to make sure I don’t miss it, and I’ll share my thoughts there.

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.

Now, back to the topic. Jesus being deluded, is one other option, and rational and hoping God was intending him to succeed rather than deluded,is also another option.

How is this different than Jesus being a lunatic?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you see how limited the C.S Lewis' options are, so as to be a flawed apologetic, if not actually a strawman?

I definitely don’t think it is a strawman, as he would have been appealing to questions he and people he knew had. But I said “legend” should be added, so I do think his trilemma is limited. You haven’t shown the tetralemma/quadremma (whatever it should be called) is flawed, but keep sharing more points and you may get me there.

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