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 Nice Centurion]

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.

Eve when granting you the benefit of the doubt; There is a Grand Canyon between "Jesus supposedly said" and The gospels present Jesus as"!

(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?

Thats an easy one; You could try to counter with argumentum ad baculum!

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 something 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.

Why built on his divinity?
Full human and full god you say.
So even by your standards Jesus teaching (not "teach", for that is short form of teacher) could have been built on his humanity or else on both "Full Halves" !!!

If he was no god, his teaching would not have been built on something that doesnt exist, but on whaever else he was.,(Human, Lemurian ... )but Liar or Lunatic not necessarily are factors that if true choose about the worthyness of Jesus teaching.

Lewis puts in his Falsemma so much hogwasch together, that its "Shotgun Hogwash apologetics"!

Meaning; Such a pile of hogwash, that its jard to find the time and nerve to shovel it all away!

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.

Sounds like a Horror Movie, called "Papias Dream".

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.

It is incorrectly stated, even if we assume Jesus said he was god.

Why would Lewis only take advice from a godman?

What about the many possibilitys Lewis forget in his false trilemma.

Why do you avoid like the plague to comment the possibility "Lemurian" ?

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.

I disagree. Everytime you try to claw your way back to Lewis original emma, without ratio.

For example: "Led On" is not "Lunatic like poached egg"(Lewis words).

Here you smuggled in your own word "delusional"that can mean "false belief" to be able to dismiss it as going under Lunacy.

Holding a false belief is not Lunatic as one who thinks to be a poached egg.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Eve when granting you the benefit of the doubt; There is a Grand Canyon between "Jesus supposedly said" and The gospels present Jesus as"!

(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?

Thats an easy one; You could try to counter with argumentum ad baculum!

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 something 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.

Why built on his divinity?
Full human and full god you say.
So even by your standards Jesus teaching (not "teach", for that is short form of teacher) could have been built on his humanity or else on both "Full Halves" !!!

If he was no god, his teaching would not have been built on something that doesnt exist, but on whaever else he was.,(Human, Lemurian ... )but Liar or Lunatic not necessarily are factors that if true choose about the worthyness of Jesus teaching.

Lewis puts in his Falsemma so much hogwasch together, that its "Shotgun Hogwash apologetics"!

Meaning; Such a pile of hogwash, that its jard to find the time and nerve to shovel it all away!

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.

Sounds like a Horror Movie, called "Papias Dream".

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.

It is incorrectly stated, even if we assume Jesus said he was god.

Why would Lewis only take advice from a godman?

What about the many possibilitys Lewis forget in his false trilemma.

Why do you avoid like the plague to comment the possibility "Lemurian" ?

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.

I disagree. Everytime you try to claw your way back to Lewis original emma, without ratio.

For example: "Led On" is not "Lunatic like poached egg"(Lewis words).

Here you smuggled in your own word "delusional"that can mean "false belief" to be able to dismiss it as going under Lunacy.

Holding a false belief is not Lunatic as one who thinks to be a poached egg.

I'll just take this last point as the rest is hardly worth the bother. Who cares what Lewis believed? His arguments and apologetics for it are what matters, and Lord, Liar or Lunatic fails because there are other possible explanations; like Jesus said none of the stuff in the Bible so that can tell us nothing about his mental state. But there are hypotheses about him lying to encourage his followers, or being a bit crazy, misled or deluded. Which brings us to your final point. Which is mere semantic juggling. Whether you place a particular scenario into the 'misled', 'delusional' or 'lying' category makes no difference to any of those may be a viable alternative to 'Lord'. So Lewis' apologetic fails, as does your argument about semantics.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]
You call it semantics, but I believe that when I wrote that argument long ago I wanted to show how Lewis can be refuted even within his own mindframe ih which only the rules of his self invented False CHOTOMY are allowed!

And thats why you shouldnt just wave my argument off!

It is NOT the Argument from Semantics Fallacy!

(It doesnt exist!)

For then you would make the Argument from Nonexistent Fallacy Fallacy!

(And that one exists neither!)

(Oh wait, perhaps it does and is called the FALLACY FALLACY!)

(And this one exists. But me am far too lazy to google what it is.)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]
You call it semantics, but I believe that when I wrote that argument long ago I wanted to show how Lewis can be refuted even within his own mindframe ih which only the rules of his self invented False CHOTOMY are allowed!

And thats why you shouldnt just wave my argument off!

It is NOT the Argument from Semantics Fallacy!

(It doesnt exist!)

For then you would make the Argument from Nonexistent Fallacy Fallacy!

(And that one exists neither!)

(Oh wait, perhaps it does and is called the FALLACY FALLACY!)

(And this one exists. But me am far too lazy to google what it is.)

I can make nothing of your confused faliling.

So I'll post what I actually posted, and perhaps you can make some coherent argument as to how any of that is wrong.
I'll just take this last point as the rest is hardly worth the bother. Who cares what Lewis believed? His arguments and apologetics for it are what matters, and Lord, Liar or Lunatic fails because there are other possible explanations; like Jesus said none of the stuff in the Bible so that can tell us nothing about his mental state. But there are hypotheses about him lying to encourage his followers, or being a bit crazy, misled or deluded. Which brings us to your final point. Which is mere semantic juggling. Whether you place a particular scenario into the 'misled', 'delusional' or 'lying' category makes no difference to any of those may be a viable alternative to 'Lord'. So Lewis' apologetic fails, as does your argument about semantics.

Did you want to revisit your argument about semantics? It is clear and a known logical rule.

False dichotomy (excluded middle) is a fallacy and semantics makes no difference to that.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]
Is there an Argument from Logical Rule Fallacy ?

Or an

Argument from Using your Brain Fallacy ?

Or

Argument from Not understanding Fallacys Fallacy ?

Or perhaps

The Fallacy of Fallacys Fallacy ?

Greatest Fallacy of all Fallacys Fallacy ?

Not resorting to a Fallacy Fallacy ?

Joining the Debate Fallacy ?

Debating an Adversary Fallacy ?

Not Knowing how Fallacys work Fallacy ?

Going to the Internet Fallacy ?

Thinking up New Fallacys Fallacy ?

The Fallacy to end all Fallacys Fallacy ?

The Fallacy that isnt really a Fallacy Fallacy ?

The Not being able to stuff it Fallacy ?

The Not being willing to google the meaning of Fallacy Fallacy ?

The The Rejecting the Importance of Fallacys Fallacy ?

The Not knowing all existing Fallacys Fallacy ?

The Being a Pig but not able to grow Wings and Fly Fallacy ?

The Countering a Fallacy with another Fallacy Fallacy ?

The Fallacy from Fallacious thinking ?

The Fallacy from only being able to debate by using one Fallacy after the other Fallacy ?

The Being able to recognice a Fallacy when it occurs Fallacy ?

The Being unable to recognice a Fallacy when it occurs Fallacy ?