Lord, Liar, or lunatic?

Question

What do you think of the Lord, Liar or Lunatic propositon put forward by C.S Lewis that, logically, either Christ was, as he claimed, the son of God, or he was a liar and a con man, or he was a lunatic that really believed in what he taught when it wast true. He asks that, if Christ was a liar, then would he have kept the con up even when he knew he was facing imprisonment and possibly death? and if he did then would that not have made him a bit of a lunatic and if that was so then how did what he taught make so much sense to so many people throughout the centuries and worry the learned men of the time so much?. What do Christians and Athiests think of this idea?

Answer 1

Its up to you to decide!

Answer 2

'Legend' does not necessarily imply that Jesus did not exist, just that the stories about him have been greatly exaggerated. I find it quite likely that this is the case for Jesus, and so we cannot really answer with any confidence, since we do not know which stories about him are true.



I think that 'liar' and 'lunatic' are probably putting it a bit strongly, but that in essence he was probably just expressing his unfounded beliefs, just like most religious people. According to Mark's gospel, his friends (at one stage at least) thought he was mad, so it is quite possible that he was a lunatic.



Edit:

"As for the legend idea, is it plausable that religious God-fearing men would make up a legend about Christ being his son?"

It is not so much that people really make up legends, as such, they just add their own ideas to existing stories, and these accumulate to produce legends. How else do you suppose other religions came about?



"Seems odd also that others who knew him would die in his name if he was a fraud."

This is basically the 'die for a lie' argument. That is a whole new question, so you should really ask it separately, rather than just adding it on to an existing question.

Answer 3

I think we have to remember that our perception of 'Lunatic' is very different in this (and in Lewis') time is very different from what it would have been then when the supernatural and deities were accepted as equally real as material things. In this time, someone saying they were the son of God would see them taken to a psychiatrist but then when 'magical' explanations were given for so much, it would be far less out of the ordinary. It is entirely possible that Jesus, if he claimed to be the son of God, did so from mistaken motives, overinterpetation. Much closer to a mistake than a lie or a delusion. Just as someone might say today that their relationship broke up because Aries and Leos cannot get on, might make us roll our eyes but not be astonished or think the person literally insane.



I am a modern historian and agree that most historians do think that an influential and charismatic religious leader emerged amongst the Jews and founded Christianity at this time but bear in mind that historians are also fully aware how much of Jesus' story is plagiarised from older myths involving Horus, Dionysis, Krishna and Mithras among others. Historians by no means commonly accept that a person named Jesus existed who did what was said of him or was claimed to have done those things at that time. Jesus is most likely an amalgamation of older myths and an influential human being.

Answer 4

(¯`v´¯)

`*.¸.*´ ?

¸.•´¸.•*¨) ¸.•*¨) ρєαcє вє υηтσ уσυ

(¸.•´ (¸.•´ .•´ ¸¸.•¨ѕαℓαм αℓαукυм.



Hercules, the greatest of the Roman and Greek heros who is claimed to be the son of Zeus, is famous for his strength and for his numerous far-ranging adventures such as slaying the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra (a serpent-like water beast) and slaying the Stymphalian birds (men-eating pets of the god of war who's dungs were highly toxic). Now these are some pretty bold claims. Let us look at the possibilities of who Hercules must have been, either:



➊ He didn't really do these things but thought he did, in that case he was insane.

► Fruitcake



➋ He didn't do these things and he knew he didn't, in that case he was lying.

► Fibber



➌ He really did do these things therefore he was the son of Zeus.

► Frickin' god



So you have 3 choices: Hercules was either a Fruitcake, a Fibber, or a Frickin' god.



There are a whole series of arguments by the followers of Hercules to prove from the stories & texts that he was neither a Fruitcake nor a Fibber therefore Hercules must have been a Frickin' god.



Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, ƐѴƐŔYOИƐ is in complete agreement that this logic is this:



   ▀      ▄▄  ▄███▄

▄▀▀▀▄   ▄█████████▀

█    █  ▄██████  █▀

█    █  ▀██████████▄

▀▄   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀██▀

  █  ▀▄▄    ▄▄▀   ██▀

█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█    ███▄▄



The problem lies in the first premise, obviously those 3 options cannot be the only possibilities.



C.S Lewis says that Jesus was either a Liar, Lunatic or Lord. Jesus was neither a Liar nor a Lunatic therefore he must've been Lord. But these are not the only possibilities.



Hercules worship came about because of a historical figure. Evidently there was a genuine man named Hercules who grew up in the city of Alcaeus and must've been a decent man but his followers got a little out of hand and ultimately made him out to be more than he really was. That is called: ĿƐƓƐИD. A Legend is any story that's set in a historical context but contains non-historical or fantastic elements. A Legend is not always something that is totally made up but it can be based on a real person but false stories grow as time goes by.



This evolution is what happened with Jesus [peαce вe υpoɴ нιм]. The gospel of John is the latest gospel written, it was written when there was probably zero surviving adults when in the time of Jesus (100-110 AD), this gospel is unique from the rest and includes:

John 3:16 which mentions "Begotten Son" but WAIT!

Begotten means to beget i.e. to PROCREATE!

Begetting is an animal act belonging to the animal function of sex.

How can we attribute such a lowly function to the Creator? But if one reflects...

The word ‘begotten’ mentioned in John 3:16 has been thrown out

from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as an interpolation (full of doubt),

as a fabrication. It's been revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence,

backed by 50 different co-operating denominations.

These Scholars have removed this word as an interpolation, concoction, fabrication, & adulteration.



Jesus was not the son of God nor God incarnate, neither did he claim to be one but some of his followers started this Legend about him. They made him out to be more than he was. Ideas such as God coming and dying for people's sins are all Legends. Jesus was simply sent as Prophet of God and is not to be worshipped or elevated to a deity-like status.



❝The Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger.❞ —(Quran 5:75)



❝They say: “God has begotten a son!” No evidence whatever you have for this (lie about God)! Do you ascribe to God things of which you have no knowledge?❞ —(Quran 10:68)



❝Assuredly, you have uttered a monstrous falsehood: Whereby the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin that they should invoke a son for (God) Most Gracious. And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should beget a son.❞ —(Quran 19:88-92)



❝When God says, Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, Take me and my mother as two deities besides God? He will answer, Glory be to You! How could I ever say that to which I have no right? If I had ever said so, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my mind, while I do not know anything that is within Yours. You alone are the knower of unseen things.❞ —(Quran 5:116)

Answer 5

False dichotomy... well, I guess false trichotomy would be the case here. There is another possible "L" that CS Lewis conveniently leaves out. Legend. The idea that Jesus was a legendary character about whom embellished stories have come to be told, a real person who had layer upon layer of legend applied to him like a pearl being formed around a piece of sand.



edit- the fact that people were willing to write books about someone and even be martyred in that persons name is not necessarily proof of the veracity of that persons claims. I think we would both agree that Jim Jones' and David Koresh's followers (to name a couple of examples that immediately come to mind) beliefs werent correct simply because they were willing to die for their cause.

Answer 6

1) LORD

2) LIAR

3) LUNATIC

4) LEGEND BINGO!



I say he was entirely made up. either that or he wasn't the true founder of christianity. b/c the TRUE founder would have his name in 905 of the books of antiquity. his b-RECORD and everything about him. there are no records of this man ever existing. not as a carpenter and not as the son of god.

Answer 7

and are you also wondering if super man with his incredible powers must be god himself? you need to distinguish between fiction and facts. you need to demand proofs otherwise anyone can fool you.



A lot of historians think there was a man called Jesus who was crucified . that's it. the rest of the story does not even have a small evidence. even some prominent christians admit that.



You know that people tell lies before too, right? you know there are rumors and legends at the time, right? you know even in this modern age with all advancement, people believe in a lot of rumors and legends, right?

Answer 8

John, Jesus is our Lord and savior. He was born of a virgin according to the prophecies of the old. He raised dead in three occasions. 1. at the death bed 2. on the way to the cemetary. 3 from the grave as Lazaros. this is not a liar or lunatic

Answer 9

Greatly manipulative lunatic. But others made him "god", i don't think he was SUCH an lunatic. Maybe he was a masochist. I mean who wants to be deliberately put in a prison or hang on a cross?

Answer 10

Had any of this actually occurred, I would have to go with lunatic, or at least delusional.

Answer 11

i do no longer settle for the thought, "in case you consult from very very nearly any historian..." -- that may no longer actual. maximum historians will inform you that purely approximately each historic rfile written with a objective different than objective presentation of fact is going to be biased -- and early Christian records have been in no way written with objectivity in techniques; they have been consistently written with spreading the gospel message in techniques. That Jesus existed and alter right into a actual man or woman (that looks redundant -- ought to he be a actual man or woman and not exist?) would not propose it follows that something ever stated approximately him by ability of others substitute into actual. That I exist would not propose that something stated or written approximately me is actual. i do no longer believe early Christians have been mendacity. yet human beings in non secular fervor, political fervor, or different such states are sure to swap their comments. whilst Mary Magdalene first observed Jesus, she did no longer recognize him. whilst she reported her sighting to the others, they did no longer believe her. whilst he regarded on the sea coast, the disciples did no longer recognize him. whilst he regarded on the line to Emmaeus, the guy visitors did no longer recognize him. It substitute into purely after the incontrovertible fact that they desperate it lots have been Jesus. i think his substitute into the Son of God, and that his resurrection substitute into actual. yet i'm no longer prepared to diminish fee the arguments that others have that make sensible experience at why one ought to have doubts. Doubt isn't the different of religion. fact is. If i'm specific that 2+2=4, i do no longer would desire to believe in it.

Answer 12

I'm fine with either of the last two.



It's possible that none of it even happened.

Answer 13

"Lord, Liar, or lunatic?"



or legend...

Answer 14

Jesus is LORD Creator God.