I realize how little I know.
I'm in the process of researching in order to be able to document things as I write about them.
Here's a page that I've found helpful (from: http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/claims.htm):
Claims: What did Jesus Christ have to say about himself?
Legend, Lunatic, Liar, or Lord and GOD?
In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.(emphasis: web author)"
Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.
Here are some of the key claims Jesus made about himself.
....
2 comments:
Good idea!
I am not fond of the Lunatic, Liar, Lord argument. Hume ruined me on it. It is definitely more probably that Jesus was a lunatic or liar than he rise himself from the dead. Its also more probable that the disciples gave up their life for a lunatic or liar (as they argue) than Jesus rise himself from the dead.
But was Jesus Lord? Absolutely. Some day I'll sit down and right a treatise proving it.
Marlana,
Thanks for pointing out the problems with the argument:
"The trouble is, the Lord, liar, lunatic argument is fundamentally flawed. This argument presupposes that Jesus was God, or a perfect man. Were we just dealing with an ordinary man, it is quite acceptable to say that some things he said were true, and others false...."
-- http://www.geocities.com
/atheistdivine/lll.html
Maybe I'll look for some Ravi Zacharias stuff.
Post a Comment