I think we can all agree he most likely wasn't the son of God.
I'm reading C.S. Lewis now, and his claim that Jesus was "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" seems like a false dilemma. Couldn't he be deluded, and honestly think he was because his followers insisted? Is there historical evidence he ever claimed to be God in the first place?

Posts about your opinion on Jesus's legitimacy/character as well as reading material on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance :)

Tags: c.s., dilemma, false, jesus, lewis, liar, lord, lunatic, trichotomy

Views: 1339

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You're changing the argument. There is nothing I could say or provide that would end this discussion. You will continue to say that my evidence is insufficient. The question of the post was who was Jesus that's what I was attempting to answer. You apply a different standard to your own reasoning than you do to mine. (The assumption filled dismissal of the New Testament).

The strange thing is I encounter the same rhetoric filled bullheadedness when I discuss issues with fellow beilevers , constantly changing the argument and rejecting any proofs I provide a priori.

Same thing here. I'm smart you're dumb. I'm right you're wrong. I don't need your rhetoric.

Congrats sir you won.
I claimed I had evidence that led me to believe in God. Not the evidence you require. I told you why I believe the bible and linked a video demonstrating why I felt it was reliable. I offered external sources for the existence of a historical Jesus. Those are the reasons why I believe. I reject your assumptions regarding the New Testament that we can't trust it. I don't know what you hope to accomplish but all I am doing is demonstrating the evidence for why I believe.

Why should I have to prove that God exists to you? Did I some in here saying I was going to prove to you that God exists?
Why is scientific evidence required for my belief?

Why do you get to dictate that?

I never said I wasn't making assumptions regarding the New Testament. I assume the authors were honest.

I don't care to be right with you so why waste my time demonstrating the errors you have made. Would you accept them anyway?

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You've won the argument you're having with yourself. Congratulations.
I've already explained myself several times and you still persist. Since you have meticulously poured over my posts ( something even if momentary I am unwilling to do with your posts not because you have mischaracterized me and you'll just continue to do so but because I don't care to dedicate more than a few moments to tap out a message.) Again you seem to think I'm arguing with you and I'm not. I do have evidence that has led me to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord. Mainly that the man Jesus was a real historical figure (as opposed to Thor and the tooth fairy) and the bible is an accurate record of his life, death, and resurrection.

I don't think you understand how we know things in history (hence the continued demand for scientific evidence). Can you scientifically demonstrate that Abraham Lincoln existed?

How is that testable and repeatable? It's what I've said from the beginning you are committing a category error in demanding scientific evidence for God. Even philosophically that seems silly.

Sure I could william lane Craig this post or even worse go all you can't make sense of your question without God and presup but I'm not. I'm not trying to convince anyone and reject the notion that I must provide anything you require.

Plenty of others have done that and you can feel free to read their books.

Joshua, you DO realize we have photographs of Abe Lincoln, right?  

What an odd comparison.  


We don't even have accurate paintings of Jesus Christ.  Compare his paintings and then you'll see Jesus had different colored hair and was also white or dark skinned depending the ethnocentricity of the painter.

Most Atheists will concede a man named Jesus existed.  What we contest is all the extra magical "stuff" that is thrown in afterwards.  

Those pictures are fake therefore not evidence.

Not sure if serious  

You don't seem like the trolling type - So you DO believe they are ALL fakes?

Your logic seems to be 

A man named Jesus existed.  Therefore, everything in the bible is true and ALSO he's the son Yahweh.  

I hope you can see that proving a man actually existed in no way demonstrates he had magical powers.  

Nothing in those wikipedia articles demonstrates he's magical.  Only that there is evidence he may have existed as a real man.

Also, I think you'd be quite surprised how much atheists have learned about the topic of Jesus's historicity.  

For one, I have watched dozens of debates on the topic from evangelists, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and the like.  

I personally believe he existed.  

Your turn to prove me that he's magical.  

The deluded aspect falls into the category of lunatic.  

Also, note that "Legend" can be an obvious 4th option.  

Also note that 1 or more options can be accurate as well such as a lying lunatic or a Lunatic Legend or a lying legend.  

Hell, for that matter "Lying Lord" or "Lunatic Lord" could be conceivable as well.

Without fools there would be no doGs.

Without the brainwashing of children there would be no Religion.

Hey Renee.Check out this Zeigeist documentary on religion. It blew my mind and seems to make so much sense. If anyone has any comments on it or has seen it before please let me know your thoughts on it!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE

Zeitgeist is pretty terrible. Lots of misinformation.
There is a video dissecting it pretty well online.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service