Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[ekim]

Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.

It also appears in the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of Jesus sayings without interest in miracles, prophecies, dying for sins, personality stories etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you are going to make fantastical claims based on the text of the NT then you'd need address the risks of mistakes or lies, and if you can't (and you can't) then you should consider the NT as being too unreliable to take seriously.

You seem reluctant to consider that the mysterious 'authors' of the NT might be either ignorant, gullible or devious: just like some people are today.

.....Which distill down to mad or bad in my book.

I'm intrigued by your apparent suspicion that people don't consider the risk of lies or mistakes.
I wonder how far you have considered them. What did you do that others have failed to?

I'm still pretty sure that your objections to the historicity of the early church are not actually historical but are based tenuously in current science(scientism?) and personal incredulity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possibly, but there is a difference between lying, which I consider to be saying things that you know to be untrue, and being genuinely mistaken (in other words you say something that you consider to be true but actually isn't). So to consider someone to be a liar we would first of all need to be sure what they claimed and then you'd need to determine whether or not they knew the thing they claimed was not true. In the case of Jesus realistically we have no idea what he actually claimed (rather than what later writers claimed that he ... err ... claimed) and we even less know whether or not he knew the things he was claiming were, or were not, true.

So he might have been a liar but it is frankly impossible for us to know based on the paucity of evidence we have. So realistically ascribing attributes to Jesus is a fool's game as we know next to nothing genuinely about him. We might ascribe attributes to those later writers who wrote about him as we have (to an extent) writing from them, plus also we know a little about the development of the early church and the writing we have was clearly carefully curated by those early church leaders.

I'm sure in your book Jesus is not Lord in the biblical divine sense.
So I have to ask you, where does your boundary between mere mistake as in say the errors you make while remaining Sane and Believing that a person can be man and God(Lord?).

If you are honest I think you think it is mad as evidenced in your contribution to it's eradication here on Religion Ethics.

[Gordon]

.....Which distill down to mad or bad in my book.

I'm intrigued by your apparent suspicion that people don't consider the risk of lies or mistakes.
I wonder how far you have considered them. What did you do that others have failed to?

I'm still pretty sure that your objections to the historicity of the early church are not actually historical but are based tenuously in current science(scientism?) and personal incredulity.

It's very simple to explain, Vlad - because the risks of mistakes or lies are fairly obvious, and given the nature of some of the claims, I think the only sensible option is to reject any notion that the NT portrays actual history. It is for those who claim that it does portray actual history to assess the risks of mistakes and/or lies, and if they can't do that then it seems to me that taking the NT seriously is a bit silly.

My dismissal of the NT as history isn't based on 'scientism' or personal incredulity: it's simply about the lack of provenance and the fantastical claims therein.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sure in your book Jesus is not Lord in the biblical divine sense.
So I have to ask you, where does your boundary between mere mistake as in say the errors you make while remaining Sane and Believing that a person can be man and God(Lord?).

If you are honest I think you think it is mad as evidenced in your contribution to it's eradication here on Religion Ethics.

Well we are back into the hoary old world of objective and subjective truths aren't we. And we also need to factor in cultural context.

So there are plenty of situations where there is a cultural orthodoxy to belief something that is objectively not true - so for example that the sun goes round the earth. And those people 'mad' or 'bad' if they have been brought up culturally to believe that the sun goes around the earth when they do not have easy access to factual information to demonstrate that belief to be wrong. Well in my mind they wouldn't be either mad or bad but genuinely mistaken.

Well the situation shifts when objective facts are readily available - so you may then argue that someone who wilfully refuses to accept the facts is at the very least deluded. Or that someone who active suppresses those facts is bad.

But, of course, we aren't talking about objective truths here are we - belief in god is just that belief. So it is effectively a 'subjective' truth which cannot be proved right or wrong. So in this case the issue of mad, bad becomes much more blurred as there is no way to actually prove that belief wrong. Someone may be to an extent deluded or wrong about a genuinely held believe, but does that make them mad or bad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's very simple to explain, Vlad - because the risks of mistakes or lies are fairly obvious, and given the nature of some of the claims, I think the only sensible option is to reject any notion that the NT portrays actual history. It is for those who claim that it does portray actual history to assess the risks of mistakes and/or lies, and if they can't do that then it seems to me that taking the NT seriously is a bit silly.

My dismissal of the NT as history isn't based on 'scientism' or personal incredulity: it's simply about the lack of provenance and the fantastical claims therein.

I don't think the Story lacks provenance.What it lacks is first hand extant writings but that is something shared with many ancient writings.

You seem to be flip flopping between probably liars or loonies, might be liars and loonies and your own definition of provenance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well we are back into the hoary old world of objective and subjective truths aren't we. And we also need to factor in cultural context.

So there are plenty of situations where there is a cultural orthodoxy to belief something that is objectively not true - so for example that the sun goes round the earth. And those people 'mad' or 'bad' if they have been brought up culturally to believe that the sun goes around the earth when they do not have easy access to factual information to demonstrate that belief to be wrong. Well in my mind they wouldn't be either mad or bad but genuinely mistaken.

Well the situation shifts when objective facts are readily available - so you may then argue that someone who wilfully refuses to accept the facts is at the very least deluded. Or that someone who active suppresses those facts is bad.

But, of course, we aren't talking about objective truths here are we - belief in god is just that belief. So it is effectively a 'subjective' truth which cannot be proved right or wrong. So in this case the issue of mad, bad becomes much more blurred as there is no way to actually prove that belief wrong. Someone may be to an extent deluded or wrong about a genuinely held believe, but does that make them mad or bad?

I'm not happy that the authors of the new testament meant for Jesus to be considered Jesus as subjectively God or God as subjectively true. As the most high and everlasting father he is the only non ephemeral thing.

You are avoiding your own desire to "eliminate religion" and your motives and emotive behind that which are routed in your views about what is healthy, what is moral.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not happy that the authors of the new testament meant for Jesus to be considered Jesus as subjectively God or God as subjectively true. As the most high and everlasting father he is the only non ephemeral thing.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.

The point is that while you might believe god exists you cannot prove it, and while I might not believe that god exists I cannot prove that either. So we are left with individual (and therefore subjective) belief.

So the point is that there is no objective factual evidence to demonstrate that a person's genuinely held belief is right or wrong. This makes it different to someone who might have a genuinely held belief that the sun goes round the sun - that can easily be proved, objectively, to be wrong. So if someone continued to hold to a believe that had been demonstrated objectively to be wrong then you might move from 'genuinely held belief' to 'deluded', 'mad' or 'bad'.

But where a genuinely held belief cannot be proved to be correct or incorrect then it seems to me to remain merely a genuinely held belief and it seems unreasonably to label someone with that belief 'mad' or 'bad'. How they act in regard of that belief is another matter - if they use that belief to justify homophobia or discrimination against women (for example) might alter that. But I'm talking about the base belief itself.

You are avoiding your own desire to "eliminate religion" and your motives and emotive behind that which are routed in your views about what is healthy, what is moral.

Actually it is nothing of the sort - and when have I ever indicated that religion should be eliminated Vlad. I am a secularist and that means freedom of religion and freedom from religion so secularists aren't in the business of eliminating religion.

[Gordon]

I don't think the Story lacks provenance.What it lacks is first hand extant writings but that is something shared with many ancient writings.

You've just explained why it lacks provenance - no doubt other ancient texts also lack provenance - but that is irrelevant to the specific case of the NT. It could be fictional propaganda for Jesus, and those that take it seriously seem to have no means of excluding that possibility. Perhaps the (I presume) warm and cosy feeling of 'faith' is sufficient for their personal needs and that they are disinclined to look more closely.

You seem to be flip flopping between probably liars or loonies, might be liars and loonies and your own definition of provenance.

Not really - I reject the divine claims in the NT as being nonsensical and indistinguishable from fiction (since only in fiction do you tend to find characters with supernatural attributes). Hence, I'm untroubled by the possibility of bumping into either Jesus or Gandalf when I'm next in Tesco.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've just explained why it lacks provenance - no doubt other ancient texts also lack provenance - but that is irrelevant to the specific case of the NT. It could be fictional propaganda for Jesus, and those that take it seriously seem to have no means of excluding that possibility. Perhaps the (I presume) warm and cosy feeling of 'faith' is sufficient for their personal needs and that they are disinclined to look more closely.

Not really - I reject the divine claims in the NT as being nonsensical and indistinguishable from fiction (since only in fiction do you tend to find characters with supernatural attributes). Hence, I'm untroubled by the possibility of bumping into either Jesus or Gandalf when I'm next in Tesco.

Well you've kind of proved Lewis correct...which rather renders your forum career as "Nutter Baiting".

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm not happy that the authors of the new testament meant for Jesus to be considered Jesus as subjectively God or God as subjectively true. As the most high and everlasting father he is the only non ephemeral thing.

You are avoiding your own desire to "eliminate religion" and your motives and emotive behind that which are routed in your views about what is healthy, what is moral.

Oh dear - now you've called Jesus the everlasting father. Even in Trinitarian doctrine he is not supposed to be called that. But then, I'm not surprised you get confused over such nonsense. Perhaps a talk with the Orthodox might help?

Very touching, your sentimental attachment to old Jack the Whipper, btw. Can't for the life of me understand why you keep flogging ( )this dead horse.

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm sure in your book Jesus is not Lord in the biblical divine sense.
So I have to ask you, where does your boundary between mere mistake as in say the errors you make while remaining Sane and Believing that a person can be man and God(Lord?).

If you are honest I think you think it is mad as evidenced in your contribution to it's eradication here on Religion Ethics.

Looks like you've shifted away from the original question to wondering whether a believer in Jesus (not Jesus himself) was is sane if they hold to a doctrine worked out long after the death of the original personage.
Back to the question of Jesus' own sanity: this was in fact the theme of the psychological section of Albert Schweitzer's medical doctoral thesis. Schweitzer concluded that in no way was Jesus insane in considering seeing himself as the final fulfillment of Jewish apocalyptic prophecy. However, it does not follow from this that Jesus was and is God - and as Schweitzer finally concluded, Jesus was proved (albeit heroically and sanely) wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - now you've called Jesus the everlasting father. Even in Trinitarian doctrine he is not supposed to be called that. But then, I'm not surprised you get confused over such nonsense. Perhaps a talk with the Orthodox might help?

Very touching, your sentimental attachment to old Jack the Whipper, btw. Can't for the life of me understand why you keep flogging ( )this dead horse.

I was referring to God as the Everlasting Father....
Isaiah 9.6 refers to the Messiah as the Everlasting Father and Christianity refers Jesus as the Mrssiah.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Dicky Underpants]

I was referring to God as the Everlasting Father....
Isaiah 9.6 refers to the Messiah as the Everlasting Father and Christianity refers Jesus as the Mrssiah.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

No mention  of the  Messiah there, old boy. And even if there were, it's just a Christian extrapolation, about which I don't give a damn (Handel sets the words magnificently though).
Please don't get into the inanities of trinitarian doctrine, though. It's really not relevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No mention  of the  Messiah there, old boy. And even if there were, it's just a Christian extrapolation, about which I don't give a damn (Handel sets the words magnificently though).
Please don't get into the inanities of trinitarian doctrine, though. It's really not relevant.

Since you have a thing about trinitarian talk I'm left wondering whether a Religionethics forum not mention it any more .....or you find another forum more suited to your sensibilities.

[Dicky Underpants]

Since you have a thing about trinitarian talk I'm left wondering whether a Religionethics forum not mention it any more .....or you find another forum more suited to your sensibilities.

If you're anxious to talk about the Trinity, why not open a new thread?  I fear it would be a very short-lived one though.

[Gordon]

Well you've kind of proved Lewis correct...

How so?

[Spud]

It also appears in the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of Jesus sayings without interest in miracles, prophecies, dying for sins, personality stories etc.

So tat's three authors who quote beatitudes, suggesting the sayings are authentic?

[Gordon]

So tat's three authors who quote beatitudes, suggesting the sayings are authentic?

Nope

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How so?

You are a no-nonsense, call a spade a spade, reject if you can't cut glass with it, streetfighter for atheism, Gordon...

You tell it how it is....and how it is screams Christians are mad or bad and probably both and no mistaking

[Gordon]

You are a no-nonsense, call a spade a spade, reject if you can't cut glass with it, streetfighter for atheism, Gordon...

You tell it how it is....and how it is screams Christians are mad or bad and probably both and no mistaking

That isn't what I think though.

We're talking here specifically about the trilemma characterisations of Jesus by Lewis (the liar, lunatic or lord claim) - my view is that this trilemma is based on questionable sources, and even then it is too narrow in scope by ignoring other possibilities, and therefore has little value.

While I do think that the core tenets of Christianity are unsound, I don't think that Christians in general are 'mad or bad' - you're extrapolating from what I actually said (about the trilemma) to what you would have liked me to have said, so I'd say you were misrepresenting me.

I only personally know one self-confessed Christian, and he is neither 'mad nor bad': I'm referring to our very own Gonnagle, and I regard him as a personal friend of many years standing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looks like you've shifted away from the original question to wondering whether a believer in Jesus (not Jesus himself) was is sane if they hold to a doctrine worked out long after the death of the original personage.
Back to the question of Jesus' own sanity: this was in fact the theme of the psychological section of Albert Schweitzer's medical doctoral thesis. Schweitzer concluded that in no way was Jesus insane in considering seeing himself as the final fulfillment of Jewish apocalyptic prophecy. However, it does not follow from this that Jesus was and is God - and as Schweitzer finally concluded, Jesus was proved (albeit heroically and sanely) wrong.

I think that had Jesus acted and claimed in the way he is recorded in the NT. If he sincerely believed in it and himself he should either be a madman along the lines of someone who thinks they are Napoleon or a great criminal operator or be what he claimed to be.

That trilemma then devolves to any apologist. They are either mad, bad or Correct.

Search yourself and you come down basically to holding to one of those options.
[

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That isn't what I think though.

We're talking here specifically about the trilemma characterisations of Jesus by Lewis (the liar, lunatic or lord claim) - my view is that this trilemma is based on questionable sources, and even then it is too narrow in scope by ignoring other possibilities, and therefore has little value.

While I do think that the core tenets of Christianity are unsound, I don't think that Christians in general are 'mad or bad' - you're extrapolating from what I actually said (about the trilemma) to what you would have liked me to have said, so I'd say you were misrepresenting me.

I only personally know one self-confessed Christian, and he is neither 'mad nor bad': I'm referring to our very own Gonnagle, and I regard him as a personal friend of many years standing.

vis a vis the extent of how mentally aberrant you think Christians are, don't you think you could be offering Gonnagle "mates rates" on this?

[Gordon]

vis a vis the extent of how mentally aberrant you think Christians are, don't you think you could be offering Gonnagle "mates rates" on this?

Do you ever read and think about what people actually say to you, or do you just prefer to mindlessly rant at everyone?

[Dicky Underpants]

I think that had Jesus acted and claimed in the way he is recorded in the NT. If he sincerely believed in it and himself he should either be a madman along the lines of someone who thinks they are Napoleon or a great criminal operator or be what he claimed to be.

That trilemma then devolves to any apologist. They are either mad, bad or Correct.

Search yourself and you come down basically to holding to one of those options.
[

Search yourself, rather. Schweitzer concluded that Jesus was not mad to hold the beliefs he held (as far as we can tell what those beliefs were from highly questionable writings, written at best from second-hand memories, years after the events and sayings in question). I'm with Schweitzer: Jesus was sincerely mistaken. He was not mad. Many millennial, end-time preachers have been sincere believers since (There is a certain amount of end-time thought in the writings of John Wesley). Some were most certainly unhinged (Charles Taze Russell and 'Judge' Rutherford for example) but most have just been sincerely mistaken.