From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:51:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

Before addressing this, I want to publicly apologize for, and retract,
the statement that "these articles" (i.e. Joyce's republication of
McDowell's arguments) be "ignored".  This was an overreaction; there
is no reason to call for such censorship.  These arguments may be
tired, confused, and exhausting to refute in detail, but it was wrong
of me to suggest that they be ignored.

In article <1992Aug27.174621.11005@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>You guys are all mistaken. I don't even own a copy of "Evidence That
>Demands a Verdict."

I suggest that you either do, perhaps under a different name, or you
own a copy of another source that plagiarizes McDowell, or possibly
another McDowell work that recycles ETDAV.  For the record, I include
a copy of the articles in question, annotated by comparison with
"Evidence That Demands A Verdict" (Here's Life Publishers, San
Bernardino CA, (c) Campus Crusade for Christ 1972, 1979).  I include
Joyce's articles, without > etc., and with such of Joyce's (or her
ultimate source's) words as DO NOT appear in ETDAV in {...}, and
conversely ETDAV words not in Joyce in [...].  My comments are in
[[...]].  I have introduced line breaks where necessary.  Although
tempted to delete runs of unaltered included text, I have not done so. 

From the context here, I am inclined to believe that this is quoted
from a source, probably by McDowell (based on his characteristic style
reflected in the "schizophrenia" section), and possibly by CCC or a
Messianic group (note the section on evangelizing Jews, and the
omission of the anti-Semitic section of the Schaff quote).
Nevertheless, the vast bulk of the text is direct from ETDAV.

----- Begin included text, edited as indicated above -----

{Ok, everyone, due to the numerous responses to my post, I've changed
my mind and decided to re-visit this newsgroup. Responses also do not
need to be e-mailed to me, I just find that I'm repeating myself a lot
in responding to people individually. So I've decided to save myself
time and just post and also to explain the arguments I have obtained
in greater depth than I have in my previous posting.}

[CHAPTER 7 - THE TRILEMMA -]

LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?

[[ETDAV is in the form of an outline; I won't indicate the details of
the outline form, bullet points, reference footnotes, etc. -jp]]

{The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of
skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who
said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off
as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the
intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in
agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.}

[Jesus considered *who* men believed Him to be of fundamental importance.]
{To Jesus, who men and women believed him to be was of fundamental
importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what he claimed about
himself, one couldn't conclude he was just a good moral man or
prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual,and Jesus never
intended it to be.}

C.S. Lewis, who was a professor at Cambridge University and once an
agnostic, [wrote]{understood this issue clearly. He writes}: "I am trying here
to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often
say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher,
but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must
not say. 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 a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he
would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man
was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."

[C.S.]{Then} Lewis adds: "You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him
and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about
His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He
did not intend to."

F.J.A. Hort [has written]{, who spent twenty-eight years in a critical
study of the
New Testament text, writes}: "His words were so completely parts and
utterances of Himself, that they had no meaning as abstract statements
of truth uttered by Him as a Divine oracle or prophet. Take away
Himself as the primary (though not the ultimate) subject of every
statement and they all fall to pieces."

In the words of Kenneth Scott Latourette, historian of Christianity at
Yale University: "It is not his teachings which make Jesus so
remarkable, although these would be enough to give him distinction. It
is a combination of the teachings with the man himself. The two cannot
be separated." [page/paragraph break] "It must be obvious
{," Latourette concludes, "}to any
thoughtful reader of the Gospel records that Jesus regarded himself
and his message as inseparable. He was a great teacher, but he was
more. His teachings about the kingdom of God, about human conduct, and
about God were important, but they could not be divorced from him
without, from his standpoint, being vitiated["].

["decision tree" diagram: "JESUS CLAIMS TO BE GOD"]

Jesus claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option[s]{ open}. His
claim must be either true or false[ and]{, so it }is something that should be
given serious consideration. Jesus' question to his disciples, "But
who do you say that I am?" [(Mark 8:29) is also asked of us today]
{has several alternatives}.

First, consider that his claim to be God was false. If it was false,
then we have two and only two alternatives. He either knew it was
false or he didn't know it was false. We will consider each one
separately and examine the evidence.

WAS HE A LIAR?

[[McDowell consistently capitalizes "He" etc. in referring to Jesus,
Joyce Torres, or her source, does not.  -jp]]

If, when Jesus made his claims, he knew that he was not God, then he
was lying{ and deliberately deceiving his followers}. But if he was a
liar, then he was also a hypocrite because he told others to be
honest, whatever the cost, while he himself taught and lived a
colossal lie. [page/paragraph break]
[And]More than that, he was a demon, because he told others
to trust him for their eternal destiny. If he couldn't back up his
claims and knew it, then he was unspeakably evil. [paragraph break]
Last, he would also
be a fool because it was his claims to being God that led to his
crucifixion.

[[half a page of quotes from the Bible and a character witness by J.S.
Mill in McDowell omitted -jp]] 

{Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic.
How could he be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at
the most important point of his teaching -- his own identity?

You would have to conclude logically that he was a deliberate liar.
This view of Jesus, however, doesn't coincide with what we know either
of him or the results of his life and teachings. Wherever Jesus has
been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have
changed for the better, thieves are made honest, alcoholics are cured,
hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become
just.}

William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a
dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, [in *History of European
Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne wrote]{writes}: "It was reserved
for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character which
through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts
of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on
all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the
highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice
... The simple record of these three short years of active life has
done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions
of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."

{Historian} Philip Schaff[, the Christian historian, said] {says}: 
"This testimony, if not true, must be
downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a
moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in his
every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent.
Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all
respects so clear and so sound, is equally out of the question. How
could he be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance
of his mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and
persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the
wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately
predicted his death on the cross, his resurrection on the third day,
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of  his Church, the
destruction of Jerusalem -- predictions which have been literally
fulfilled? A character so original, so complete, so uniformly
consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human
greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet, as has been
well said, would in this case be greater than the hero. It would take
more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus."

Elsewhere Schaff [*The Person of Christ*, gives very convicting
evidence]{gives convincing argument against Christ being a
liar}: ["The hypothesis of imposture is so revolting to moral as well
as common sense, that its mere statement is its condemnation.  It was
invented by the Jews who crucified the Lord to cover their crime, but
has never been seriously carried out, and no scholar of any decency
and self-respect would now dare to profess it openly.]
[[Interesting omission, there.  -jp]]
{"}How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could
an impostor -- that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man -- have
invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the
purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect
air of truth and reality? How could he have conceived and successfully
carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and
sublimity, and sacrificed his own life for it, in the face of the
strongest prejudices of his people and age?"

{If Jesus wanted to get people to follow him and believe in him as God,
why did he go to the Jewish nation? Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to
a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering
to the undivided unity of God? Why didn't he go to Egypt or, even
more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various
manifestations of them?}

Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as
Jesus died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?

{--------------To be continued--------------------------------------

WAS HE A} LUNATIC?

If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then [could not He]
{couldn't he}
actually have thought himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all,
it's possible to be both sincere and wrong. [paragraph break] But we 
must remember that
for someone to think himself God, especially in a [culture that is
fiercely monotheistic]{fiercely
monotheistic culture}, and then to tell others that their eternal
destiny depended on believing in him, is no slight flight of fantasy
but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense. Was Jesus Christ
such a person?

[[The following section on schizophrenia etc. is a digression from
McDowell; ETDAV continues at this point directly with the C.S. Lewis
quote somewhat below.  On the topic of lunacy, I suggest interested
parties consult an encyclopedia on paranoia, and the degree of
apparent rationality of paranoids on topics other than their
particular delusion.  -jp]]

{Someone who believes he is God sounds like someone today believing
himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self-deceived, and probably
he would be locked up so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else. Yet
in Jesus we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually
go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly
be amazing if he were insane.

Noyes and Kolb, in a medical text, describe the schizophrenic as a
person who is more autistic than realistic. The schizophrenic desires
to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God
would certainly be a retreat from reality.

In light of the other things we know about Jesus, it's hard to imagine
that he was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who spoke some of the
most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated
many individuals in mental bondage. Clark H. Pinnock asks: "Was he
deluded about his greatness, a paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a
schizophrenic? Again, the skill and depth of his teachings support the
case only for his total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as
he!" A student at a California university told me that his psychology
professor had said in class that "all he has to do is pick up the
Bible and read portions of Christ's teaching to many of his patients.
That's all the counseling they need."

Psychiatrist J.T. Fisher states: "If you were to take the sum total of
all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of
psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene -- if
you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess
verbiage -- if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the
parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure
scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living
poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the
Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through
comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been
holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless
yearnings. Here ... rests the blueprint for successful human life with
optimism, mental health, and contentment."}

C.S. Lewis [has written]{writes}: "The historical difficulty of giving

for the life,
sayings and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than
the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the
depth and sanity
[[in McDowell there is no ellipsis here; just "sanity of His" -jp]]
{ ... }of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania
which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed God
has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non-Christian
hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of
bewilderment."

[[Two long paragraphs quoting Napoleon and Channing as cited by Schaff
present in McDowell, omitted here -jp]]

Philip Schaff [, the historian, wrote]{reasons}: "Is such an intellect
-- clear as the sky,
bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword,
thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always
self-possessed -- liable to a radical and most serious delusion
concerning his own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!"

{WAS HE} LORD?

[[Relatively long "personal" digression follows. -jp]]

{I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The
only other alternative is that he was the Christ, the Son of God, as
he claimed.

When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they
respond. They usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright,
religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share
with them the claims Jesus made about himself and then the material in
this chapter on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord). When I ask if
they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "No!" Then I ask, "Do
you believe he was a lunatic?" The reply is "Of course not." Do you
believe he is God?" Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a
resounding "Absolutely not." Yet one has only so many choices.

The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible,for
it is obvious that all three are possible. But rather, the question is
"Which is more probable?"}
Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be
an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put him on the shelf as a
great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar,
a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice. "But," as the
Apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and"  -- more important -- "that
believing you might have life in His name".

The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. Some people,
however, reject this clear evidence because of moral implications
involved. [There needs to be a moral honesty in the above
consideration of Jesus as either a liar, lunatic, or Lord and God.]
{They don't want to face up to the responsibility or
implications of calling him Lord.}

----------------------If anyone is interested where I got this from,
I'll let you know sometime.------------------------------------------
[[... In another article, responding to identification of this
spurious reasoning:]]
You guys are all mistaken. I don't even own a copy of "Evidence That
Demands a Verdict."

[[If there was any doubt about the ultimate source of virtually all of
this article, I hope this has dispelled it. -jp]]




-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism