From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:04:58 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug26.185419.22227@meaddata.com>, joyce@meaddata.com  writes:
> LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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, 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."
>
> 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."

You are doing naught but repeating your previous arguments, not responding to
the points raised in response to your original posting.  To recap, there are
more alternatives than "Lord, liar, or lunatic":

1) Jesus is misquoted.
2) Jesus is misunderstood.
3) Some of the things attributed to Jesus are fabricated.

> F.J.A. Hort, 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."

This might be more convincing if Mr. Hort gave his reasons for this statement
rather than just expecting us to accept it on his authority.
  
> 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." "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.

See my points above.

> WAS HE A LIAR?
> 
> 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

Liar and hypocrite are not mutually exclusive descriptors, so this remains a
possibility.

> honest, whatever the cost, while he himself taught and lived a
> colossal lie. 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. Last, he would also
> be a fool because it was his claims to being God that led to his
> crucifixion. 

The claim of demon is hyperbolic, and once again "liar", "hypocrite", and
"fool" are not mutually exclusive descriptors, either.
 
> 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?

It's the difference between being a good moral teacher and a good moral
example.
 
> 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.

The flaw in the statement here is that this can be true regardless of the truth
of Jesus alleged claims to Divinity.

> William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a
> dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, 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."

Of course, the sword and torch had to be resorted to in order to get it to act
on some nations and temperments...
 
> Historian Philip Schaff 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,
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am very skeptical of the objectivity of an historian who considers this
historically established.

[snip]
> 
> 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?

You have not proven this claim.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism