“Has anyone ever offered a theory that Jesus was nuts?”
The thread has been closed as the answer to the OP is/was YES!
Several replies were a bit sarcastic concerning the subject of the question.
On the ‘Off Chace’ that Jesus just might possibly be the Christ, The Son of GOD, and all that that entails in would be prudent to not cast aspersions on the person many firmly believe that HE is who HE said HE is/was.
It’s not Christ’s sanity I’m concerned about.
…and bingo was his name-o?
(seriously, is this even a debate?)
I’ll bite. “Has anyone ever offered a theory that Jesus was nuts?” Yes, quite a few people have. Especially people in their late teens who are taking their first steps away from their childhood religions. A quick Google shows that most who ask the question and answer it online, though, conclude that he was not insane, but this assumption requires an acceptance of the New Testament as entirely true, which could require a little self-delusion I haven’t been capable of since, oh, my teens.
On the other hand, the conclusion that he was insane also requires an acceptance of the NT as true since, if we discount what we read in the NT, we know practically nothing about Jesus.
A more meaningul question might be “Might the Jesus described in the New Testament have been insane”?
I’m an atheist, and before that wasn’t a Christian, but why pray tell would you consider Jesus insane? Because he thought he was descended from a god? That was a standard part of the religion of the Roman Empire, and Alexander the Great was convinced that he was descended from a Greek God. Because he thought mental illness was caused by demons? Standard belief. Because he thought he was the Messiah? Judea was up to it’s ass in Messiahs at the time.
So, not insane. Just wrong.
Well, you can be delusional without being strictly mentally ill, as I have found in my own experience.
Also, a lot of what Jesus said was like what other Pharisee rabbis were saying, while a lot of what Christians believe seems to have developed after he died. So were the Church fathers nuts? :dubious:
Lots of people now think they’re the Messiah. Most of us consider them insane. So that wouldn’t prove Jesus’ sanity. Even people who think Jesus was/is the Messiah would agree (if they were aware of all the other end-of-the-world preachers running around Judea) that all the other first century claimants were insane.
From what I’ve read, I believe that Jesus was a normal guy with a great personality who allowed his followers to convince him that he was the son of God. There are some verses where he is asking ‘Who do you think I am?’ to his disciples and they responded ‘You are the son of God!’ He allowed himself to believe this so much that he honestly thought that God was going to come and save him at the last second, hence his words on the cross, “Why have you forsaken me?”
Unfortunately, I have to go to work right now, but when I get back I’ll see if I can find the versus that led me to this conclusion.
CS Lewis offered that theory, but only as reductio ad absurdum.
According to Jewish sources of the time,the Pharisees and other such temple authorities certainly didnt think he was nuts.They were worried because his sermons and lifestyle were attracting people to him away from their teachings.The view clearly presented is of a sane adult Jewish male.He was asked to read the scrolls in the synagogue.The Jews were very respectful of their writings and certainly wouldn’t have invited a known nutter to come and deliver them.And according to the story of teachers in the temple when he was 12,he was debating theological points and impressing them with his knowledge-signs of a learned youth.
And just consider his lifestyle outside of his religious views.He was a respected tradesman supporting his mother and other family members-not the appearance of a lunatic at all.If he was a lunatic,then Pilate’s men didn’t need to go to arrest him and bring him to trial.They could simply have him removed from the community as an unwanted nuisance who was creating a disturbance.
Hello, and welcome to Pascal’s Wager. Thanks for playing!
Josh McDowell made the rounds years ago (and may still do so, for all I know) with his “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord?” monologue, borrowed loosely from CS Lewis and containing logic holes big enough to drive a truck through, but he did (sort of) ask the “lunatic” question.
Insane?
Because He performed miracles, healed people, and fulfilled the prophesies?
Also because He was resurrected?
Nah.
The Case for Creation, Christianity. etc. books prove this.
People will willfully refuse to believe.
Calling Jesus insane is one way of making excuses and not having to face it.
Hey, what about the Labors of Hercules? You atheist, refusing to believe in Hercules! What do you mean, myth?
Oh, sorry, hijack.
He offered it as part of a false trilemna. Lewis was bothered by those who thought Jesus was a good guy but not a God. Lewis alleged that because the Jesus of the gospels claimed to be God, then one must either conclude that Jesus was lying, deluded or telling the truth. He further alleged that if Jesus wasn’t telling the truth about being God then it was not reasonable to say that he was a good or wise person.
Lewis’ argument is nonsense for two reasons. The main reason is that he supposes that we must accept as fact that Jesus ever claimed to be God. He excludes from his trilemna the possibility that Jesus did not actually say everything that the Gospels claim he said.
And even if we were to take the gospels as being completely reliable (something we have no reason to do and every reason not to do) Lewis still excludes the possibility that a person can be deluded, even psychotic or schizophrenic, and still be a person of intellect, insight and compassion.
My answer to the OP is that, yes, speculation that Jesus was insane is fairly commonplace. Personally, though, I don’t think such speculation is required to explain anything. I just don’t believe he ever thought or said that he was God. The deification of Jesus was a posthumous development.
Having said that, I do think Jesus may have been a mystic and the mystic experience is technically defined as “psychotic.” A psychotic experience in itself is not necessarily indicative of mental illness, though.
Hercules was a big liar. I bet he only did two, three Labors tops.
But not God qua ontological perfection. (Jesus’ moral imperative is “Be perfect.”) It is inaccurate to call an argument “nonsense” simply because it begins with a premise. Otherwise, your own argument is nonsense because you have premises too. Lewis’ argument is valid. If God is lying, He is not good. If God is delusional, His world is not real. Not every dilemma, trilemma, or other-lemma is false.
A better translation of “be perfect (even as your Father in Heaven is perfect)” is “be complete/mature/full-grown”, btw.
Assuming that JC said all that is attributed to Him (and by the capital H, you know where I am on this S). the trilemma is perfectly valid. I see no reason NOT to believe that JC essentially said all the attributed quotes (I do recognize that much of it could have been paraphrased & that most of it is Greek translation from Aramaic originals)- I do not see any reason to accept “turn the other cheek” & other passages beloved by lefties, while dismissing “I am the Way etc.” so beloved by righties.
Only if you read his statements out of context. Lewis first argued that the gospels are fundamentally reliable. This is the mistake which people commonly make when they accuse him of offering a false trilemma.
First of all, compassion has nothing to do with it. And second, his point is that Jesus demonstrated a level of coherence which belies any accusation of insanity. He didn’t deny that a madman could have some intellect or insight; rather, his point was that Jesus’ words and actions held together too well for him to be characterized as a madman. And frankly, I agree.
Well, there’s the possibility that all three aspects of the Trilemma are true, if you do not confine the definition of a deity as stringently as, ahem, some may.
After all, having otherworldly* powers sufficient enough that ancient peoples would consider one a god does not preclude the possiblity that one is nonetheless deluded.
In fact, while lying certainly precludes one from being as benificent as possible, some people who are otherwise kind nonetheless feel the need to lie about things in order to make people feel better (puppies going to “farms”, for instance.)
Thus it is possible that Jesus was directly sent by a deity, has deitylike powers himself, but not to the extent that he thought he did (“my god, why have you forsaken me?”) He preached a message of peace and love, but felt the need to sugarcoat or simplify certain things, which makes him both a great man and a flawed liar.
*let’s forget for the moment the notion, which I actually subscribe to , that this “other world”, if that individual can interface between the two, has thus been shown to be “physical”, and thus of this world, and thus not supernatural. Classically, the afterlife and heaven have been considered supernatural.