I’ve heard many times the Jesus trilemma: When Jesus claimed that he was the son of God, he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the real thing. This is used as proof by apologists that Jesus was indeed what he claimed because the liar and lunatic things contradict the gospel account. However, I imagine that there could be other options. I’d like to hear y’all’s suggestions.
Some things that spring to mind:
Perhaps the gospels are inaccurate. Perhaps their writers twisted things Jesus said and did, to imply that he was the son of God so as to reinforce their own nascent religion.
Perhaps Jesus was a purely fictional character, made up by the gospel authors.
Perhaps Jesus was simply a very compassionate man who wanted to spread pacifism and the doctrine of loving one another, but understood that for most people to accept it, it would have to be wrapped up in religion, and so claimed to be the son of God.
Claiming to be the “son of God” was not a claim to divinity for ancient Jews. It was just used to designate someone who was especially righteous or close to God. It wasn’t taken literally.
Jesus was one incarnation of the son of God. Christians who claim that Jesus is God are deeply confused.
As are the ones that deeply believe Adam and Eve were the first people and that the whole world flooded when Noah built his Ark…And so on with half the stories in the Old Testiment.
Believe me, I know ALOT of Christians that take the bible word for word and it blows my mind how someone can take some of these things literally!
If we had anything that Yeshua Himself had written, maybe the trilemna would be a valid argument. As it stands, all we have are reports from His followers, who clearly had an agenda.
Liar, lunatic, or lord are not the only options. Misinterpreted preacher is highly likely.
I also wonder why “lunatic” is presented as a negative. A self-deluded man can still have worthwhile insights into human relationships.
The people who reported in their writings that he had claimed to be the Son of God also reported that he was once challenged on the subject and replied, "Does it not say in the Book, ‘I said ye are Gods’?
It is generally accepted that the place it was “written in the law” was Psalms 82:
I think that’s sufficient support for concluding that Jesus of Nazareth was exactly what he said he was: a god like unto the rest of us, one who knew it and understood it whereas the rest of us did not. And do not. We’re more comfortable dipping him in gold and worshipping his persona. Which I daresay was not what he was urging us to do. Not in the slightest.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=127368&perpage=50&pagenumber=1
I started a thread on this same topic some time back. I find this argument highly unconvincing for reasons I go into in the thread.
You’re probably refering to the trilemma that C.S. Lewis mentions in his writings (most notably, Mere Christianity).
The problem is that C.S. Lewis mentions the trilemma after concluding that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are fundamentally reliable, and that Jesus did present himself as God. In other words, after arriving at these conclusions, then we must ask the questions, “Was Jesus deliberately dishonest when he claimed godhood for himself?”, “Was Jesus not deliberatey dishonest, but honestly deluded?” and “Was he telling the truth?”
That’s the problem with yanking the trilemma out of its context. It becomes easy to say “Look! C.S. Lewis was ignoring other options!” when in fact, he was not. I suggest referring to his actual text to see what I mean. It’s a pretty popular book, and so it’s readily available at a reasonable price.