Because Jesus doesn’t post here. 
Despite some of the phrasing the OP used, I thought there was a serious debate topic here.
'course there is. It is an everyday occurrence for people to tell stories that are only partly true, and the likelihood of truth or falsity of any given part of the story rises and falls with plausibility and implausibility respectively. Of course the entire story *could *be false, but in terms of probability, everything is not the same.
If I told you that I went fishing and caught a fish THIS big, would you say there is no more reason to believe that I went fishing than that I caught a whopper?
Yes, but if someone says, “Yesterday I went fishing on Mars and caught a unicorn thiiiiiis big! It was amazing! And then I went to the waffle house and had pancakes!” would you throw out the story about the unicorn but believe him about the pancakes? The part about the martian unicorn makes the whole story suspect, including the part about the pancakes.
I would say that’s an illustration of the “13 strike rule.” A clock that strikes 13 is not only by itself false, but it casts doubt on the other 12.
Yes but the mars thing shows the person telling the story is a loony.
If someone told me two stories about this guy he knew a long time ago, one involving the guy going to a waffle house and one involving the guy going to mars, I would not say that there is “no more reason” to believe one than the other.
I like unstated option 4: misquoted.
While we have absolutely no objective historical data about Jesus’ personality or disposition (and in fact, only somewhat vague historical data indicating he even existed in the first place), we can take some WAGs at his personality based on some of the other charismatic self-described “prophets” who quickly built up a religious following.
While some “prophets” seemed to be genuine in their beliefs that god and/or angels spoke to them, and lived in accordance with their own teachings (Muhammad is the one example I can think of), many more others seem to exhibit genuinely megalomaniacal, self-centered behavior - some (Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard) having been more successful and/or mentally stable than others (David Koresh, Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, take your pick) at building up the cult of personality.
Since the “Son of God/died for your sins” angle was hyped up mostly after his death, I’d maybe put Jesus into the “benevolent but misguided” category - but we’ll never know. 2,000 years puts a lot of distance between the man and the myth - for all we know he was just another self-serving delusional nutjob, rather than a selfless, delusional nutjob.
Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, Jesus. Not a big difference at all amongst the bunch.
I cannot tell you what Jesus thought, but I can tell you what my thoughts are on some of your questions(if indeed the answers were his or the writers)
He is quoted as saying he came only to the house of Israel (when a woman came and asked for help).
He used being the son of God, by using the quote of the Psalmist,who is quoted as saying" I said you are Gods and sons of the most high".
I don’t think he did the miracles , Just they were attributed to him to sell the story.
I don’t believe that it was his sayings that he said he would judege the entire planet, He is quoted as saying that he would return in His father’s glory with his angels while some of them standing there were still alive…He didn’t. He also( according to the writer of Matthew) that the world would end in that generation, some teach the word generation doesn’t mean as we mean it today, even though Matthew states that there was 14 generations between David and Jesus. If such a person did exist and most Historians feel he did, then the word generation would mean the same as it does now.
I doubt that Jesus(if it is true that people followed him), then he was sincere, just the writers added to , or subtracted from what he said or did.
There would be a generation what every 25-30 years or so? So 350-420 years, does that work out from King David to Jesus? David ruled in about 1000 BC, so that would be about 71 years between generations. So it doesn’t seem to mean generations as we take it.
Though there is indications of a renewal of the Lord’s people at seventy year intervals in several places in the scriptures.
It is when it focuses on a single religion. Otherwise the question posed would be generic and include all the other prophets of the ages.
What a bunch of nonsense. Next whenever I talk about George Washington I’ll have to ask about other historical leaders, too, otherwise I’ll be “presupposing American superiority” or some such bullshit. Give me a break.
Lewis’ argument presupposes that the Bible is accurate, but in the real world, I suspect that’s at least a factor.
The OP makes some negative comments about Jesus, but the questions he asks don’t apply to all prophets. Not all of them claim to be gods or descended from gods. I suppose you could ask this question about god-kings, too, but they’re out of fashion. Muhammad and Buddha Gautama didn’t claim to be God or a descendant of God (even though their spiritual claims are equally implausible to an atheist), and while there were people before and after Jesus who claimed to be the Jewish messiah, most of them are relatively minor figures, and not all of them claimed to be God either because that’s not a necessary component of being the Jewish messiah.
Magiver, that makes no sense. What is known about Jesus is not the same as what is known about, say, Joseph Smith. There is nothing improper about asking this question about this particular historical figure.
Why is there anything wrong with being specific in this way?
That’s exactly why Lewis’ trilemma is a non-starter.
If someone started a thread asking Joseph Smith was deluded or lying, would you complain that Smith was being singled out? I don’t understand your objection here. This specific question is about Jesus, but if anyone asks about any other alleged historical prophets or god-man, they’ll get the same answer from me- nutjobs, every one…except for the ones who never existed at all.
Oh please, threads shredding Christianity are a staple of this site and are more consistent than the changing seasons. this one starts out asking if Jesus Christ was delusional or full of shit. It’s standard fare to do this and quite the sport. the nice thing is that nobody will want to cut your head off for it unless you can find a good used time machine cheap. As anybody will tell you, you can’t trust the warranty on those things.
We live in a majority Christian country. That’s the religion that’s going to provoke the most discussion. It doesn’t get special treatment, though. Any other religion gets treated just as critically, even if those discussions aren’t as frequent.
Kind of ironic how you managed to work in an Islamaphobic jab after complaining about Christianity being targeted, by the way. Do you really think we wouldn’t say that Mohammed was a nutjob if an OP asked that question?
Mohammed was a nutjob. There. When am I going to get my head cut off?
Incidentally, if the historical, supernatural claims of Christianity actually had any solid evidentiary basis, they wouldn’t be so easy to rip. If Christianity can’t stand up to scrutinity, don’t blame the scrutinizers.
And of course what makes Muhammad different from Jesus in this regard (and I don’t think either of them communicated with gods or angels because those things don’t exist) is that there is pretty solid evidence of what Muhammad had to say about all of it. We can be pretty positive Muhammad said he spoke to the angel Gabriel. We can’t be positive he believed it, although you can say he acted like he believed it, but we do know he said it happened. We can’t be that sure about Jesus, which makes the speculation both more pointless and more interesting.
If I’m remembering the context correctly, Lewis’s “trilemma” argument is specifically aimed against the claim that Jesus was “a great moral teacher, and nothing more.” Lewis’s argument was that it is not reasonable to say that a man who said and did the things that Jesus is depicted in the Bible as having said and done could have been a morally good, sanely wise, ordinary human being; the only options are liar, lunatic, or Lord.
Thus, his argument is specifically about Jesus, the character who appears in the Gospels, while being irrelevant to the question of how accurately those Gospels depict what actually happened.