Given all the things Jesus said and is purported to have done there really is only 3 ways to view him as C.S. Lewis suggested~How do you view Jesus?
------------------------------------------------------------


Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

Even those who are not persuaded by Christianity often have great respect for Jesus. Among those who reject the idea that Jesus was God incarnate, there are many who are nevertheless followers of him to some degree. “Jesus was a great moral teacher”, some say, “but he wasn’t God”. According to this view, Jesus is to be followed as a great human being, but not as a divine one.


This idea that Jesus was merely a great human being, i.e. a great human being but nothing more, is, as C.S. Lewis argued in Part 2 of Mere Christianity, indefensible.

Jesus made the most astonishing claims, not only about God, society and ethics, but also about himself. He claimed to have the authority to forgive sins, to be the representative of all humanity come to die in order to reconcile man to God, and to be the only way for people to attain salvation.

Faced with the fact that Jesus made these claims about himself, there are three things that we might say about him: Either Jesus’ claims were false and he knew it, or his claims were false and he didn’t know it, or his claims were true. None of these suggests that Jesus was a great, but merely human, teacher. Anyone who has that view needs to think again.

The first thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were false and he knew it, in which case he was a liar. If Jesus did not believe that his claims about himself were true, then when he made those claims he was lying.

Jesus’ claims about himself were so central to his teachings, though, that if they were lies then he can hardly be deemed a great teacher. If Jesus set out to systematically deceive people about who he was and how their sins were to be dealt with, then he was among the worst teachers that have ever walked the earth.

The second thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were false and he didn’t know it, in which case he was a lunatic. If Jesus believed that his claims about himself were true, and they weren’t, then he was a delusional egomaniac. If an ordinary person believes himself to be God incarnate, then that person is, put quite simply, insane.



Again, if this were the case, if Jesus taught that this is who he was and was mistaken, then he was as bad a teacher as there has ever been.

The third thing that we might say about Jesus is that his claims were true, in which case he was, and is, Lord. If Jesus believed that his claims about himself were true and they were, then Jesus was not only a great human being, but was also God on Earth.

If we take Jesus seriously, then we must take Jesus’ claims about himself seriously. We cannot say that Jesus was a great teacher whom we admire and look up to, but that the most fundamental element of his teachings was a monumental error. Jesus was not a great, but merely human, teacher; he was either much less than this, or much more.


Those who respond to this argument by writing Jesus off as either a liar or a lunatic are, for all that has been said so far, just as reasonable as those who respond by accepting Jesus as Lord. This argument is an attack only on the view that Jesus was a great teacher but not God; there is nothing in it that counts against the view that Jesus was a terrible teacher. In order to show that it is better to view Jesus as Lord than as either a liar or a lunatic, it would have to be demonstrated that there is some reason to take Jesus’ claims seriously.

There are a few angles some like to use on this line of reasoning. For starters, you have to come to an understanding regarding the historical\factual accuracy of the Bible - mainly the new testament (since we are talking about the words of Jesus). That can be a fun topic on it's own. And to get there, you need a good background on the history of the Bible, how, when, why, and who put it together, etc.

But once that is cleared up (and there is so much mis-information and propganda floating around it takes time to sift through...), this 'lord, liar, or lunatic arguement has some merrit...

But those familar with the writings of CS Lewis and others such as Josh McDowell (Evidence that Demands a Verdict) will know that there is a strong case for taking the NT at it's face value as opposed to it being some made up stories (ala Joseph Smith and other 'modern prophets')...

But no matter how you slice it - you still have to have faith. That is how it was designed from the beginning...

You bring up a good point PP. Most are too lazy to do the work required to dismiss it and purely dismiss it out of hand. Generally based on some impression from their childhood. Heck most " Chritians" do not put in the work hence the " god hates ***s " crowd.

Just another Ancient Astronaut. One of many to visit and leave people of all races and cultures in a fog of confusion, and practicing primative rituals and human sacrifices that are more like Jim Jones Cults than a rightous path the creator designed for us to follow. I'm just sure they (Jesus, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, Budda, etc.,)are pleased at all the killing and greed done in their names.

Ancient Astronauts=words lost in translation?

"Just another Ancient Astronaut. "

Ahhh, the Ancient Astronaut theory...


"Why bother with Von Daniken? The arguments and evidence in Chariots of the Gods have been refuted in detail many times since the book appeared in 1968. See for example Robert Sheaffer's on-line review Chariots of the Gods: Science or Charlatanism? A criminal conviction for business fraud did nothing to help Von Daniken's reputation. But he keeps recycling his ideas. The latest of his 26 books (published 2002) is titled The Gods were Astronauts. There seems to be new life in his discredited fantasies:
In the past few years, his ideas have again started to become popular in a culture fascinated by programmes such as The X Files. He is also working on a huge theme park in Switzerland, called the Mysteries of the World, and money is gushing into the project. (The Real Erich Von Daniken)

The theme park project is the centre piece of Von Daniken's "official" website."


More at this link:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/A/An/Ancient_astronaut_theory.htm


"One of many to visit and leave people of all races and cultures in a fog of confusion"

Now why would they want to do that?? In the Bible, it says "God is not the God of confusion". But as you have pointed out, there certainly is a lot of confusion and disctrations out there that make finding the truth that much harder.

"and practicing primative rituals and human sacrifices"

Human sacrifices? Like suicide bombings? Abortion? What are you referring to? Wait, I bet this somehow comes back to Bush = Bad...


"that are more like Jim Jones Cults than a rightous path the creator designed for us to follow."

How do we know that there is a creator and that he had a design in mind? Personally I find that info in the Bible. After all, if there is a creator and he had a plan\design in mind, you'd think he'd give us some kind of 'instructions'. Otherwise, knowing what we do about human nature, we'd quickly screw up the plan, and then what point is having a plan if it is just going to get messed up right off the bat....


" I'm just sure they (Jesus, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, Budda, etc.,)are pleased at all the killing and greed done in their names."


It is interesting to study those you mentioned among others and compare what they are recorded as saying about themselves, their religion, etc. Jesus is very unique in many ways when you look at what he taught about himself and his relationship to God and man.

["Why bother with Von Daniken? The arguments and evidence in Chariots of the Gods have been refuted in detail many times since the book appeared in 1968. See for example Robert Sheaffer's on-line review Chariots of the Gods: Science or Charlatanism? A criminal conviction for business fraud did nothing to help Von Daniken's reputation. But he keeps recycling his ideas. The latest of his 26 books (published 2002) is titled The Gods were Astronauts. There seems to be new life in his discredited fantasies:


Ahhhh ...Robert Sheaffer, Gods right hand man that knows everything, including the number of slaves it took to build the pyramids. I don't rely on others to give me a definition of life, as I choose to be active in my own discovery and experiences.

Since the Gods and Angels are always described as coming from the heavens or clouds and Jesus and other deities are depicted in ancient painting, reliefs and scripture as some day coming back from the clouds or heaven.... it is just as easy for rational thinkers to assume that theses beings could just as easily be classified as Astronauts as a John Glenn or Neil Armstrong is now.

Not trying to change anyones elses beliefs. To each it's own.

As to Bush=Bad
Bush lied... innocent people died!

Could Bush be your Jim Jones leaving you so blind and unconscious that you may have already swollowed that Kool Aid.
If that's the case, I would suggest that it might not be to late to stick a finger down the throat.

Good luck on your lifes journey, seeking truth and greater understanding.

PhishPhreak:

Interesting posts.

As a student of the Bible for a number of years, there were many conclusions I arrived at. One being that without some physical evidence I can not accept what the Bible says, in total.

Do you know of any secular writings of the age (time of Christ) that speak of Jesus, the Christ? I don't mean Augustine, Origen or the other early "church fathers".?

Mike

ISO,

It is not suprising that there are not a many accounts that surrvied when you look at what writings did surrive from that time. Here are a few.

Flavius Josephus, who lived until 98 A.D., He wrote books on Jewish history for the Roman people. In his book, Jewish Antiquities, he made references to Jesus. In one reference he wrote:

About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2]


The Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus.

Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, "to Christ as a god," an early secular witness to the belief in Christ's divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.

Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]

Even with disdain for the Christian faith, Tacitus still treated the execution of Christ as historical fact, drawing connections to Roman events and leaders. (cf. Luke 3:1ff)

Other secular witnesses to the historical Jesus include Suetonius in his biography of Claudius, Phlegan recording the eclipse of the sun during Jesus' death and even Celsus, a pagan philosopher. It must be kept in mind that most of these sources were not only secular but anti-Christian. These secular authors, including the Jewish writers, had no desire or intention to promote Christianity. They had no motivation to distort their reports in favor of Christianity. Pliny actually punished Christians for their faith. If Jesus were a myth or His execution a hoax, Tacitus would have reported it as such. He certainly would not have connected Jesus' execution to Roman leaders. These writers presented Jesus as a real historical person. Denying the reliability of these sources in connection to Jesus would cast serious suspicion on the rest of ancient history.

Now these ancient secular writings do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God or even the Christ, but that is not the goal of this tract. These reports show that a virtuous person named Jesus did live in the early first century A.D. and authored a religious movement (which still exists today). This Person was at least called Christ - the Messiah. Christians in the first century also appeared to consider Him God. Finally these writings support other facts found in the Bible surrounding His life. The claim that Jesus never existed and His life is a myth compromises the reliability of ancient history.

"One being that without some physical evidence I can not accept what the Bible says, in total."

Do you mean that you can't accept all of the Bible or just some of the Bible?

There is plenty of archeological evidence to back up the OT from a historical perspective. For example we've found cities noted in the OT that were thought to have been fictional by skeptical archeologists.

The various scolls and other texts that have been found and compared to recent translations have helped verify the reliability and accuracy of the Bible over the years.

So while you don't have 'physical evidence' that supports the various miracles for example, there is plenty in the Bible that non-Christian scientists, historians, and archeologists take seriously. In fact, over time, evidence in support has been growing - instead of shrinking as some would think\hope.


Anyway, I gotta run, but I'll respond to your other questions later (gotta read TK's post too...).

The ultimate religous martyr.

To believe a book (the bible) writen hundreds of years ago holds the truth about the origin of mankind and the everafter is ludicrous to me. So I understand it the premise is that mankind is the proginy of one man and one woman. This means dads and daughters, fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters had sex with one another?---dispite the fact those that wrote the bible proport incest to be a sin. Gimmie a break.

Have you seen what happens to a group of people that inbreed over time? Menonite and Hooterite colonies are a good example. Their genetic attributes converge, they all look exactly alike and they have debilitating health problems. With all we know though science creation is improbable at best.

What about all the different religions? Which is absolute? If a belief system truely could be valid, there can only be one, otherwise they are all a contrived antiquated way of understanding the universe and our place in it in my opinon.

"So I understand it the premise is that mankind is the proginy of one man and one woman. "

Evolution has the same premise. So based on that you do not believe in evolution?


"What about all the different religions? Which is absolute? If a belief system truely could be valid, there can only be one, otherwise they are all a contrived antiquated way of understanding the universe and our place in it in my opinon."

Extending out your logic in an analogy then there could only be one right way to do anything. Like fishing, right?

Your assumption leaves out free will. Man has always had the ability to make his own choices. Maybe after death Christians go to heaven and the Hindus comes back as the Hereford steer I will eat this winter
i

Wrong. The most basic premise of evolution is that we evolved from some lower life form into homosapians as a group---a therory that is open to future facts as they come to light---not a sacride superstition that is touted as fact in light of contrary evidence.

That sounds like something a woman would say.

Or maybe both just feed worms and push up daisies.

Occam's Razor..................you know.

Or maybe both just feed worms and push up daisies.


If that was only the case. These cults have gotten so bizzare and alien to our planet that it is practically unheard of that worms or daisies get the bennefit of our recycled nutrients. I still don't understand the selfishness of hermetically sealing the dead in indestructable boxes, thereby denying any chance for recyling or giving back to nature. That is the ultimate of selfishness. Just think of all the billions of blobs buried in boxes, that are not giving back that which was borrowed (nutrients, etc.) from mother Earth in the first place? This is indeed... strange cultic behavior, and do nothing to promote or improve the quality of life here on Mother Earth.

We recycle Salmon, with the understanding that by doing so, we are replacing important nutrients, thereby benefiting the habitat? My question is, why don't we consider our nutrients as potentially as good for the Planet thereby promoting life as well?

I would personally love to be buried at the end of my life next to a tree, thereby becoming a part of a continuem of life, by giving back to Mother Earth, while reaching towards the Sun, renewed in the branched of that tree providing Oxygen, shelter and shade for our children.

Now we wonder why things are getting worse and worse in our environment? Could it be that these selfish and destructive cults or rituals are at the core of our ecological dysfunction? People represent more animal mass than any other species on the planet, while continuing a cult of not giving back...all done with the blessing of God. Wierd!

"Wrong. The most basic premise of evolution is that we evolved from some lower life form into homosapians as a group-"


Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists

http://www.talkorigins.org

You have to read on the dark side

" as a group"

Did you miss that AM?

Do refute that point you have to put the rebuttal in context. That context is macro evolution and that did not happen as a group. All one has to do is look at how a species breeds to see this.

I'd prefer to be buried under the old oak on the back 40 too. But for some reason the gov't (not my Christianity) prevents that.

Good one, Aunty.

TK: debating this issue is fruitless. I gave up trying to convince others to think my way long ago. I was mearly answering the question posed (How do you view Jesus?).

"Maybe..the point is, there is a possability that they are all wrong??"

Of course. But you have to lump in all religions and theories that 'explain life'.

In answering that question you used false premises and made assumprions. But you did say IMO.