Opinion of the "Mad, Bad, or God" stance

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Jesus was either

1. Lying
2. Mentally Unwell
3. Telling the truth

when He claimed to be the Son of God. This is used as an attack on people who believe in Jesus' existance, but not His divinity, the "Jesus was way cool" types.

Opinion of it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only holds if one takes the content of the received New Testament at face value.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You neglected the misunderstood option.  Some hold that Jesus was misunderstood.

In Genesis 6 there is a reference to sons of God that some think refers to those who worshiped God in those antediluvian times, while others hold that it is a reference to angels.

In the Sermon on the Mount, peacemakers in general are called sons of God.

In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, Adam is called a son of God.

Whether or not Jesus meant it in that fashion, there is ample evidence that in Biblical times and texts, the phrase "son of God" was not used exclusively in a literal fashion, but also in a metaphorical fashion to denote those who sought to honor God by acting in accord to His will.

[useful idiot]

Only holds if one takes the content of the received New Testament at face value.

But then if one doesn't then they can hardly say that they know ANYTHING whatsoever about Jesus. If the NT can't be trusted to have recorded Jesus's statements and teachings accurately then the idea of making any conclusions about His life is ridiculous.

As for the question, I think it's a useful tool. The best thing about the trilemma is that it absolutely destroys any pretense of logical coherence in theological liberalism. Of course, if someone wants to use the NT in a way that assumes it says what they want it to say, disregarding what it actually says, then they're free to do so.

[Gustaf]

Only holds if one takes the content of the received New Testament at face value.

But then if one doesn't then they can hardly say that they know ANYTHING whatsoever about Jesus. If the NT can't be trusted to have recorded Jesus's statements and teachings accurately then the idea of making any conclusions about His life is ridiculous.

As for the question, I think it's a useful tool. The best thing about the trilemma is that it absolutely destroys any pretense of logical coherence in theological liberalism. Of course, if someone wants to use the NT in a way that assumes it says what they want it to say, disregarding what it actually says, then they're free to do so.

This seems overly simplistic. One may consider it unlikely that the New Testament was conjured out of thin air but still doubt the literal interpretation.

[afleitch]

The NT tells us nothing of Jesus as it was not written by him. It tells you what other people thought of him or attributed to him, but nothing of the man himself. Of course the NT is entirely man made with visible traces of a blatant attempt to link this one wandering 'messiah' with the OT prophecy (to the extent that they over do it) Also there is the curious attempt to appeal to the Gentiles; with the entire structure of the Gospel of Mark being Homerian in style, even lifted directly and trying to re-cast Jesus as the hero in a Homeric epic with a large dose of Stoicism thrown in.

Lots of muddy fingerprints that tell us very little about the man from Nazareth.

[Stardust]

The only reason it would be an effective attack on a believer in a historical - yet non-divine - Jesus is if that person is too accommodating to his opponents. It's an argument that says nothing more than "How dare you say that someone who said 'the meek shall inherit the Earth' is a lunatic! You should feel ashamed to argue that such a nice person was a liar!". You are meant to be guilted into accepting His divinity. It's a pretty shallow tactic. 

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

The NT tells us nothing of Jesus as it was not written by him. It tells you what other people thought of him or attributed to him, but nothing of the man himself.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.  Do you consider a biography to provide no insight on its subject and only trust autobiographies?

[afleitch]

The NT tells us nothing of Jesus as it was not written by him. It tells you what other people thought of him or attributed to him, but nothing of the man himself.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.  Do you consider a biography to provide no insight on its subject and only trust autobiographies?

Truthfully? trust neither But the NT isn't an autobiography; it considers itself to be the revealed word of god. My understanding of the NT, in particular the Gospel of Mark is that it is an endearing narrative carefully crafted for the ears of the time. Mark was written as a conscious imitation of the stories in the Homeric epics which were as familiar to learned Gentiles, either through study, worship or the oral tradition as the concepts of Shakespeare are to us. In fact it was worse than that; imagine being told that every work of the English language had to be written as a mimemis; as an imitation of Shakespeare or indeed as a rival to it. That's what happened with Homer. The writer of Marks Gospel was clearly trying to emulate that literary tradition. The writer of Mark conciously tried to improve upon the role models of the pagan godes and heroes. Odysseus/Jesus as carpenter. Odysseus/Jesus as wishing to return home, have rather testing companions and so forth. Not really the topic to go into all that.

In short you can't trust the accounts of what Jesus did if you notice the similarities in the Homeric epics.

[RI]

Lewis's trilemma always seemed like intellectually dishonest propaganda to me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As for the question, I think it's a useful tool. The best thing about the trilemma is that it absolutely destroys any pretense of logical coherence in theological liberalism. Of course, if someone wants to use the NT in a way that assumes it says what they want it to say, disregarding what it actually says, then they're free to do so.

You can still believe in the divinity of Jesus and be theologically liberal.

[afleitch]

As for the question, I think it's a useful tool. The best thing about the trilemma is that it absolutely destroys any pretense of logical coherence in theological liberalism. Of course, if someone wants to use the NT in a way that assumes it says what they want it to say, disregarding what it actually says, then they're free to do so.

You can still believe in the divinity of Jesus and be theologically liberal.

The belief or non belief in a god has no effect on what views people subscribe to.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a cheap little debating trick and shouldn't be taken much more seriously than that. It isn't as good as my favourite one though...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Love it.

(From the chapter on Gramsci in the third volume of Main Currents of Marxism, if anyone's interested).

[John Dibble]

Jesus was either

1. Lying
2. Mentally Unwell
3. Telling the truth

when He claimed to be the Son of God. This is used as an attack on people who believe in Jesus' existance, but not His divinity, the "Jesus was way cool" types.

Opinion of it?

There are additional possibilities:

4. He was simply mistaken or mislead into believing something that wasn't true. You don't have to be insane to believe falsehoods, even rather fantastical ones. Humans can easily be tricked by others or even trick themselves into believing something false.
5. Jesus either didn't exist and the entire story is a lie by someone else.
6. Jesus did exist, but any message he had was distorted (intentionally or otherwise) by those who wrote it down.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Truthfully? trust neither

Quite the cynic, aren't we? 

But the NT isn't an autobiography; it considers itself to be the revealed word of god.

It's definitely not an autobiography, but is arguably a biography, even if it be a divine biography.

My understanding of the NT, in particular the Gospel of Mark is that it is an endearing narrative carefully crafted for the ears of the time. Mark was written as a conscious imitation of the stories in the Homeric epics which were as familiar to learned Gentiles, either through study, worship or the oral tradition as the concepts of Shakespeare are to us. In fact it was worse than that; imagine being told that every work of the English language had to be written as a mimemis; as an imitation of Shakespeare or indeed as a rival to it. That's what happened with Homer. The writer of Marks Gospel was clearly trying to emulate that literary tradition. The writer of Mark conciously tried to improve upon the role models of the pagan godes and heroes. Odysseus/Jesus as carpenter. Odysseus/Jesus as wishing to return home, have rather testing companions and so forth. Not really the topic to go into all that.

In short you can't trust the accounts of what Jesus did if you notice the similarities in the Homeric epics.

I've never heard the Mark/Homeric epic comparison before, but its not the first comparison and won't be the last.  There seems to be a constant stream of either "Jesus never existed" then "Ok, maybe he did, but he was not really like he was depicted in the gospels because he is so similar to (fill in blank with Horus, Mithras, etc)" then "Ok, maybe there aren't many similarities between Mithras or Horus and Jesus, but miracles can't occur and since they are recorded in the gospels, then the gospels can't be true."  It just seems the Mark = imitation of Homer's epics is just the latest incarnation.  Even if Mark is totally unreliable, less than 5% of Mark is unique in describing the life of Jesus. 

I wish I could find it now, but I once saw a interesting comparison between Obama and Jesus.  I won't remember half of them, but essentially 1) they were both born under somewhat mysterious circumstances 2) Their births are attributed to dates that would be historically significant to the people living in the 1st century AD (Obama's bday coincides with the Roman destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in 70 AD) 3)They left their land of birth as young children to live far away 4) Both of their (earthly) fathers seem to make a relatively quick exit in their lives. 5) Both of their careers essentially started at age 30 6) They've both been referred to as the "Messiah", both by those in awe with him and sarcastically by those who despise him 7) Both made triumphal appearances when they arrived to (Washington DC and Jerusalem), but soon both suffered from a dramatic loss of support...etc.  Just because comparisons can be made between Obama and Jesus doesn't make Obama a fictional character, just like similarities between Jesus's life and those stories of the Iliad, Odyssey, Mithras, Horus or whatever the latest theory du jour may be, does not necessarily mean Jesus or the accounts of his life are fictional.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Jesus was either

1. Lying
2. Mentally Unwell
3. Telling the truth

when He claimed to be the Son of God. This is used as an attack on people who believe in Jesus' existance, but not His divinity, the "Jesus was way cool" types.

Opinion of it?

There are additional possibilities:

4. He was simply mistaken or mislead into believing something that wasn't true. You don't have to be insane to believe falsehoods, even rather fantastical ones. Humans can easily be tricked by others or even trick themselves into believing something false.
5. Jesus either didn't exist and the entire story is a lie by someone else.
6. Jesus did exist, but any message he had was distorted (intentionally or otherwise) by those who wrote it down.

If I remember correct, CS Lewis premised the argument with "Jesus, as presented in the gospels..." which I think would at least address 5 and 6.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus was either

1. Lying
2. Mentally Unwell
3. Telling the truth

when He claimed to be the Son of God. This is used as an attack on people who believe in Jesus' existance, but not His divinity, the "Jesus was way cool" types.

Opinion of it?

There are additional possibilities:

4. He was simply mistaken or mislead into believing something that wasn't true. You don't have to be insane to believe falsehoods, even rather fantastical ones. Humans can easily be tricked by others or even trick themselves into believing something false.
5. Jesus either didn't exist and the entire story is a lie by someone else.
6. Jesus did exist, but any message he had was distorted (intentionally or otherwise) by those who wrote it down.

If I remember correct, CS Lewis premised the argument with "Jesus, as presented in the gospels..." which I think would at least address 5 and 6.

Exactly, which was what my first point was. I, as it happens, do believe in Jesus as presented in the Gospels and am inclined toward the God option, but the trilemma isn't useful for convincing people who aren't inclined to give much weight to the Gospels already. It's not one of Lewis's finer moments and it's a shame that it gets so much attention relative to ideas of Lewis's that are actually good, like reader-response criticism or his presentation of salvation.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, two of the gospels do not include such a claim (that Jesus called himself the Son of God) at all, and the third's sole such claim is somewhat specious. So really, all you need to ask yourself is whether the author of John was lying, of unsound mind, or telling the truth.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Of course, two of the gospels do not include such a claim (that Jesus called himself the Son of God) at all, and the third's sole such claim is somewhat specious. So really, all you need to ask yourself is whether the author of John was lying, of unsound mind, or telling the truth.

Which of the synoptic gospels do you think do not have reference to Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God?  It seems pretty clear to me he does in all 3.

Mt 26:63-64
Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”  Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so."

His response is also translated as "You have said it yourself"

Mark 14:61-62
Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus answered, “I am..."

Luke 22:70-71
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”
Then they said, “What further need have we for testimony? We have heard it from his own mouth.”

If you say Matthew and Luke, I would suggest that it is as least STRONGLY hinted, so strong that the Sanhedrin wanted him dead for hinting it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

His point is that all Matthew and Mark record him as saying in response to the claim is (basically) 'if you say so', which is not quite the same thing as saying 'yes'.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, two of the gospels do not include such a claim (that Jesus called himself the Son of God) at all, and the third's sole such claim is somewhat specious. So really, all you need to ask yourself is whether the author of John was lying, of unsound mind, or telling the truth.

Which of the synoptic gospels do you think do not have reference to Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God?  It seems pretty clear to me he does in all 3.

Mt 26:63-64
Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”  Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so."

His response is also translated as "You have said it yourself"

"You said that" is the correct translation. Note that in the following line, he calls himself what he actually calls himself all the time in the Gospels - "the son of man."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. Mark, of course, is written in broken Greek and should probably be translated into broken English, and he's translating the same original (whether historical or not) dialogue as Matthew, but that is the one I counted.

Luke 22:70-71
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”
[/quote]Exactly. "You say that".

And that's the closest they come to ever making such a claim - it's literally nowhere else in there. (Though other people making that claim is.)

The idea that Jesus literally was God / the son of God is not one condoned by the synoptic gospels, and probably not one that their authors were even aware of. To them, he's the Messiah. The original Jewish version of the Messiah. And thus, of course, not God.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The NT tells us nothing of Jesus as it was not written by him. It tells you what other people thought of him or attributed to him, but nothing of the man himself.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.  Do you consider a biography to provide no insight on its subject and only trust autobiographies?

Truthfully? trust neither But the NT isn't an autobiography; it considers itself to be the revealed word of god. My understanding of the NT, in particular the Gospel of Mark is that it is an endearing narrative carefully crafted for the ears of the time. Mark was written as a conscious imitation of the stories in the Homeric epics which were as familiar to learned Gentiles, either through study, worship or the oral tradition as the concepts of Shakespeare are to us. In fact it was worse than that; imagine being told that every work of the English language had to be written as a mimemis; as an imitation of Shakespeare or indeed as a rival to it. That's what happened with Homer. The writer of Marks Gospel was clearly trying to emulate that literary tradition. The writer of Mark conciously tried to improve upon the role models of the pagan godes and heroes. Odysseus/Jesus as carpenter. Odysseus/Jesus as wishing to return home, have rather testing companions and so forth. Not really the topic to go into all that.

In short you can't trust the accounts of what Jesus did if you notice the similarities in the Homeric epics.

Well, what about what Taticus and Josephus have to say about Jesus?

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Of course, two of the gospels do not include such a claim (that Jesus called himself the Son of God) at all, and the third's sole such claim is somewhat specious. So really, all you need to ask yourself is whether the author of John was lying, of unsound mind, or telling the truth.

Which of the synoptic gospels do you think do not have reference to Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God?  It seems pretty clear to me he does in all 3.

Mt 26:63-64
Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”  Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so."

His response is also translated as "You have said it yourself"

"You said that" is the correct translation. Note that in the following line, he calls himself what he actually calls himself all the time in the Gospels - "the son of man."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. Mark, of course, is written in broken Greek and should probably be translated into broken English, and he's translating the same original (whether historical or not) dialogue as Matthew, but that is the one I counted.

Luke 22:70-71
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”

Exactly. "You say that".

And that's the closest they come to ever making such a claim - it's literally nowhere else in there. (Though other people making that claim is.)

The idea that Jesus literally was God / the son of God is not one condoned by the synoptic gospels, and probably not one that their authors were even aware of. To them, he's the Messiah. The original Jewish version of the Messiah. And thus, of course, not God.

I think it is hard to say that there is one "correct translation" of ancient greek.  You can do a literal translation, word for word, but you often lose the meaning.  I remember when I took French in school that I was (momentarily) amazed that "boyfriend" in French literally translates into "little friend.".  If this was written down in someone's biography, we could be having this same discussion about whether person X is the subject's "boyfriend" or "little friend," which could easily mean two very different things (insert Herve Villechaize joke here).  However, you could probably gather from the context that the writer intended to indicate a "boyfriend."  The same with the verse here, it is apparent when the members of the Sanhedrin freak out that they understand Jesus is claiming that he is the Son of God.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

it is apparent when the members of the Sanhedrin freak out that they understand Jesus is claiming that he is the Son of God.   

More like they know that with a literal interpretation of "son of God" as "Son of God" they have something they can use against Jesus. It's apparent they don't believe that he is, or that he is even the Messiah.  The metaphorical interpretation of "son of God" (i.e., I follow the ways of God well enough to be called his son in a metaphorical sense and you don't) is not favorable to them, but also not something the Sanhedrin can use to justify killing Jesus.

Of course, what the Sanhedrin believed is not particularly relevant to Jesus' parentage.

[The Mikado]

The NT tells us nothing of Jesus as it was not written by him. It tells you what other people thought of him or attributed to him, but nothing of the man himself.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.  Do you consider a biography to provide no insight on its subject and only trust autobiographies?

Truthfully? trust neither But the NT isn't an autobiography; it considers itself to be the revealed word of god. My understanding of the NT, in particular the Gospel of Mark is that it is an endearing narrative carefully crafted for the ears of the time. Mark was written as a conscious imitation of the stories in the Homeric epics which were as familiar to learned Gentiles, either through study, worship or the oral tradition as the concepts of Shakespeare are to us. In fact it was worse than that; imagine being told that every work of the English language had to be written as a mimemis; as an imitation of Shakespeare or indeed as a rival to it. That's what happened with Homer. The writer of Marks Gospel was clearly trying to emulate that literary tradition. The writer of Mark conciously tried to improve upon the role models of the pagan godes and heroes. Odysseus/Jesus as carpenter. Odysseus/Jesus as wishing to return home, have rather testing companions and so forth. Not really the topic to go into all that.

In short you can't trust the accounts of what Jesus did if you notice the similarities in the Homeric epics.

Well, what about what Taticus and Josephus have to say about Jesus?

Well, you do need to be careful about texts that survived for centuries only by recopying by Catholic scribes.    In the case of Josephus, especially, one of his two mentions of Jesus (the one that contains "He was the Messiah" and "A man...if he can be called a man") is almost certainly apocryphal, and the other, a description of the execution of St. James, only mentions Jesus tangentially in terms of his relationship with James.

EDIT:  It's worth noting that Josephus' father was a Temple Priest in Jerusalem right through Jesus' lifetime.  If Jesus' ministry happened as it's traditionally described (especially regarding Jesus' initial Sanhedrin trial by Caiaphas), Josephus' father almost certainly met Jesus face to face at some point.