pstripling
04-10-2006, 12:38 PM
I have great respect for the intelligence of this forum. I figured I would post this question here; please forgive me if it has been hashed out before. I am also aware that most of the posters seem to be anti-religion so I’m very interested in the answers.
Who was Jesus? Was Jesus a liar, lunatic or Lord?
I heard this argument a while ago. I think it was attributed to C.S. Lewis. On the surface it seems to be a very good argument. The gospels of Jesus’ have been proven to be highly accurate histories through independent examination. In the gospels Jesus clearly states over and over that He is the Son of God. He states that He has the power to forgive sins. He states that He is the exclusive way into heaven. Most would agree that these are some fantastic claims. So that leaves three options:
1) He was lying, or He convinced Himself that these were true.
2) He was a nut.
3) He was who He said He was.
I don’t have an ulterior agenda; I’m just looking for intelligent discussion and maybe some insight into other viewpoints. If you think option 1 or 2 (or another unlisted option) is more plausible than option 3… how do you explain Christianity rising and flourishing for over 2000 years in the face of incredible opposition throughout history. Seems to me that it would have been definitively exposed as a fraud or undergone a radical change.
I’m interested in the answers that this forum will come up with.
Who was Jesus? Was Jesus a liar, lunatic or Lord?
I heard this argument a while ago. I think it was attributed to C.S. Lewis. On the surface it seems to be a very good argument. The gospels of Jesus’ have been proven to be highly accurate histories through independent examination. In the gospels Jesus clearly states over and over that He is the Son of God. He states that He has the power to forgive sins. He states that He is the exclusive way into heaven. Most would agree that these are some fantastic claims. So that leaves three options:
1) He was lying, or He convinced Himself that these were true.
2) He was a nut.
3) He was who He said He was.
I don’t have an ulterior agenda; I’m just looking for intelligent discussion and maybe some insight into other viewpoints. If you think option 1 or 2 (or another unlisted option) is more plausible than option 3… how do you explain Christianity rising and flourishing for over 2000 years in the face of incredible opposition throughout history. Seems to me that it would have been definitively exposed as a fraud or undergone a radical change.
I’m interested in the answers that this forum will come up with.