Logics for Jesus...

[holysoldier5000]

Here are some logics for Jesus...

There are some people who believe Jesus was just some historical person no more significant then any other thinker, philosopher, or the such. But I would challenge that and ask you to look at it logically. Jesus claimed to be God and his claims were recorded many times in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now either (1) The claims were false and... (a) He knew his claims were false, he made a deliberate misrepresentation, he was a liar, a hypocrite, a demon, and he was a fool for he died for it... or (b) He did not know his claims were false and he was sincerely deluded and a lunatic... or (2) His claims were true and he is Lord and... (a) You can accept them... or (b) You can reject them. The claims of Jesus Christ are so all-consuming that there is no alternative or middle road. Either a person must believe in the message of the Bible or reject it. If you doubt that then I challenge you to read the words of Jesus for yourself. You can find them in the Bible in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

...it's just a little logics.

God Bless
~HS5K

[Arnobius]

I think the logical syllogism was "Either God or a bad man." The one thing Jesus couldn't have been was a mere "good man."

[Warrior4Christ]

That is true, AnimeHeretic.

I came across an (almost disturbing) site a while ago that intended to prove not only that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but it tried to prove that he never existed at all! (Historians, even non-Christians, agree Jesus was a real man.) And if he did exist is he really someone you would want to meet and admire or look up to?
It seems to be a typical case of "the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world."

[GhostontheNet]

Here are some logics for Jesus...

There are some people who believe Jesus was just some historical person no more significant then any other thinker, philosopher, or the such. But I would challenge that and ask you to look at it logically. Jesus claimed to be God and his claims were recorded many times in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now either (1) The claims were false and... (a) He knew his claims were false, he made a deliberate misrepresentation, he was a liar, a hypocrite, a demon, and he was a fool for he died for it... or (b) He did not know his claims were false and he was sincerely deluded and a lunatic... or (2) His claims were true and he is Lord and... (a) You can accept them... or (b) You can reject them. The claims of Jesus Christ are so all-consuming that there is no alternative or middle road. Either a person must believe in the message of the Bible or reject it. If you doubt that then I challenge you to read the words of Jesus for yourself. You can find them in the Bible in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

...it's just a little logics.

God Bless
~HS5K

In other words, a repition of the old trilemma of C.S. Lewis of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord - although Craig Blomberg notes the in the present state it would be better as a quadrilemma of Liar, Lunatic, Legends, or Lord - i.e. the argument must either take into account the possibility that the Gospels do not in fact present reliable information on Yeshua in these matters, and that He never really claimed all that but was distorted - to not take this into account is to reduce the argument to the logical fallacy of the false dilemma a.k.a. the excluded middle. In this respect you come to larger issues of Gospel reliability and real scholarship and everything that's gone on so far in what is called the 'quest for the historical Jesus', ground I tend to be fond of N.T. Wright on.

[Arnobius]

In other words, a repition of the old trilemma of C.S. Lewis of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord - although Craig Blomberg notes the in the present state it would be better as a quadrilemma of Liar, Lunatic, Legends, or Lord - i.e. the argument must either take into account the possibility that the Gospels do not in fact present reliable information on Yeshua in these matters, and that He never really claimed all that but was distorted - to not take this into account is to reduce the argument to the logical fallacy of the false dilemma a.k.a. the excluded middle. In this respect you come to larger issues of Gospel reliability and real scholarship and everything that's gone on so far in what is called the 'quest for the historical Jesus', ground I tend to be fond of N.T. Wright on.

Just because the argument used by HS5K is directed at one argument does not mean there is no rebuttal to the other.

Peter Kreeft does a book calledBetween Heaven and Hell, which uses Lewis, Kennedy and Huxley as characters in a Socratic style dialogue, which addresses this. The crux of it is there is no evidence of the gospels being distorted nor of the so called true texts ever existing. He points out that this is at least as old as St Augustine and Manacheinism who used the argument to justify their heresy. He points out for the Apostles to be so completely wrong on Jesus means he would have to be an incompetent teacher that his disciples got everything wrong and he was unable or unwilling to correct them. Moreover, it meant thousands died over a lie or a deceit.

CS Lewis has also addressed the "Historical Jesus" pointing out since the Gospels are the source of what we know of him, any Historical version must exagerate one aspect and supress another.


The gospels are certainly much older than these alternate sources used to decide what was "historical."