Refuting the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" Argument

[Fray2221]

The real problem with Lewis' argument is that it discounts the possibility that Jesus could both have been mad, and have been a great moral teacher. Anyone who thinks that he's God is at least a little bit nuts, but there is no reason why mentally ill people should not be capable of incredible moral insight. Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ghandi, etc were all at least a little bit crazy.

[whoopiman]

Here's another possibility, and it even begins with an 'L'. LEGEND.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Another possibility is that what we think Jesus said & meant, as described in the Bible, isn't what Jesus actually said & meant.

That brings the total up to at least 6 possibilities, of which Lewis only noted 3.

A final thing to notice is that the divisions aren't sharp - those categories can have a lot of overlap.

[Lukyo1984]

Option 4 is a form of lunacy being mistaken about EVERY aspect of His. Option 5 is a form of lying as He is a Jew and can't make the claim of being God unless He actually was God.

[jazzx251]

It's catchy - but you could make up the same kind of soundbite for any letter of the alphabet:

Dimwit

Douchebag

or Divine

or

Spastic

Snake-tongued

or Saviour

[jacsoliman]

lol ... your other two alternatives fall under the category of "liar".

[GStolyarovII]

@jacsoliman No, being honestly mistaken about oneself does not make one a liar. Furthermore, in ancient times, there were numerous figures who both (i) deliberately portrayed themselves as gods and (ii) genuinely believed themselves to be gods. Alexander the Great is a good example.

[ideaphorist]

@GStolyarovII So they were and Jesus were deluded?

[deanojacks]

@GStolyarovII

Though 'being honestly mistaken' does not make oneself a liar, the person still is a liar (if not actively, but passively) because he thinks he is telling the truth.

The two alternatives you mentioned are already covered in C.S.Lewis's argument.

[GStolyarovII]

@deanojacks No, a liar is by definition someone who knows he is deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Ignorance of one’s error is not the same as dishonesty.

[deanojacks]

@GStolyarovII

It probably is inappropriate to call someone a liar because he sincerely believes he is telling the truth, however that person is still telling the lie. In that case, if we do not want to say that such person is not a liar, we still have to say that what he is saying is not the truth. We are just playing with words here.

I think C.S.Lewis's categorization of liar, lunatic or lord is solid. It just probably needed a bit more explanation.

[GStolyarovII]

@deanojacks If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then the very fact that Jesus was not the son of god would make him a liar. But if “not being the son of God” equals “being a liar” – then it is important not to attach to the word “liar” the typical negative connotations, or else Lewis’s argument is misleading and psychologically manipulative. Everyone is ignorant and in error about some matters; error, unlike dishonesty, is not a vice.

[deanojacks]

@GStolyarovII

I think that C.S.Lewis is considering the word 'liar' in his argument not much as someone who is dishonest, but someone who is not telling the truth.

[MisterFrosty]

#7 - There was never a man named Jesus. He is an amalgamation of countless different 'teachers' and mythological place-holders that was imbued with divine abilities by bronze age writers of fiction. There are NO first-hand accounts to substantiate any of the claims made in his name or about him as flesh and blood person.

[GeorgeDennisMenace]

HANG ON!! How could Jesus be a literary construct!?? He was written about from many sources (at least 5 in the Bible) but also outside the Bible. The chance of him being a 'literary construct' is kinda stupid. However, I think that maybe Jesus didn't claim to be divine, although he probably did claim that. But the main thing is not his divinity, but actually whether our sins are forgiven or not by Jesus. I pray that Jesus died and rose again for that cause. Otherwise we're all screwed o_O

[MisterFrosty]

@GeorgeDennisMenace Using the Bible to prop up the story of the Bible is circular argumentation. There is not ONE single document outside of the bible written by anyone that mentions his existence. Even during a time when he was supposed to be bringing the dead back to life and having hordes of people following him around. Not one contemporary histortian even mentions the guy.

[ideaphorist]

@MisterFrosty I think there's been some misinformation you've got. There are mentions of Jesus in Josephus, Tacitus and a whole bunch of other works; 85-90% of the writings of the time have been lost. Could you please name one ancient history professor in any university in the world who doesn't believe Jesus existed? You'll actually find, if you look into it, there is remarkable historical evidence for Jesus and his resurrection. From ancient times, the NT is probably the most accurate text.

[MisterFrosty]

@ideaphorist Neither Jospehus, Tacitus nor Pliny the Younger are contemporary historians to the time Jesus was supposed to be doing his magic tricks or followed by thousands around Jerusalem. Actual historians of his time included Seneca and Pliny the Elder, neither of whom mention any one named Jesus in their writings. If a man was pulling off the tricks accorded to Jesus they would have been mentioned by these writers. The New Testament is a story book of myths written for children.

[sideways586]

@MisterFrosty Your claim has an assumption--that Pliny/Seneca knew what went on in Judea while Christ was alive. How do you know they had knowledge of local events in the Roman backwater territory of Judea?

Its possible they didnt write about him only because they didn't know about him. Jesus caused a stir among jews, but the Romans controlling the area would not have cared about jewish religion or preachers. They were only concerned with maintaining Roman control.

[danwazhere7]

all these possibilities fail, if Jesus was misunderstood then the Bible clearly doesnt show it, Jesus let Himself be worshiped, the pharisees witnessed these amazing miracles something God can only do , also if you say Jesus was misunderstood then you admit Jesus did miracles? existed? died on the cross? if Jesus was misunderstood then,Jesus rose from the dead and this was preached by the disciples? the fact is that the tomb was found empty sunday morning, the question is where did the body go.

[Diognetus]

To me, the problem with the argument isn't that their may or may not be more possibilities.

The problem is that it is not an argument at all. If person honestly tells me that they believe there is a better chance that Jesus was the son of a supernatural deity then that he was a liar or a lunatic, then the only question left for me is whether THEY'RE a lunatic or a liar.

[rbgilland]

go ahead and smoke another pole. mosaic law.... stone you.....

[agnostaxian]

The logical of this vid for Jesus "I thought I was the judge of the world who exclusively reveals God to man and have authority to forgive sins and have absolute authority over your life and can demand total loyalty, who would die for the sins of the world and rise again from the dead. oooops, I must have been mistaken. Oh well shit happens but I'm still not crazy!"

[kateoneill11]

and then there is the possibility that he was God. If you say it possible that he was not i say in the same manner he may have been! i struggle to believe that C.S. Lewis had bad arguments. He was very intelligent. but anyway are your thoughts or arguments better or are you just slamming Lewis with no mind of your own? i do not know which you are but i hope you at least have thoughts of your own. i do not mean to be offensive, just inquiring. 

[stu1002]

This may be the most misquoted idea in modern theology.

C.S. Lewis did NOT put forward the "Lewis Trilemma" to PROVE Jesus was divine, but rather to REFUTE that Jesus was "Just a good moral teacher".

Lewis would concede that the agrument, as far as it goes, is not a proof if divinity, as there are possibilities outside its scope.

[KevinBrault]

Politically clever, is merely a politically clever way of saying liar. Sincerely Mistaken, you have got to be kidding me. Even the most conservative of definitions of lunacy would include the delusion of being a deity.

[in2freedom]

You missed the point. Lewis was not referring to Jesus as lunatic, liar or Lord on the basis of contemporary notions about him, but in the context of what he was doing at the time. This isn't about any particular person presenting himself as someone he is not, but a man performing miracles beyond what the people had ever seen, speaking with authority, driving out demons, and fulfilling every prophecy about the Messiah. A man who could do all THAT has to be the Lord God, Emmanuel, God with us.

[MultiPaulinator]

I don't even see the opacity of this argument. At first, I was confused and thought that C.S. Lewis was arguing against Christ's divinity which wouldn't make sense. I'd much sooner pick the latter two before the first choice, if that were the only complete list of possibilities. Jesus could've been some new age hippie saying, "love thy neighbor and get over yourself" whose stories got embellished over centuries before finally getting written down if he wasn't a complete fabrication.

[91samlong]

Very Week response indeed. Honestly mistaken about being God, sure some intellectuals can make some big mistakes, but HONESTLY thinking you were God and not being God is in itself, the definition of insanity. If you read the sayings of Jesus you will soon note that he was not trying to form a political party against the government, "Give to Caesar, what caesar is owed" sound like a political rebel to you?

[joshebizonline]

Very WEAK response to "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic". TRYING to compare your argument with someone like CS LEWIS. Jesus was crucified by JEWS - not the Roman Empire for calling Himself God! Can you please do your homework before you make another video. Its has nothing to do with just 'making a statement' to be God, but actually to look into the 'qualifications to BE God' in those 'declarations' of Jesus. He knew things ONLY God could have known, and was NOT thumb-sucking - like you are with this video

[Titans4life92]

Furthermore, if Jesus knowingly deceived people for the sake of personal gain, wouldn't that make Him a liar as well?

[Titans4life92]

Both other possibilities you made fall under the categories of mad and liar.

An honest mistake? If Jesus seriously thought that he was God and really wasn't, wouldn't that make him mad? Wouldn't the mere fact that he believed in a Deity be a testimony to his insanity, in your opinion? As an atheist/agnostic. To follow the teachings of a zealot would be to believe in a madman. Christians are "delusional" in the words of GIIVideo, Jesus was a Christian (or at least a Jew who believed in God.)

[sphereofinfluence247]

I have always been interested to understand why it is that people commonly use "JESUS CHRIST" or "GOD" (Damit). You will never hear anyone say, "Budda" damit or "Mohammad" as a curse word or to express disgust.

[Strefanash]

Strictly speaking Lewis did not proclaim mere christianity. He held to mere moralistic theism. THere is a big difference He belived in hypocrisy (Let's pretend, he said) and thought repression (SHOVE THEM BACK, he also said). He never peached grace in his writing, in regards to christian living he knew not his stubject. I sugest if you really want to refute christianity you go to the true course, namely the Bible. Lewis is a straw man

[Strefanash]

I do think this argument is not as valid as taken by some, even though I am a christian. But I do think that if he was not God his moral teaching was naive mother's boy dreaming nonsense.

"Love one another"? Yeah!! Right!!

This is so naive in the face of history as it is that to suggest that men ever could is ridiculous . . unless he was really God and could make this so.

But then we in the church have hardly ever shown this, we are hypocrites, and were it seen things would be different

[spartacandream]

Well the possibilities are really endless of what really was up with or who was Jesus, their trying to corner you is just rediculous and pointless

[GStolyarovII]

@spartacandream It is indeed true that there are many more possibilities regarding the historical Jesus (and whether he existed) than the ones I brought up here. I think that the moment one recognizes this, the trap of the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument can easily be avoided.

[ProdigalSonofLiberty]

What historical accounts are you using to make the argument that Jesus may have been attempting to subvert Roman authority by becoming a counter-power to imperial authority? Only read a couple works by C.S. Lewis, though he is an interesting read in theology and Christian fiction. I've never heard the lord, liar, or lunatic argument used... must be a Catholic or Evangelical thing...

[chenj001]

@ProdigalSonofLiberty Lord Liar/ Lunatic is from Mere Christianity.

[ProdigalSonofLiberty]

@chenj001 Not my question but thanks for answering

[Turtleposer]

Let's dispense with the niceties & go with lunatic!

[sonvolt48]

The most likely possibility? He didn't exist....just saying.

[ReligionInTheBin]

Always funny how christians try to win debates by setting up false dichotomies (in this case a trichotomy)

1:16

Do people never watch their own videos before uploading?

You´re trying to hypnotize us? :p

[24miggy24]

ehhh....i don't think Jesus could have convinced thousands of people to be divine, people denied him in the beginning untill he started performing miracles. At that point the Roman leaders were angry at the fact that everyone was surrounding Jesus while learning about God, and being healed, ect. so then the Romans crucified him.

[TheScholarBookWorm]

...human women, whereas this sort of thing was unheard of for Jews. Christ, therefore, would have been wholly God.

[TheScholarBookWorm]

Moreover, the comparison between Christ's claim to divinity and those of the Roman emperors fails to take into account the differences of such a claim within the Jewish and Roman religions respectively. Jesus' claim to be God also claimed that he was the only God and Creator, whereas the Roman gods were many and were themselves created beings. Furthermore, those Romans who claimed divinity could easily have meant that they were half-gods, as Zeus/Jove was said to frequently copulate with...

[TheScholarBookWorm]

How many "intelligent, sane, and even wise" people do you know who claim to be God? In response to TravisMorien's comment, how many people with messiah complexes start world-wide, enduring movements?

Possibility 5 is still an instance in which Jesus would have had to lie.

[damoochie30]

you could have also added arguably the best explanation which is that in the decades of handcopying the gospels by non-eyewitnesses that jesus's divinity was added into the story and jesus himself never claimed divinity. This is strengthened by the fact that most early christian sects did not consider jesus divine.

[EartherZero]

Yes, there is a book about that whole process called "Misquoting Jesus". Most likely, if there was a historical Jesus (which wouldn't have even been his name of course) the person would bear little resemblance to the literary character that has been constructed by numerous authors, editors, and so on.

[Akatam0t0ma]

6th possibility: He may have no even existed in the first place.

[MrKrov]

I was not aware people actually thought this argument had any merit whatsoever.

[illbetilbake]

Well, religious people like to play such games with suggesting fewer options than there actually are. Same thing with the false dichotomy concerning the origins of the universe (conflated with the existence of life, humans and civilisation): it was 'pure chance' (or some similar ambiguous term) or god did it.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Option 6. Those who thought they heard Jesus claiming to be divine were mistaken. Other words legend and hearsay.

[EartherZero]

Being "politically clever" is the same as lying in this case don't you think? Of course you are correct about the "sincerely mistaken" option that is missing but there is another as well. Jesus may (and most likely is IMHO) be a literary construct (like Harry Potter for example) and merely said whatever his various writers wrote.

[GStolyarovII]

It is indeed possible that Jesus was a literary construct.

I do not think that political cleverness necessarily requires lying, however. Possibility 4 and Possibility 5 could go together; Jesus may have honestly believed in his own divinity, while being clever in recognizing that loudly advertising this belief would gain him many followers and establish him as a prominent opponent of the Roman emperors.

[TravisMorien]

"Jesus may have honestly believed in his own divinity, while being clever in recognizing that loudly advertising this belief would gain him many followers and establish him as a prominent opponent of the Roman emperors."

What if Jesus was just some guy with a messiah complex? :P

[1n354a]

Or another possibility is that he was just a normal preacher/teacher/prophet who had fans and who died. Then his fans (who really really loved him) decided to write about him in a manner not exactly in line with who he really was. Over the years, Jesus became taller, stronger, faster, more powerful, and a beast in bed. In the end, the Bible describes a person who in reality never actually existed but in the minds of the believers.

[GStolyarovII]

Yes; this is indeed a likely possibility. Thank you for your insight!

[jhosky1]

@1n354a Not a lot of time between his actual life and his fans embellishing his story. With hundreds of living contemporaries to refute the legend, it would be incredibly unlikely that his disciples, the ones who knew him best and were in the position to 'invent a legend' would willingly live lives of hardship and die from brutal execution for what they knew to be a lie. They had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by making up a legend.

[1n354a]

@jhosky1 but his contemporaries and those who supposedly knew him best didn't write anything about him. In fact, only people who never knew him wrote about him which creates a wonderful opportunity to embellish the story and create the legend. As for the brutal executions, well people die for all sorts of silly reasons every day....these people were no different.

[KaelHunter]

I honestly don't care either way, Ill insult them to their faces I believe that those of a religious persuasion are all either mentally handicapped by their often forced indoctrination or are simply liars as with convicted fraudsters such as Kent Hovind.

[Epydemic2020]

If Jesus is honestly mistaken, yet is willing to be crucified for the belief that he is divine, I think that counts as making Him a lunatic.

If Jesus was lying for political power, that would make Him a liar.

[peaceful0tiger]

A lier is best described as always being someone who is statistically more dishones tthen honest if he was usually honest and the importance of the things he was honest about was equal to or greater then his lies he may have been oft dishonest but not a liar.

[GStolyarovII]

1. Sane people have made greater mistakes than belief in one's own divinity -- mistakes that have had severely damaging consequences for the entire world. Consider various theorists of racism, eugenics, and socialism as examples of sane people who have made terrible intellectual mistakes. By comparison, Jesus's mistake (if he was honestly mistaken) would be tame.

2. For Possibility 5, I did not suggest that Jesus' political ploy required him to lie. I simply suggested it was useful to him.

[farvision]

Yet another possibility was that Jesus didn't actually exist - his properties match the earlier gods so much that this is likely. Also, apparently, there is no record of him outside the bible (as I understand the situation).

[Epydemic2020]

What earlier gods?

[alittlebitofperil]

Mithras for example - almost identical story to the jesus/god story...

[Epydemic2020]

I have heard those claims. I did some looking into it as well. Horus and Mithra are probably the most common two comparisons. If you give it some research, I think you will find those claims are unfounded propaganda. Those claims are not based on primary sources, and most of the claims are downright silly.

Take for example "Jesus was born of a virgin and so was Mithra"

Mithra was said to be born of a mountain.. I mean, technically mountains are virgins.. but come on.

[alittlebitofperil]

Interesting - I saw it on a documentary. Have looked it up now - born of rock, not even from a mountain, just left a cave where the rock was when he was born. Good story!

All the old myths are great - bible, greek, roman etc - there are some excellent stories and visual treats to be had. I use alot of the myths as inspiration for paintings (i'm an artist), recently painted birth of pegasus and theseus and the minotaur and Boadicea (well, boudicca was more a british legend).

[GnosticDjinn]

So, you doubt he was born from a rock? You heretic!

[farvision]

There is a dvd which describes a lot of this, I've seen fragments. The web site is thegodmovie and the DVD is

The God Who Wasn't There.

[GStolyarovII]

Good point here. This is indeed another possibility.

[FSMhasRisen]

Great voice of reason!

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you!

[Cafeeine]

Whenever I hear the trilemma , there seemed to me a haste by the theist in discounting the two "false" choices. It never occurred to me that it was an appeal to tact.

[GStolyarovII]

The way Lewis phrased was, essentially, "Do not give me any of that nonsense about Jesus being a wise moral teacher but not a god; if a man made the kinds of claims Jesus made, he is either a liar, a madman, or God." I am paraphrasing, of course, but that is the essence of the argument from "Mere Christianity."

[TravisMorien]

Another obvious possibility is that he was just misquoted and/or substantial portions of the scriptures were simply fabricated in the decades and centuries afterward in which they were written.

[GStolyarovII]

Correct. This is another likely possibility. Thank you for your comment!

[DesertLaser]

Five stars again.

I like this channel.

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for continuing to watch and for your kind words!

[Rorshak1313]

There's also the option that Jesus may not have even proclaimed himself divine. It's possible that those words were put into his mouth by the people who wrote the scriptures.

[GStolyarovII]

Quite correct. This is another legitimate possibility. Thank you for your comment!

[TaylorX04]

Great video. It always annoys me when Christians pull out C.S. Lewis' flimsy arguments. He is the very definition of an armchair philosopher to me.

I would also like to point out that Jesus was hardly a political revolutionary. While the historical person may have opposed Roman rule, the Jesus of the New Testament offers nothing radical to the political world, telling his followers to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

[GStolyarovII]

Excellent points here! Thank you for your comment!