• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Assuming he exists/existed: Lord, Liar, Loon?

Assuming he existed, was Christ...

  • Lord

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Liar

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lunatic

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • A more complex response (please share)

    Votes: 19 76.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Shad

Veteran Member
Can you prove that?

I do not need to as the source itself is not written by Jesus according to it's own supposed author's. Gospel according to John, Luke, Mathew and Mark. Heard of it? Without any source from Jesus himself the accuracy claims of the Bible are unsound ergo I can point out the Bible itself can not meet that burden of proof thus expressed that point here.

There is no evidence for the Exodus in archaeology for millions of people in the Sinai for 40 years. Story over.
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
I do not need to as the source itself is not written by Jesus according to it's own supposed author's.

It can still be accurate, even if not written by Jesus.

There is no evidence for the Exodus in archaeology for millions of people in the Sinai for 40 years. Story over.

I could as well say that we don’t have any evidence that you exist.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It can still be accurate, even if not written by Jesus.

Which is not my burden to prove. I only have to point out that advocates have not met this burden to declare the Bible accurate. This goes back to the OP in which I reject a premise which is treated as an axiom only by the believer not evidence.



I could as well say that we don’t have any evidence that you exist.

Except for the fact that you are messaging me.... Yawn
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
This would make you either a liar or a lunatic.

I could as well say that we don’t have any evidence that you exist.
If true, then...
A liar because you are lying that there is no evidence, especially after showing evidence of you having a conversation with the said other.

Maybe you are a deep fake. :D
If true, then...
A lunatic because you have shown evidence of you having a conversation with a fake person that doesn't really exist.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
In his book Mere Christianity CS Lewis (which I've recently read) says that Christ (as we know him from the bible) himself claimed to be divine, which would mean that if we follow him then we must consider him to be more than simply a wise-man, which is how many secular people imagine him, and some religious folk too...

Based on this, he said there were three possibilities: That the Jesus (as we know him from the bible) is either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic and that "wise man" was not an option as he explicitly said he was divine, which would rule-out "wise man"

Lord - he was what he said he was - divine

Liar - he was a scoundrel and was taking everyone for a ride, by falsely claiming to be divine

Loon - he claimed to be divine because he was insane

People with an agenda wrote things about him that were not true in order to get power and control.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
This would make you either a liar or a lunatic.


If true, then...
A liar because you are lying that there is no evidence, especially after showing evidence of you having a conversation with the said other.


If true, then...
A lunatic because you have shown evidence of you having a conversation with a fake person that doesn't really exist.

At this point I think it would be good to look what I said. I was answering to this: “There is no evidence for the Exodus in archaeology for millions of people in the Sinai for 40 years. Story over.”. And I said that is same as “I could as well say that we don’t have any evidence that you exist”. Both are as unreasonable, because for both we have evidence.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
At this point I think it would be good to look what I said. I was answering to this: “There is no evidence for the Exodus in archaeology for millions of people in the Sinai for 40 years. Story over.”. And I said that is same as “I could as well say that we don’t have any evidence that you exist”. Both are as unreasonable, because for both we have evidence.

I was replying to your other post.

Maybe you are a deep fake. :D
Humorous comments gets humorous replies. :D

Don't take it too seriously. As always, I'm never serious, nor am I always joking. :p
 

Shad

Veteran Member
At this point I think it would be good to look what I said. I was answering to this: “There is no evidence for the Exodus in archaeology for millions of people in the Sinai for 40 years. Story over.”. And I said that is same as “I could as well say that we don’t have any evidence that you exist”. Both are as unreasonable, because for both we have evidence.

There is no evidence for the story as it is presented in the Bible. That isn't an assumption but a conclusion in relevant fields thus experts.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
There's another alliterative possibility that Lewis carefully ignores.

Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend.

Nobody knows what Jesus said or did. All we can know about is what later people wrote about. A lot later. And it wasn't much, everything in the NT could be compressed into a few months. Jesus was in His 30s when He was executed. He said and did a lot that didn't make it into the Canon, especially not the Canon compiled centuries after His Death.
Tom

He may not have existed at all. Apart from witness evidence in the bible there doesn’t seem to be any evidence from historians that he existed. Thus I have read, I’m no history scholar. But in debates and discussions I have read, no one has pointed to any historical verification.
I would be interested to see if anyone on RF can point to any historical records of his life, other than the writings of apostles.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
He may not have existed at all. Apart from witness evidence in the bible there doesn’t seem to be any evidence from historians that he existed. Thus I have read, I’m no history scholar. But in debates and discussions I have read, no one has pointed to any historical verification.
I would be interested to see if anyone on RF can point to any historical records of his life, other than the writings of apostles.
I understand what you're saying.
But the thing is, Judea was littered with messiah wannabes and Jesus was a common name. So it seems most plausible to me that there's a kernel of truth inside The Legend of the Christ. How closely He resembled the figure in the Gospels is another question.
Tom
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I do not need to as the source itself is not written by Jesus according to it's own supposed author's. Gospel according to John, Luke, Mathew and Mark. Heard of it? Without any source from Jesus himself the accuracy claims of the Bible are unsound ergo I can point out the Bible itself can not meet that burden of proof thus expressed that point here.

There is no evidence for the Exodus in archaeology for millions of people in the Sinai for 40 years. Story over.
In fact the method of counting years preferred by evangelicals is contradicted by very strong evidence. During the time period that the Bible places the Exodus by the methods of Ussher and others the Egyptian empire stretched north to almost present day Turkey. The story makes no sense since they escaped from Egypt to Egypt.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
In his book Mere Christianity CS Lewis (which I've recently read) says that Christ (as we know him from the bible) himself claimed to be divine, which would mean that if we follow him then we must consider him to be more than simply a wise-man, which is how many secular people imagine him, and some religious folk too...

Based on this, he said there were three possibilities: That the Jesus (as we know him from the bible) is either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic and that "wise man" was not an option as he explicitly said he was divine, which would rule-out "wise man"

Lord - he was what he said he was - divine

Liar - he was a scoundrel and was taking everyone for a ride, by falsely claiming to be divine

Loon - he claimed to be divine because he was insane
And I almost forgot to respond to the OP. Legend is the fourth and most like!y L that was left out. Others have more than adequately made that point, no need to do so again.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
In his book Mere Christianity CS Lewis (which I've recently read) says that Christ (as we know him from the bible) himself claimed to be divine, which would mean that if we follow him then we must consider him to be more than simply a wise-man, which is how many secular people imagine him, and some religious folk too...

Based on this, he said there were three possibilities: That the Jesus (as we know him from the bible) is either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic and that "wise man" was not an option as he explicitly said he was divine, which would rule-out "wise man"

Lord - he was what he said he was - divine

Liar - he was a scoundrel and was taking everyone for a ride, by falsely claiming to be divine

Loon - he claimed to be divine because he was insane

"The historian H. G. Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by ‘what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.’ Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.”

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled “the Great” even in his own lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: “Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.”

By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years. As one writer aptly expressed it: “All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully.”

More food for thought.....?
The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 

Jesuslightoftheworld

The world has nothing to offer us!
In his book Mere Christianity CS Lewis (which I've recently read) says that Christ (as we know him from the bible) himself claimed to be divine, which would mean that if we follow him then we must consider him to be more than simply a wise-man, which is how many secular people imagine him, and some religious folk too...

Based on this, he said there were three possibilities: That the Jesus (as we know him from the bible) is either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic and that "wise man" was not an option as he explicitly said he was divine, which would rule-out "wise man"

Lord - he was what he said he was - divine

Liar - he was a scoundrel and was taking everyone for a ride, by falsely claiming to be divine

Loon - he claimed to be divine because he was insane


He is Lord!!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member


Jesus is God the Son, God incarnate in the flesh and is truly Divine. John 1:1-18.

The Word became flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.[/QUOTE]
Why believe that? Isn't legend a much more reasonable explanation?
 
Top