bjs1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:50 pm
There are many threads on the topic of Jesus claiming to be God in the gospels. Feel free to jump in on any of them or start a new one.
For the moment will you agree that virtually everyone – more than 98% of those who have studied the gospels – agrees that Jesus regularly claimed to be God? Even the more extreme groups like historical Jesus scholars, whose stated goal is to find the human Jesus behind the Gospels, agree that the four Gospels present Jesus as the capital “G” God.
Eve when granting you the benefit of the doubt; There is a Grand Canyon between "Jesus supposedly said" and The gospels present Jesus as"!
bjs1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:50 pmThe Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:46 am
(But for the sake of argument we shall go along with Lewis while debating his Emma, but nonetheless he got his base facts wrong!)
Son of god? Literary or metaphorically?*Barf*
Full Human and Full god? Really?In the Gospels?*Barf Blargh *
Ah… “barf.” Well, how can I argue with such a well thought out and eloquently stated argument?
Thats an easy one; You could try to counter with argumentum ad baculum!
bjs1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:50 pm
The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:46 am
FACT 1 WRONG
Next Jesus was a moral teacher (Lewis assumes a lot) and built his teachinng on wrong fact 1.
You cant build on something that doesnt exist.
Jesus’ teach was built on his divinity. Now it is possible that he was not God, which means that he was building on something that doesn’t exist. Hence the liar and lunatic possibilities. That is exactly what Lewis’ argument was about.
Why built on his divinity?
Full human and full god you say.
So even by your standards Jesus teaching (not "teach", for that is short form of teacher) could have been built on his humanity or else on both "Full Halves" !!!
If he was no god, his teaching would not have been built on something that doesnt exist, but on whaever else he was.,(Human, Lemurian ... )but Liar or Lunatic not necessarily are factors that if true choose about the worthyness of Jesus teaching.
Lewis puts in his Falsemma so much hogwasch together, that its "Shotgun Hogwash apologetics"!
Meaning; Such a pile of hogwash, that its jard to find the time and nerve to shovel it all away!
bjs1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:50 pmThe Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:46 am
FACT 2 WRONG
LEWIS: Jesus teaching was sensational, godlike wise and original new!
(Yeah right. Who is delusional now?)
I’m not sure if “sensational” is the right word. I have not used that word.
It is true that very little of Jesus’ teaching was original or new. He built his ethical teaching on the Old Testament, redefining and explaining that teaching through his claim to be God.
Sounds like a Horror Movie, called "Papias Dream".
bjs1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:50 pmThe Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:46 am
FACT 3 WRONG
LEWIS: Unless Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic. Then his teaching was criminal and old stuff and satans school!
(That Lion-story-writer speaks against himself here. He cant have it two ways.)
Lewis did not speak against himself. Lewis accepted Jesus’ teaching because Lewis accepted that Jesus is God. Had Lewis rejected that belief, he would have also rejected Jesus’ teaching because, as Lewis correctly stated, if Jesus was not God then he was a fiendish liar or a mad man.
It is incorrectly stated, even if we assume Jesus said he was god.
Why would Lewis only take advice from a godman?
What about the many possibilitys Lewis forget in his false trilemma.
Why do you avoid like the plague to comment the possibility "Lemurian" ?
bjs1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 3:50 pmStill Liar, Lord or Lunatic. The others are just re-writes of those options, and you have yet to even attempt to provide a reason why they should not be seen as such.
I disagree. Everytime you try to claw your way back to Lewis original emma, without ratio.
For example: "Led On" is not "Lunatic like poached egg"(Lewis words).
Here you smuggled in your own word "delusional"that can mean "false belief" to be able to dismiss it as going under Lunacy.
Holding a false belief is not Lunatic as one who thinks to be a poached egg.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again
”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon
"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates
"