The Trilemma

[DeistPaladin]

Faithnomore, they read funny. *wrinkles nose* That is all interpretation. He came right out and said a shitload of things. "I am god" is not one of them. That is all I can find too. Passages that say, "I'm like my dad." being interpreted as, "I am my dad."

And all these come from the Gospel of John, not the three Gospels written closer in time to the alleged events.

If you read the first three Gospels, you can't find anything to justify the assertion that Jesus was supposed to be God incarnate. Jesus and Yahweh speak to each other in 2nd person, of each other in 3rd person, Jesus claims to have no knowledge of what Yahweh knows (when the second coming will be), and Jesus submits to Yahweh's will (prayer at the Garden before his crucifixion).

[Rhizomorph13]

---

***Continued from above***

So having covered that the liar or lunatic strawmen are just that, let's get to the "Lord" possibility. What exactly did Jesus claim again?

First of all, good luck ever knowing the true story of Jesus or what he said, assuming he existed at all. He wrote nothing down in his own lifetime

---

(one wonders just what kept him so busy during the first 30 years of life that documenting his message for posterity had to be put off and finally, 40 years after his death, delegated to third hand accounts).

---

This alone seems a curiosity since we have the books of Moses and Paul, neither of whom claimed to be divine.

The job of relating the teachings of Jesus for posterity fell to Mark, who was a companion of Paul, who saw Jesus in a vision. Where Mark got his information is left to speculation but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he got it from surviving disciples, those that were still alive 40 years later, whatever they could clearly remember.

So we've got hearsay of hearsay? No, actually it's worse than that. We're assuming we can take Christian claims of authorship at face value and that Mark is indeed the author of the Gospel that bears his name. In reality, "Mark" is a source allegedly a companion of Paul who heard what Jesus said from other unknown witnesses based on what they could remember 40 years after the events?

"Reliable Eye-Witness Accounts" should be made of sterner stuff.

***Conclusion coming soon***

---

Obviously he was working on his magic act.

[DeistPaladin]

In conclusion:

Here's the breakdown of the Trilemma:

1. Start with the desired conclusion
2. Assume Jesus really existed
3. Assume that we have infallible records of this person., his life and what he claimed
4. Speculate two alternatives: liar and lunatic
5. Strawman the hell out of those alternatives (reducto ad absurdum)
6. Arrive at desired conclusion
7. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Christians apparently never heard of the Bifurcation fallacy.

Neither had I. Is that the fallacy of the excluded middle? (aka false dichotomy)

[Cyberman]

The Extended Trilemma (or Quadrilemma):

JC: Liar, Lunatic, Lord or Lunch.

(Sorry; been toying with that for a few days and couldn't resist.)

[DeistPaladin]

The Extended Trilemma (or Quadrilemma):

JC: Liar, Lunatic, Lord or Lunch.

(Sorry; been toying with that for a few days and couldn't resist.)

That's when he appears on toast.

[Phil]

Christians apparently never heard of the Bifurcation fallacy.

Neither had I. Is that the fallacy of the excluded middle? (aka false dichotomy)

One and the same.