Liar Lunatic or Lord argument

[ArteestX]

In another thread, the argument of "Jesus as liar, lunatic, or Lord" came up. I did not want to derail that particular thread, so I took out this argument and created this new thread. Here's what has occurred so far....

And don't get me started on the ridiculous "Jesus is either a liar, lunatic, or Lord" so-called conundrum.

Put Josh McDowell's evangelist apologetics and all the church history aside, I want to see how you ram heads with C.S. Lewis... Do you add "misunderstood" to the conundrum like the delusion artist Dawkins?

Jesus was a liar, lunatic, Lord, inaccurately quoted, or had quotes attributed to him that he never said.

And this is the part where we pick up the current thread. Bushmaster78FS had a longer reply, which you can click to see for yourself. But I am responding to a particular part of his comment.

The latter two which you added removes the first three. Your issue is with the Gospels, your issue is with the Gospel authors, you simply call them liars for what they have written. ...

See, I don't see the Gospels that way. I see the Gospels as writers trying to capture what it was like to be around this amazing person. We all have moments where we hear deep and profound truths from children, friends, strangers, etc. Those who are deists may say that they momentarily see God in others when this happens. Now imagine you're hanging around someone where every time he opens his mouth, you get that sense. What are going to believe about this person? Perhaps that he's God? How do you convey these amazing experiences to other people? Sometimes you use metaphor, and that's not lying and it's not the truth, it's a different form of truth.

One of my favorite verses is Matthew 27:51. It is beautiful in its symbolism, irregardless of whether it is literally true. In fact, I doubt it *is* literally true. But that takes nothing away from the beautiful truth being proposed (I won't delve into this point right now, but if anyone wishes me explain my understanding of this verse, I'll be happy to do so). Matthew is trying to convince his audience (the Jewish nation) that Jesus is the messiah they've been waiting for, which is why every other verse has "as it was written" and "to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet" in it. That's why he wrote this verse, 27:51. That's why he wrote the next two verses about zombies going out into the city upon Jesus's death. Matthew reveals his penchant for adding incorrect details by his lack of understanding of the Psalms in Matthew 21:2-7. He's not lying, he's creating a larger than life charcter in writing to convince the audience that Jesus was in fact larger than life.

CS Lewis, and now you, are forcing a false choice. Jesus is a lunatic or he's Lord. The Bible is written by liars creating a Tarnished Gospel or every word they wrote is the absolute truth. I think these are all false choices. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The truth can reside somewhere in the complex middle.

The simple fact is that the "liar, lunatic, or Lord" argument is completely dependent on the assumption that the Bible is literally true. If you take that assumption away, other reasonable possibilities present themselves.

 

[lula]

Just as a side note: I have always thought that if I did believe in the Devil it would not seem unreasonable that he created the Bible or at least misrepresented it.

I share some of the thoughts of the original post. If you look nowadays where we have all this technology and intellect that we can debunk most quacks there are still many of them around scamming people all over the world.

Just look at Sai Baba, he has millions of followers and he pretends to materialize golden eggs and brand name watches and you can see this on video and how obviously and painfully fake it is yet people follow him. Followers claim they have seen him fly and heal people. Look at Benny Hinn...

I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to consider the fact that 2000 years Jesus could have been a Sai Baba or a Benny Hinn. If today they can capture millions of followers in the past they could have founded major religions.




If you take the Bible as experiences of God by people that seems pretty reasonable. What I wonder is why limit to the bible. Many other religions seek and put forth their experiences and I dont understand why just use one source. Our experiences of God cant be wrong so if the bible is just experiences why is it more special than any other God related experience.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I'd appreciate it if you requested this to be moved to Non-Christian Religion through the moderators.

There is a whole context and unity in St. Matthew's gospel. If Matthew was of the thought that Christ really impressed him in the way you mention, which we are talking about "entirely" feelings, and he wanted to pen "Matthew's" experiences with God, then why did not he get more personal? If they were really taken by this guy, why don't they mention it in the first person in their narratives, why would they falsely attribute Divinity to Him, and put words into Christ's mouth? If you look at the historical development, first gospel starts to circulate around 50+ AD and last one 96 AD. St. John's gospel is the only theological one that answers some false beliefs out there. While there is symbolism at certain stops, St. Matthew also talks about literal things. I am not a gnostic and the early church was not either, I will say that there is no hidden meaning in these gospels.

Gospels do not leave us a choice, such as "this part is nonsense, so it can't be taken literally, or this part sounds much reasonable. We can believe that" They are a whole. We can't pick and choose. Theologically, especially with the awesome Gospel of St. John, Christ's claims stand out. He either made claims, or St. John made up that He did. We are talking about a person who was sentenced to be crucified due to blasphemy of claiming deity. Why did they not send Him on his way saying "this guy insane"? Also note that Matthew doesn't call anyone "zombies" He says "bodies of the saints" I mean I can see you are into symbolisms and all, why do you distort the "bodies of the saints" into zombies?

Neither CS Lewis nor I are forcing a false dilemma, that dilemma is already recorded in the Gospels. Early Church took it literally but also taught the where the symbolisms were. In this modern age, everyone interprets it the way they like it, I don't agree with that.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Just look at Sai Baba, he has millions of followers and he pretends to materialize golden eggs and brand name watches and you can see this on video and how obviously and painfully fake it is yet people follow him. Followers claim they have seen him fly and heal people. Look at Benny Hinn...

I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to consider the fact that 2000 years Jesus could have been a Sai Baba or a Benny Hinn. If today they can capture millions of followers in the past they could have founded major religions.

It is not fair to compare Christ to charlatans. In this day and age, Benny Hinn runs away from investigators that he opened some boy's eyes. He doesn't possess any ability, he is a fake. Christ showed things to people to their amazement, unless these people lied about it, Christ was not a fake.

 

[Van]

Sorry, but I do not understand this thread. Apparently the position is being put forward that Jesus was not a liar because He actually did not say He is the Messiah, the gospel writers lied when they put those words in His mouth. Is that it?

If that is the contention, I do not find it to be reasonable. Many of the statements of Jesus recorded in the gospels were made in public settings, with public reactions, such as picking up rocks to stone him for His claims. No it is more reasonable to conclude Jesus was a liar when He made those claims, then He never made the claims and others put words in His mouth. But then we have the miracles, authenticating what He said, so I have concluded Jesus is Lord.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You can read the about how this thread started, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7386265/

Towards the end...

 

[lula]

Bushmaster,

my point is if you ask a follower of Sai Baba they will say they saw him fly, they saw him cure the blind, materialize objects. These are his followers, I dont know how that is possible but it somehow happens where a large group of people believe things that did not happen. I think if 1 million people think Sai Baba can heal and do all sorts of things
witness accounting is very unreliable.


I imagine it must be hard for any Christian to even ponder such a proposition. As an outsider and non-believer I think madman or charlatan are much more likely realities. But in reality there is no proof either way. You can say Jesus was the messiah, liar, crazy, satan or any other thing and the ones who believe continue on and those who dont do the same and there is no proof to support any side.

 

[unkern]

The reason it has become hard to prove the Messiah really did come and that he is real, is that many have thrown away the Tanakh (OT) and said that it is nailed to the cross and no longer matters. Take a look at Genesis 49:1-2 this is where we get our context for what is coming. Now look at verse 10, you notice within the first part that is says the scepter, this means kingship. So, there will always be a kingship until Shiloh which translates as Messiah comes. Well lets think about the last time that there was a king, according to Josephus there has not been a king since Herod. Now think who around the time of Herod would have been a very large figure, some may have even called him Messiah?

 

[ArteestX]

I'd appreciate it if you requested this to be moved to Non-Christian Religion through the moderators.

Ok, that's fine.

There is a whole context and unity in St. Matthew's gospel. If Matthew was of the thought that Christ really impressed him in the way you mention, which we are talking about "entirely" feelings, and he wanted to pen "Matthew's" experiences with God, then why did not he get more personal?

The contemporary viewpoint is that Matthew did not write this gospel. Matthew is thought to have written by an anonymous Jewish Christian writer somewhere around 80 AD.

While there is symbolism at certain stops, St. Matthew also talks about literal things. I am not a gnostic and the early church was not either, I will say that there is no hidden meaning in these gospels.

"The early church" wasn't a monolithic belief system. There were many competing views of Christianity, some were gnostic, some not. I do think metaphor was used much more freely back then by everyone, and they did not have the same sense of "if it's not literal truth, it's a lie" writing that we have today.

Gospels do not leave us a choice, such as "this part is nonsense, so it can't be taken literally, or this part sounds much reasonable. We can believe that" They are a whole. We can't pick and choose.

So you belive 1 Corinithians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, and 1 Corinithians 14:34-35 are all equal in truth? You believe all three passages should be taken literally by yourself today? You don't pick and choose which ones to personally follow? Me personally, I only think one of those is true.

I think I *can* pick and choose, and I think everyone else does too. Few people think "go sell all you own and follow me" is to be taken literally. People pick and choose and say that verse applied to THAT guy, not to me. And that's picking and choosing.

Theologically, especially with the awesome Gospel of St. John, Christ's claims stand out. He either made claims, or St. John made up that He did.

I agree, and I think the latter. To me, if Jesus were going around repeatedly claiming "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me", then why wouldn't the other three gospels record that? Do you think the other writers would know of that claim and decide, "Y'know, I don't think that's important to mention"? I'm not saying John was trying to pull one over on everyone. He was trying to describe his experience with God to others and this is the language he used. That's fine, but it doesn't match the other gospels and it doesn't have the same sense of love and humility that Jesus has in the other three gospels.

Also note that Matthew doesn't call anyone "zombies" He says "bodies of the saints" I mean I can see you are into symbolisms and all, why do you distort the "bodies of the saints" into zombies?

They were bodies of the saints who had died and were brought back to life. Today, we call that zombies, but if the term bothers you, then we can use "living dead" or "animated corpses" or something else. To me, zombies is brief and conveys the same meaning as "bodies of the saints who were once living but had died and were brought back to life."

Sorry, but I do not understand this thread. Apparently the position is being put forward that Jesus was not a liar because He actually did not say He is the Messiah, the gospel writers lied when they put those words in His mouth. Is that it?
If that is the contention, I do not find it to be reasonable. Many of the statements of Jesus recorded in the gospels were made in public settings, with public reactions, such as picking up rocks to stone him for His claims.

You have the point of the thread correct, although I'm not accusing the gospel writers of lying so much as having a different understanding of journalism (that literal truth of facts were not as important as the meaning of truth in what they wrote).

As for people getting mad at Jesus, you can get mad at someone without them claiming to be God. You could, I don't know, go into church and call everyone hypocrites and theives. You could, I don't know, claim that tax collectors, prostitutes, and Samaritans (a hated group back then) were all worthy of God's love. You could, I don't know, say that the old religion missed the point about God and say that God forgives everyone, that believing the correct things is unimportant to God, that what God wants from us is not our devotion and piety but to treat others with mercy and forgiveness. You can say all sorts of things that can upset the status quo and can tick off a mob of people without literally claiming to be God. But that's how I read the gospels.

 

[Sketcher]

So why was Matthew exaggerating/inaccurate while your speculations are correct?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The contemporary viewpoint is that Matthew did not write this gospel. Matthew is thought to have written by an anonymous Jewish Christian writer somewhere around 80 AD.

I am not interested in the modern view where they only link and compare textual evidence. However, in the unbroken link of Church Tradition and early Christian history, this gospel is attributed to St. Matthew.

"The early church" wasn't a monolithic belief system. There were many competing views of Christianity, some were gnostic, some not. I do think metaphor was used much more freely back then by everyone, and they did not have the same sense of "if it's not literal truth, it's a lie" writing that we have today.

If they were not writing the literal truth, say as your metaphor example, like Christ being the Lamb, the gospel authors, such as St. John used theological and philosophical rhetoric. So there was a context where things made sense all together.

So you belive 1 Corinithians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, and 1 Corinithians 14:34-35 are all equal in truth? You believe all three passages should be taken literally by yourself today? You don't pick and choose which ones to personally follow? Me personally, I only think one of those is true.

I think I *can* pick and choose, and I think everyone else does too. Few people think "go sell all you own and follow me" is to be taken literally. People pick and choose and say that verse applied to THAT guy, not to me. And that's picking and choosing.

They were all true, St. Paul is addressing a church, a body of believers that needed edification and direction. You wouldn't see a woman "priest" throughout Christian history until the contemporaries decided to do whatever they wished to do. This is not sexist move nor the church saw females were inferior to males. Personally, all this personal interpretation and contemporary issues are products of Luther's reformation. Church in the East never suffered the same problem. You, personally, can pick and choose what you want, but don't expect you have the truth.

I agree, and I think the latter. To me, if Jesus were going around repeatedly claiming "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me", then why wouldn't the other three gospels record that? Do you think the other writers would know of that claim and decide, "Y'know, I don't think that's important to mention"? I'm not saying John was trying to pull one over on everyone. He was trying to describe his experience with God to others and this is the language he used. That's fine, but it doesn't match the other gospels and it doesn't have the same sense of love and humility that Jesus has in the other three gospels.

Every gospel has been written to a certain audience with certain things in mind. They complete each other while they testify to each other. I can't throw out 3 and pick only one or vice versa. Synoptics also contain certain information, such as St. Peter's declaration of Christ, St. John doesn't have. Christ is more personal in St. John's gospel, and this gospel is theologically very sound.

They were bodies of the saints who had died and were brought back to life. Today, we call that zombies, but if the term bothers you, then we can use "living dead" or "animated corpses" or something else. To me, zombies is brief and conveys the same meaning as "bodies of the saints who were once living but had died and were brought back to life."

Logic, if something is living, it can not be dead. There is no where in the gospels that remotely suggest these were animated "corpses".

You have the point of the thread correct, although I'm not accusing the gospel writers of lying so much as having a different understanding of journalism (that literal truth of facts were not as important as the meaning of truth in what they wrote).

As for people getting mad at Jesus, you can get mad at someone without them claiming to be God. You could, I don't know, go into church and call everyone hypocrites and theives. You could, I don't know, claim that tax collectors, prostitutes, and Samaritans (a hated group back then) were all worthy of God's love. You could, I don't know, say that the old religion missed the point about God and say that God forgives everyone, that believing the correct things is unimportant to God, that what God wants from us is not our devotion and piety but to treat others with mercy and forgiveness. You can say all sorts of things that can upset the status quo and can tick off a mob of people without literally claiming to be God. But that's how I read the gospels.

Only difference, He didn't just say God forgives everyone, He forgave them Himself. He also spoke of punishment, people don't seem to get it.

You seem to pick and choose the good part of the Gospels, you are more than likely applying the good one can find in the gospels to your life. But you are ignoring the person who said it all.

 

[ArteestX]

So why was Matthew exaggerating/inaccurate while your speculations are correct?

Why is atheism wrong to you and Christianity correct? Why anyone think that someone who votes for McCain a patriot and Obama a traitor, or vice versa? Why does anyone think they are correct about anything? I make no absolute claims and am here to share ideas and learn from others. Ultimately, I do not know if my speculations are actually correct. But for now, it is what I think and believe. Perhaps I'm completely right, perhaps I'm partially correct, and perhaps I've got it utterly wrong. I do not claim ultimate truth for anything I post.

{1 Corinithians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, and 1 Corinithians 14:34-35} They were all true, St. Paul is addressing a church, a body of believers that needed edification and direction. You wouldn't see a woman "priest" throughout Christian history until the contemporaries decided to do whatever they wished to do. This is not sexist move nor the church saw females were inferior to males. Personally, all this personal interpretation and contemporary issues are products of Luther's reformation. Church in the East never suffered the same problem. You, personally, can pick and choose what you want, but don't expect you have the truth.

But what you're saying is that it was literally true for that church in that time but not to you. You don't feel the need to literally follow what it says and prevent women from speaking in church. You can pick and choose which verses apply to you and which don't. It's still picking and choosing.

Every gospel has been written to a certain audience with certain things in mind. They complete each other while they testify to each other. I can't throw out 3 and pick only one or vice versa. Synoptics also contain certain information, such as St. Peter's declaration of Christ, St. John doesn't have. Christ is more personal in St. John's gospel, and this gospel is theologically very sound.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying that all four gospels have to be carbon copies, and if it varies at all then it can't be true. But it is the discrepencies that reveal the different viewpoints, so I ask myself how this interpretation of reality fits in with the others' interpretations. And if one person says something radically different than the other three, then I ask myself how much it makes sense that only one person would have seen or heard that.

Logic, if something is living, it can not be dead. There is no where in the gospels that remotely suggest these were animated "corpses".

A corpse is defined as a "dead body" and Matthew makes it clear he's talking about people who are dead, at least according to various translations....

• tombs were opened, and many saints who had died were brought back to life. (International Standard Version)
• The tombs were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died came back to life. (GOD'S WORD® Translation)
• And the resting-places of the dead came open; and the bodies of a number of sleeping saints came to life; (Bible in Basic English)
• And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, (King James Version)
• The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (New American Standard Bible)
• The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (New International Version)

You seem to pick and choose the good part of the Gospels, you are more than likely applying the good one can find in the gospels to your life. But you are ignoring the person who said it all.

Of course I'm picking and choosing. I make no apology for that. Everyone does that, even if they rationalize it as "it's true for that person in that time." But you are 100% correct, it IS very easy to just keep the stuff you like and discard the stuff you don't. Jesus said many controversial things, and I do have to keep in mind that I can't just keep the "mercy and forgiveness" portions and ignore and discard the verses that don't easily mesh with that.

 

[ArteestX]

I'd appreciate it if you requested this to be moved to Non-Christian Religion through the moderators.

Mods, I looked around and wasn't sure where to send this request. I don't know what the protocol is, so please consider this request and move it if you think it is appropriate, thank you.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

But what you're saying is that it was literally true for that church in that time but not to you. You don't feel the need to literally follow what it says and prevent women from speaking in church. You can pick and choose which verses apply to you and which don't. It's still picking and choosing.

Please, let's get some historical context here, this "speaking" didn't only mean preaching, they were more involved in gossip and other inappropriate behavior, so St. Paul rebuked them, like I said, in traditional, apostolic churches you would not see a female priest or pastor. This rule still applies. The reason St. Paul had to reiterate his teaching on the conduct of women is because women sought to indulge themselves in glory that should have gone to their husbands, and ultimately to Christ.

Further, I do not do my interpretations of the Scriptures like you do, I follow my Church that passed on the understanding of the Scriptures through generations of believers, saints and martyrs. There had been no divisions, no separations, no corruptions in the Church of the East. We don't pick and choose interpretations. The Greek term for that is simply "heretic"...

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying that all four gospels have to be carbon copies, and if it varies at all then it can't be true. But it is the discrepencies that reveal the different viewpoints, so I ask myself how this interpretation of reality fits in with the others' interpretations. And if one person says something radically different than the other three, then I ask myself how much it makes sense that only one person would have seen or heard that.

What is radically different? For example, St. John happened to be at the Crucifixion site, before and after, so you can expect more details. During the time period St. John wrote his Holy Gospel, Christendom was larger and the ideas of gnosticism were spreading, people started to insist their own interpretation of who Christ was, hence his philosophical and theological approach in his gospel, God the WORD, Passover Lamb, etc. What radical difference do you have that causes a giant theological shift?

A corpse is defined as a "dead body" and Matthew makes it clear he's talking about people who are dead, at least according to various translations....

• tombs were opened, and many saints who had died were brought back to life. (International Standard Version)
• The tombs were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died came back to life. (GOD'S WORD® Translation)
• And the resting-places of the dead came open; and the bodies of a number of sleeping saints came to life; (Bible in Basic English)
• And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, (King James Version)
• The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (New American Standard Bible)
• The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (New International Version)

The verse continues "they came back to life" They are no longer DEAD, even so what is it to you?

Of course I'm picking and choosing. I make no apology for that. Everyone does that, even if they rationalize it as "it's true for that person in that time." But you are 100% correct, it IS very easy to just keep the stuff you like and discard the stuff you don't. Jesus said many controversial things, and I do have to keep in mind that I can't just keep the "mercy and forgiveness" portions and ignore and discard the verses that don't easily mesh with that.

Like I said before, from its early years, Church called those pick and choose, heretics. Not everyone does that, that seems to be your thing. Imagine the number of divisions and branches after reformation in Europe, everyone who had a new interpretation started his own denomination. This is why it is important to study the Early Church.

 

[Sketcher]

Why is atheism wrong to you and Christianity correct? Why anyone think that someone who votes for McCain a patriot and Obama a traitor, or vice versa? Why does anyone think they are correct about anything? I make no absolute claims and am here to share ideas and learn from others. Ultimately, I do not know if my speculations are actually correct. But for now, it is what I think and believe. Perhaps I'm completely right, perhaps I'm partially correct, and perhaps I've got it utterly wrong. I do not claim ultimate truth for anything I post.

Well, here's the issue. If you actually look at the evidence objectively, you will find that Jesus of Nazareth being who he claimed to be is the most reasonable conclusion. Now, you're assuming that Matthew pumped it up a bit, but he died a martyr's death for what he believed in, and what he believed in is in the gospel that bears his name. You're also assuming he didn't know the Psalms, but he was immersed in Jewish culture, living in Messianic times.

 

[ArteestX]

....in traditional, apostolic churches you would not see a female priest or pastor. This rule still applies.... We don't pick and choose interpretations. The Greek term for that is simply "heretic"...

Well I definitely qualify for that moniker. Whenever women are denied equal status, I think it's wrong, no matter what the Bible says. Religions are certainly free to say who can and cannot speak in their own church, but I also have the right to say that I think it's wrong in my opinion.

What radical difference {in the Gospel of John} do you have that causes a giant theological shift?

Because John is the only place Jesus directly says that belief in him is essential to getting into heaven. In the other gospels, claims of Jesus's divinity are more circumspect (he claimed he could absolve any sin, which could only be done by God), but he never outright said "I am the way" over and over and over like he does in John.

The verse continues "they came back to life" They are no longer DEAD, even so what is it to you?

Hey, you're the one that didn't like the term zombie. If someone was dead, and now they're walking around, the term fits for me. But use whatever term you want.

Like I said before, from its early years, Church called those pick and choose, heretics. Not everyone does that, that seems to be your thing. Imagine the number of divisions and branches after reformation in Europe, everyone who had a new interpretation started his own denomination. This is why it is important to study the Early Church.

Again, you're right. I am a heretic. Freely acknowledged. I have studied the early church, which again is not some monolithic belief system. Rather, there were lots of early churches, each with their own take on Jesus. That is, until around 300 AD when the other churches' teachings were declared heresy and its members were killed. I understand my view of Christianity is not within the typical boundaries of the church.

You asked how I could get around CS Lewis's conundrum of "liar, lunatic, or Lord." To me, the dilemma only exists if you take the Bible literally. Once you free yourself of that mindset, other reasonable possiblities materialize.

Well, here's the issue. If you actually look at the evidence objectively, you will find that Jesus of Nazareth being who he claimed to be is the most reasonable conclusion. Now, you're assuming that Matthew pumped it up a bit, but he died a martyr's death for what he believed in, and what he believed in is in the gospel that bears his name. You're also assuming he didn't know the Psalms, but he was immersed in Jewish culture, living in Messianic times.

I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm saying that I have looked at the evidence objectively to me and have come to a different conclusion. If you compare the Palm Sunday stories in all four gospels, Matthew stands out in one significant way that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the poetry of Zechariah. At least that's how it seems to me after the research I've done.

I do assume much of what you say about the author of Matthew "pumping up" the gospel, although I don't know if he died a martyr's death as Matthew did. I'm not demanding that anyone believe me. I was asked a question about the "liar, lunatic, Lord" conundrum, and I'm doing my best to answer to the best of my limited knowledge.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm saying that I have looked at the evidence objectively to me and have come to a different conclusion. If you compare the Palm Sunday stories in all four gospels, Matthew stands out in one significant way that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the poetry of Zechariah. At least that's how it seems to me after the research I've done.

And how do you know it is a misunderstanding, being as you are not intimately familiar with that culture and religion as Matthew was?

I do assume much of what you say about the author of Matthew "pumping up" the gospel, although I don't know if he died a martyr's death as Matthew did. I'm not demanding that anyone believe me. I was asked a question about the "liar, lunatic, Lord" conundrum, and I'm doing my best to answer to the best of my limited knowledge.

Matthew WAS the author.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well I definitely qualify for that moniker. Whenever women are denied equal status, I think it's wrong, no matter what the Bible says. Religions are certainly free to say who can and cannot speak in their own church, but I also have the right to say that I think it's wrong in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with deny anyone anything. Church adheres to the biblical, traditional and theological principles that goes deeper beyond your superficial understanding. I never said the Church denies leadership to women, they can not be ordained due to theological reasons. The undeniable historically proven fact is that Jesus was born as a full man, not a woman. This is why Jesus must be in turn represented by men as priests. If women were allowed to represent him, then Jesus would be both male and female–a hermaphrodite (in between sexes/both). Now, full human beings must be either male or female because God created them that way in the Garden of Eden. Hermaphrodites are not fully human, but a part of fallen Nature. It’s unfortunate for them, but nonetheless the truth. To claim Jesus is a hermaphrodite is putting us in dangerous territory because God must become fully human in order to redeem humanity from its sins. To fail to be both fully human and fully divine at once would undermine our very salvation. Thus, Jesus could only redeem the world as a man. When we are at worship our priest or bishop becomes an Ikon of Christ. Christ is God but He is also a fully perfect human man. That means that a priest, as His Ikon or most true symbol, must also be a man. A priest must be male because Jesus is a man. In the Incarnation God became man not woman. The male priesthood is a supernatural concept. In that sense it is a mystery just as the Incarnation or Resurrection is a mystery. Reason and logic cannot fully explain it, or define it, or detract from the truth of it, any more than you and I can explain it as being the way of God. We can say that God has no particular sex, male or female. But in the Revelation of God through Christ, God chose to become a man because He wanted to take to Himself a bride which is the Church, the Family of God.

THE ORTHODOX PRIEST AN IKON OF CHRIST | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Because John is the only place Jesus directly says that belief in him is essential to getting into heaven. In the other gospels, claims of Jesus's divinity are more circumspect (he claimed he could absolve any sin, which could only be done by God), but he never outright said "I am the way" over and over and over like he does in John.

That is not a giant theological shift. In synoptics, Christ is asked the question under oath if He was the Son of the Most Blessed, He said "I AM". Jews were not theologically deprived as some people in our day and age, the meaning is clear by claiming Divinity from whom the Salvation comes from. Are you stuck in semantics?

Hey, you're the one that didn't like the term zombie. If someone was dead, and now they're walking around, the term fits for me. But use whatever term you want.

I am not interested in your mockery. Gospels clearly state that they were alive, not animated.

Again, you're right. I am a heretic. Freely acknowledged. I have studied the early church, which again is not some monolithic belief system. Rather, there were lots of early churches, each with their own take on Jesus. That is, until around 300 AD when the other churches' teachings were declared heresy and its members were killed. I understand my view of Christianity is not within the typical boundaries of the church.

Wrong. Your view is out-of-whack, simply incomplete. IMO, you are not a heretic because you don't seem to have fully grasped the theological and historical existence of the Christian Church. There weren't lots of churches, there were locally identified sects. However the Orthodox Church had a hierarchical state that wherever it is established the same truth was brought along. Ecclesiastical history shows that government takes over in 4th century for the purpose of unity in the country. This has nothing to do with what Church teaches. If those of other beliefs were exiled, this is government's doing, not Church's...

You asked how I could get around CS Lewis's conundrum of "liar, lunatic, or Lord." To me, the dilemma only exists if you take the Bible literally. Once you free yourself of that mindset, other reasonable possiblities materialize.

You are right, you "get around it" That simply puts it. Christ didn't claim Divinity such as "Before Abraham was, I AM" in spiritual meaning. He said it literally. Historically, the biblical interpretation comes to us through Church and saints and they didn't pick and choose. Christ's words were clear enough to let people pick up stones around Him more than once, therefore the trilemma, once the information is set before us, is well-nigh irrefutable. One can paste options to it, of course, and make it a "higher"-lemma; and one can also speculate. But I have yet to see a new option that is viable - the "honestly mistaken" routine has yet to satisfy.

I do assume much of what you say about the author of Matthew "pumping up" the gospel, although I don't know if he died a martyr's death as Matthew did. I'm not demanding that anyone believe me. I was asked a question about the "liar, lunatic, Lord" conundrum, and I'm doing my best to answer to the best of my limited knowledge.

You seem to remain ignorant to the other ecclesiastical information that has been passed on by the Christian Church, Church didn't only pass on the Bible. St. Matthew was the author of the gospel.

 

[ArteestX]

..... I never said the Church denies leadership to women, they can not be ordained due to theological reasons....
....This is why Jesus must be in turn represented by men as priests. If women were allowed to represent him, then Jesus would be both male and female–a hermaphrodite (in between sexes/both) ...
....Hermaphrodites are not fully human, but a part of fallen Nature.
.......Reason and logic cannot fully explain it, or define it, or detract from the truth of it.....

I've been trying to think of some way to respond to this, but I think instead I'm going to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You are right, you "get around it" That simply puts it.... But I have yet to see a new option that is viable - the "honestly mistaken" routne has yet to satisfy.

It may not be satisfying to you, but for now I find it makes the most sense to me. I'm not sure there's much more to say beyond this. But thank you for all of your responses (and you as well, TwistedSketch). I appreciate them all.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

It may not be satisfying to you, but for now I find it makes the most sense to me.

It can be said that, regardless of the records and teachings of a religion, man will do as he wishes, even fitting that religion into his own mold.