[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer "Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either: He was Lord, He was a liar, or He was a lunatic. It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?" Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable. Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation". That is, the argument attempts to restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more. Two of the more likely alternatives are: He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians.

actually, considering that John was written in response to the mythology that was creeping into the early church ("this I write that ye might know Him"), it is unlikely that the writers were embroidering it. and the fact that the epistles already written before the first gospel was written (the gospel being Mark and the epistles being Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, and Collosians) already taught the basics and were written in places the disciples did not go until much later (being based mostly in Jerusalem and the surrounding area of Judaea), and having no copies sent to them, there is little evidence that the gospels misquoted Jesus, especially considering that one of the farther out disciples (not of the best-known twelve, but a disciple nonetheless) was one of Paul's best friends (that being John-Mark, who was a certain young man that ran off from the Garden of Gesthemene and agreed to house the disciples), it is even more unlikely that it changed over time, especially considering that the epistles written within five years of Jesus's ascension already affirmed what the gospels said. no mythology here either. this argument is used in the Da Vinci Code, but fails to support its connected argument that the deuterocanonical gospels (also referred to as the Apocrypha) should be allowed. we Christians deny the apocrypha for three reasons:

falsified authorship: the earliest known non-canonical gospel was written in 160-180 AD. someone tell me, was Mary alive in that time period? the gospel of Thomas even has a note in the beginning saying that the book was written in 250 AD! most certainly he was dead then.

late date: not a single one of these gospels were written within even 100 years of Jesus's ascension. that is more than five generations!!!

contradict the other gospels: some of the things said in the apocrypha range from misguided to just plain silly. here are some of the quotes from the best known non-canonical gospel, the gospel of Thomas:

2 Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

[actual quote in the gospel from someone who spoke to Jesus: ask and it shall be given unto you, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you.]

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

[huh? and you expect me to avoid a lion if I am in an area where a lion lives? wierd.]

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.

After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

[wait a minute, didn't Jesus command us to pray in the gospels? where did you get this one?]

15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

[what!?!?!?! what will you be born as if it is vile to be born of an animal?]

16 Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to casy peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.

[John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.]

this next one is real wierd, I am still trying to figure it out:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

[ :eek: :faints: ]

Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is God, although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are one". The claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death of Jesus and his twelve disciples.

"before Abraham was, I Am [literally, YHWH, using the name of God in DIRECT reference to Himself]"
'nuff said.

Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh continue to peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries, there are literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.

how many people do you know who knew as much about people as He spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount? or as much about Jewish religion that He could answer every question and then respond with a question that utterly confounded the "experts"? anyone who could do that is definitely not crazy, the only possible mental illness that might have afflicted him is autism, and we can discount that by his amazing knowledge at the young age of twelve years old. going by His actions, we can definitely deduce that He was not crazy. unless you have another reliable source from the time.