<<PG>>
>>It's funny, I have never seen McDowell's Trilemma "dealt with."
<<RS>>
>Then why did you cut out the remainder of my post in which I proceeded
>to do so?
Brevity perhaps? You did not "deal with" it there any more than you have
in this post - all you have argued is that a couple of the options are
certainly possible. In truth I chose not to include it here mainly because
of its irrelevence, and I had hoped my comments had made clear the reason
why. In case it is still unclear, the reason is that the LLL Trilemma
cannot be a proof for anything if in fact it is a dilemma - it's one
question torn between three poles. Some have made no pains about telling
us which answer they prefer. As a matter of fact, if I were to forget what
I know in other areas I would conclude that the third option - Jesus was
actually the Son of God - is by far the least likely.
<<PG>>
>>The premise is that Jesus was an
>>historical figure whose words are generally preserved in the bible. If
>>this is true, the only options are:
>>
>> 1) Jesus thought He was NOT the Son of God (DECEIVER)
<<RS>>
>And if he was, so what? Perhaps that was his one character flaw -- his
>eccentricity, if you will. He was a good man who did everything in his
>power to bring peace to the world, but he also liked to have a little fun
>by pretending to be the son of a supernatural being. Where's the harm in
>that?
Certainly, *perhaps* that was the case. The Trilemma *requires* that fact,
but here is what else it would say: If a person did not reason, "I only
have three options - I had better choose one!", and if they were
sufficiently familiar with the life and words of Jesus of Nazareth, in
particular his high moral teachings, they would probably think it unlikely
that he was also a prolific liar." If Jesus was just out to have a little
bit of fun (I can appreciate this), one might reason, why would he take it
to the point of death by extreme torture? Consider:
Mark 14:46,48,9
"The men seized Jesus and arrested him. ...'Am I leading a rebellion,'
said Jesus, 'that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?
Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not
arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."
Jesus taught that his death was imminent, and according to Scripture (see
Mark 14:17-41 for example).
Mark 14:61b,62
"Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of
heaven.'" The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more
witnesses?' he asked. 'You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?'
They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him..."
Mark 15:1-5
"Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the
teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They
bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. 'Are you the king
of the Jews?' asked Pilate. 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. The
chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him,
'Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you
of.' But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed."
One can see quite clearly that Jesus was prepared to maintain his teachings
about himself, even if doing so meant he would be tortured and killed. If
deep down I knew I was lying, and coming clean would save my life, I
wouldn't think twice about confessing! Even if I felt I hadn't been lying,
perhaps now would be an opportune time to start! Yet Jesus insisted he was
who he claimed to be, in stark contrast to Peter's behavior in denying that
he was a disciple of Christ, for fear of his own life (Mark 14:66-72).
Thus, deliberate DECEIVER (Liar) seems unlikely in favor of the second
option - Jesus was DELUDED (Lunatic).
>> 2) Jesus thought He was the Son of God but wasn't (DELUDED)
<<RS>>
>Again, if he was, so what? People can believe in something irrational and
>still be relatively normal and well-balanced otherwise. But, of course,
>I went over all of this in the parts of my post which you deleted. Did you
>even read it?
You seem to be implying that since I didn't come around to your view, I may
not have even given it due consideration. Such confidence! :-) I might
similarly ask if you have even read the part of my post which explains
"*ALL*" that the LLL Trilemma claims, as it appears quite clear to me
you've skimmed over it. But of course I had read your entire post, or how
else would I have known those portions were redundant? :-)
To the issue at hand. You say that "people can believe in something
irrational and still be relatively normal and well-balanced otherwise."
Your Albert Einstein example is along similar lines, so I have <SNIPPED> it
for the sake of brevity. You precede that final point with "Why is it hard
to believe that a person can be incredibly wise and resourceful in some
areas, and completely irrational in others?" - again, all part of the same
point.
Well the LLL Trilemma agrees with you. Genius in one area does not require
genius in all others. But you've twice used the word "irrational" and yet
we are talking about *morality* and not rationality per se. In this sense,
the second option as 'Lunatic,' is misnomered. What it does not mean to
say is that Jesus must have been stark raving mad, not able to retain his
poise and composure. As both sides readily point out, Jesus shows every
appearance of being sane. Professor Clark H. Pinnock has remarked, "...the
skill and depth of his teachings support the case only for his total mental
soundness. If only we were as sane as he!"
But in another sense, 'Lunatic' is perfectly appropriate. The difference
between the Einstein example and Christ, is that Einstein did not think he
was the divine messiah, the culmination of millenia of prophecy, capable of
great miracles, forgiving sins, raising the dead, and dying and
resurrecting as the savior of the human race. The first option (LIAR) says
he didn't really believe all of this, and the second option (DELUDED) which
we are discussiong now, says that he actually did believe all of these
things. C.S.Lewis has written that this would put him on the level of a
person who says they are a poached egg. The magnitude of the claims make
it so. If Jesus was not who he said he was, but sincerely believed it, he
was a basket case.
Philip Schaff asks;
"Is such an intellect - clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air,
sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always
ready and self-possessed - liable to a radical and most serious delusion
concerning his own character and mission?"
C.S.Lewis affirms;
"The discrepancy between the depth and sanity ...of His moral teaching and
the rampant megalomania which must lie behind his theological teaching
unless he is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained."
Opponents of Christianity are not likely to offer more than an "it's
possible" for the second option (Lunatic). Yet they do not see that "it's
necessarily true" if they reject 1) and 3). Let's face it, if I went
around believing all those things about myself (which clearly are not true
of me), I'd HAVE TO BE crazy. If I was perfectly sane and clear-thinking,
I would not believe them.
The LLL Trilemma *MERELY* points out that options 1) LIAR and 2) LUNATIC
each have their own internal dilemmas, whereas option 3) LORD has no
internal dilemma.
Regards,
Peter Grice