<<Ah, yes, the "lunatic, liar, or lord" argument. This is so old and
has been dealt with so many times that it's rather sad to see that
anyone still takes it seriously.>>
Russ, those old books from Prometheus Press you're reading are sadly out of
touch. This argument had never been adequately challenged.
In fact, you overlook the full argument. It is actually a "quintilemma." That
is, Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Myth or Sage/Guru?
Let's take a look at what you've written:
<<First of all, this argument assumes that what we know about Jesus
(i.e., what he said, etc.) is historically accurate. I have never
seen that satisfactorily proved. Heck, I haven't seen satisfactory
proof that Jesus even *existed* (though I figure he probably did).>>
If you're truly interested, please refer to "The Historical Reliability of the
Gospels" by Craig Blomberg (IVP). It is the best scholarly treatment of the
subject I know.
I might ask you at this point what your reasons are for doubting the
historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts. You'll have to spend some time
explaining your standard for assessing testimonial proof, and how you apply it
to not just one, but several writers.
Now, in order to move on to the next part of the argument, we assume the
accuracy of the texts:
<<Second, it assumes that, if Jesus did claim to be the son of God
and really wasn't, then he would have to have been a stark-raving
lunatic.>>
No, it does not. It only asserts that if Jesus believed himself to be the son
of God, and was not, he was mentally deluded. Surely you cannot be suggesting
there is any alternative to this? If so, I'd like to know how one who believes
himself to be divine, yet is not, is not by any definition off in the head.
<<One can believe something totally irrational and still be an
outwardly sane, even overhwelmingly persuasive, person otherwise (just
look at David Koresh).>>
That's not the question. The question is can someone believe something totally
irrational and still be rational? Obviously, the answer is no.
Now, as to outward manifestations. The "divinity complex" is a recognized,
psychopathic disorder. It shows itself in egotism, narcissism, antipathy
toward others, etc.
Koresh was like this. So was Jim Jones. Rasputin, the same. Jesus? Hardly. In
fact, he was the POLAR OPPOSITE. There is, therefore, no evidence, no reason
to believe Jesus had a divinity complex.
BTW, Einstein did not believe he was God, and did not manifest any behavior to
indicate he did. Your example does not apply.
<<The point is, there are all sorts of possibilities. To summarily narrow
it down to two and then immediately discard one of them simply because
one doesn't like it is incredibly poor logic.>>
Wrong, it is how we operate in the real world all the time. Faced with several
possibilities, we reject those that are less probable than others. The
quintilemma has never been refuted.
<<And if he was [a liar], 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?>>
Eccentricity? You mean an eccentricity that meant certain death for his
followers? Some idea of fun.
I might ask you, what was his motive? For the sin of blasphemy, Jesus was
under penalty of death. Are you saying he would have a little fun if it meant
the death penalty?
One has to wonder at your reasoning here. It seems you have cooked up a
possibility that has not link to the real world.
Jim