HI,
We have all seen the arguments and the counter arguments. Would it not be fair to go with the possible identities of Jesus, often quoted, of being either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?
You seem to have a liking for Josh McDowell’s work, I noticed you used his ‘ant’ analogy on another thread. Although the Lord Liar Lunatic (trilemma) began with Lewis, McDowell’s readers seem to think that this is a good argument. It is a pretty poor argument as these three choices are not the only possible options, Jesus could have simply been a figment of someone’s imagination.
Great man and just another prophet do not apply to Him.
Why not? In Islam he is just another prophet.
If the writers were trying to make Him fit the scenario of Messiah, He must have been either a Lunatic who thought that He was God Incarnate or He was a manipulator along with the writers.
So he may have been a lunatic then?
There is also the added problem that no one who wrote abut him actually knew him, there are no contemporary eyewitness reports.
If Jesus was not the Son of God, who was this guy?
What information have we to use to help us determine a conclusion?
™ Version 4.2
