Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? (chapter 2)

   In this blog we will consider if Jesus was a liar. Josh wrote, "The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning." Josh continued, "To say what Jesus said and to claim what he claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be."
   C. S. Lewis, once an agnostic, didn't want people to be foolish and say that Jesus was a great moral teacher. They must realize that a good moral teacher could not claim to be God--if He wasn't! That would be a very bad (immoral) claim. Josh quoted Lewis saying, "You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

   F. J. A. Hort, who spent nearly 30 years studying New Testament text, said that the truth Jesus spoke couldn't be separated from His life. Josh quoted him, "Take away Himself as the primary (though not the ultimate) subject of every statement and they all fall to pieces."
   Kenneth Scott Latourette, historian of Christianity at Yale University, said, "It must be obvious to any thoughtful reader of the Gospel records that Jesus regarded Himself and His message as inseparable."
   Josh wrote, "If (Jesus' claim of deity) was false, then we have two and only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false." If He knew He wasn't God, He lied. Yet He taught others to tell the truth. That's hypocritical! Josh continued, "More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny." Certainly this wouldn't be the mark of a "great moral teacher". Why would He insist on a lie that would certainly lead to His crucifixion?
   William Lecky, a noted historian and opponent of organized Christianity, wrote, "....the simple record of these 3 short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the (formal discussions) of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."
   Josh quoted historian Philip Schaff who said that Jesus couldn't have been a liar because of His character and calm demeaner while prophesying His death, resurrection, the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the beginning of His Church - and these predictions have been fulfilled literally. Schaff concluded, "A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction."
   Josh quoted Schaff again, "How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience,could an impostor--that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man--have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age?"
   Josh concluded the liar section with, "Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?
   Next time we will look at "Was He a Lunatic?"

Sincerely,
Rick