Jesus is known through his apostles. This is well known — introbert

If you are talking about the gospels, no one knows who wrote them. They are written many years after the events depicted and by anonymous writers. Mark being the earliest at around 60 years later. Subsequent tradition gave the books/gospels names. In most Bibles there is even a note about the text explaining this point. We literally have no contemporary account of whoever it is that may have inspired the Jesus myths.

For all intents and purposes, the underlying concepts of the Pauline gospel are antithetical to the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus. As such, it's absurd to include Jesus in the line from "Paul-scribe-translator-king james version- local church pastor - worshipper". I'm hardly the first to have come to that conclusion.

Consider the following:

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart." - Thomas Jefferson to William Short, Monticello, 13 April 1820[1]

Pasted from <http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/dupes-and-impostors-quotation>

I'm feeling kind of sorry for wading into this one. All I know about this topic is that I know nothing.

:pray:

↪Tom Storm ↪ThinkOfOne

I'm feeling kind of sorry for wading into this one. All I know about this topic is that I know nothing. — introbert

The gospel preached by Jesus is remarkably complex problem domain if you're interesting in analyzing such things. By and large, I find the gospel preached by Jesus to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within itself. I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they can merely echo His words. At worst, they deviate from His words and at times substantially so.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ — Dermot Griffin

It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. Anyone who doesn't accept them will reject the premises that Jesus made the statements.

If only Lewis had died in that train wreck, too.

I'll refrain from expressing my attitudes or feelings about Christianity, but I don't always succeed. I came from a Christian background, and considered myself a Christian for about 40 years. Moreover, at that time, I considered myself a Christian apologist, so I'm quite familiar with the arguments for God's existence, and C.S. Lewis's arguments.

The problem with setting the trilemma up as the only choices, is that all of the testimonial evidence, as to what Jesus actually said, is second-hand or hearsay, so it's very weak by definition. We actually don't know what Jesus said, because we don't know how reliable the second-hand testimony is. Of course if you believe that the words of the Bible are inspired by God, then your beliefs about the claims of Jesus, as given by the writers of the NT, will be governed by those beliefs. The trilemma only works if you believe the testimonial evidence is accurate.

If someone claimed to be God, he may not be a lunatic, he may just be delusional (you could argue that being delusional is a mental illness), or a good liar. Of course many Christians would respond that these options are not appropriate given that he performed miracles (supposedly), and rose from the dead (supposedly). The problem, again, is that the testimonial evidence is too weak, and the counter-evidence is enormous, i.e., our experiences run counter to people coming back to life after three days in a grave. You would need an enormous amount of testimonial evidence from a variety of sources, including extra-Biblical sources, to support such a belief, and we just don't have that kind of evidence.

Since you responded as if you believe that Jesus claimed to be God, can you address the following which I posted earlier?

The following makes Lewis' argument a non-starter.

As documented in the Four Gospels, while He walked the Earth Jesus never claimed to be God. Wherein Jesus claims to be literally God.

Yes, He claimed to be a "son of God". But He called for everyone to become "sons of God" as He was a son of God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9).
It's a theme that runs throughout the gospel preached by Jesus. For example, someone "born from above" IS someone "born of the spirit [of God]" IS someone who has God as their Father IS a "son" of God.

Yes, He claimed to be "one" with God. But He called for everyone to become "one" with God as He was "one" with God.
I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.
(John 17:20-23)

Jesus repeatedly makes a clear distinction between Himself and God. As but a couple of examples:
"He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me." (John 12:44-45)
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

I've yet to have seen a cogent argument that Jesus claimed to be God while He walked the Earth. Can you make one? — ThinkOfOne

Since you responded as if you believe that Jesus claimed to be God, can you address the following which I posted earlier? — ThinkOfOne

How did you come to that conclusion? I said, we don't know what Jesus actually said, because the testimonial evidence is too weak.

Since you responded as if you believe that Jesus claimed to be God, can you address the following which I posted earlier?
— ThinkOfOne

How did you come to that conclusion? I said, we don't know what Jesus actually said, because the testimonial evidence is too weak. — Sam26

Based on the following:

If someone claimed to be God, he may not be a lunatic, he may just be delusional (you could argue that being delusional is a mental illness), or a good liar. — Sam26

While we don't know that Jesus necessarily said what was attributed to Him, there's no compelling reason to believe that He necessarily did not. I've always found that argument really weak. The argument seems to be, "If we don't know that He necessarily said it, then there's no point in discussing anything that was attributed to Him". If that's an acceptable argument, then that argument could be used for many a historical figure.

If someone claimed to be God, he may not be a lunatic, he may just be delusional (you could argue that being delusional is a mental illness), or a good liar. — Sam26

Ya, "IF" he said it, but I have no strong evidence/reasons to conclude that he did say it, other than very weak testimonial evidence.

While we don't know that Jesus necessarily said what was attributed to Him, there's no compelling reason to believe that He necessarily did not. I've always found that argument really weak. The argument seems to be, "If we don't know that He necessarily said it, then there's no point in discussing anything that was attributed to Him". If that's an acceptable argument, then that argument could be used for many a historical figure. — ThinkOfOne

Why are you framing the argument in such absolute terms? I sure didn't frame it that way. Even if there was strong testimonial evidence to support that Jesus said X, Y, or Z, that doesn't support the idea that Jesus said it necessarily. The argument is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments don't give us conclusions that follow necessarily, only deductive arguments do that. So, again, it's not about what Jesus said necessarily. It's about what he probably said, or didn't say. If it was true that that is what I was implying, then I would agree, but it's not what I was implying.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. — Dermot Griffin

The idea that Jesus is divine is paganism. Jesus would have been appalled and outraged.

Ya, "IF" he said it, but I have no strong evidence/reasons to conclude that he did say it, other than very weak testimonial evidence. — Sam26

Actually you wrote "IF" He claimed it. Not "IF" He said it.

Why are you framing the argument in such absolute terms? I sure didn't frame it that way. Even if there was strong testimonial evidence to support that Jesus said X, Y, or Z, that doesn't support the idea that Jesus said it necessarily. The argument is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments don't give us conclusions that follow necessarily, only deductive arguments do that. So, again, it's not about what Jesus said necessarily. It's about what he probably said, or didn't say. If it was true that that is what I was implying, then I would agree, but it's not what I was implying. — Sam26

The point you seemed to miss is that even "probably said" cannot be reasonably determined from the available evidence.

Actually you wrote "IF" He claimed it. Not "IF" He said it. — ThinkOfOne

Obviously if Jesus claimed that he was God, then he said it, or at least implied it.

The point you seemed to miss is that even "probably said" cannot be reasonably determined from the available evidence. — ThinkOfOne

That's my point. We can't reasonably conclude that Jesus said X, Y, or Z based on the testimonial evidence. It's just too weak. Geez, I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp.

You also seem to fail to grasp the distinction between "said" and "claimed". "claimed" implies that He said it. Not the other way around.

Well, we just disagree. I'll leave it at that.

↪ThinkOfOne Well, we just disagree. I'll leave it at that. — Sam26

Yours is a common response from those who find themselves unable to reasonably back up their arguments. Classic.

I could same about you, but where does that get us? We have different ideas about what's reasonable. I'm not even sure what you believe. I've been analyzing these arguments for about 47 years, so I quite familiar with the arguments. Moreover, I've a good background in logic, so don't talk to me about reasonably backing up my arguments. I find that most Christians, if you are one, aren't good at defending their beliefs.

Yep.

↪ThinkOfOne I could same about you, but where does that get us? We have different ideas about what's reasonable. I'm not even sure what you believe. I've been analyzing these arguments for about 47 years, so I quite familiar with the arguments. Moreover, I've a good background in logic, so don't talk to me about reasonably backing up my arguments. I find that most Christians, if you are one, aren't good at defending their beliefs. — Sam26

How is it reasonable for you to say "I could [say the] same about you" when you're the only one who said "Well, we just disagree. I'll leave it at that"? Whatever your "background in logic" it isn't as good as you seem to believe it is. You seem to lose track of context.

That said, tell you what. Since you've been "analyzing these arguments for about 47 years" why don't you actually address what I asked you to address earlier instead of trying to find reasons for not addressing it?

BTW, I'm not a Christian. I never have been a Christian. You are correct that most Christians aren't good at defending their beliefs. It's also been my experience that former Christians aren't good at defending their beliefs either. As I once told a Christian friend of mine (now ex-Christian), "You think that things are true simply because you believe them". Took her a long time to admit it. She still often does it. Seems to be a side-effect of having been a Christian for over 40 years. Seems to be applicable to you.

You sound more like a troll than someone who is interested in good arguments.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z. — ThinkOfOne

Sure I can. A few pages later he comes back from the dead. Hardly seems a credible book to take literally -- so it's reasonable to conclude Jesus didn't say anything, given that it's a fantastical text written by fervent people and pasted together as a political convenience.

Yep.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z.
— ThinkOfOne

Sure I can. A few pages later he comes back from the dead. Hardly seems a credible book to take literally -- so it's reasonable to conclude Jesus didn't say anything, given that it's a fantastical text written by fervent people and pasted together as a political convenience. — Moliere

You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words. When Jesus spoke of things such as "giving sight to the blind", "raising the dead" being being "born from above" (resurrection) and so on, they were said figuratively. The NT writers made them literal acts as corny as it is.

↪ThinkOfOne You sound more like a troll than someone who is interested in good arguments. — Sam26

Says the guy who side-stepped addressing the following:
"How is it reasonable for you to say "I could [say the] same about you" when you're the only one who said "Well, we just disagree".

Sorry, but you've made one bad argument after another. I point them out, you side-step them or address them in disingenuous ways.

:rofl:

You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words. — ThinkOfOne

How do you disentangle the two? Are you referring to the findings of phase 1 of the Jesus Seminars?

The most obvious problem with trying to separate the mythology of NT writers is that any talk of God, whether it was said by Jesus or not, is mythology.

There is another problem that you have avoided. Your interest does not seem to be in what Jesus said but with subjecting his words to a tortured reading that turns them into what you want them to say while ignoring the words themselves.

You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words.
— ThinkOfOne

How do you disentangle the two? — Fooloso4

In the main it's really quite simple:
1) The writers of the four gospels were pretty good about introducing the words attribute to Jesus. Typically they supply introductory words such as, "So Jesus said..." and follow it by they words that are attributed to Him. Most modern translations put quotation marks around those words, though quotation marks are present in the original Greek text.
2) The rest falls outside of the words attributed to Jesus.

That's the basic idea anyway, though there is a bit more to it.

So when Jesus says in John:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Are they words attributed to Jesus or the mythology?