Was Jesus Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend?

Matt Walsh examines the "Three L" argument for Christianity articulated by CS Lewis.

[topseykretts]

Actually, CS Lewis was right and this guy is wrong. The "legend" argument simply falls apart upon any detailed examination. We have MORE (from the same period) writings on the life of Jesus then all other figures from the ancient world put together!!! We know more about His life, day to day travels, and accomplishments than every other famous person from antiquity PUT TOGETHER!!

So if you're going to claim that Jesus was a "legend", then you must also conclude that Alexander the great was a legend, and Cleopatra was a legend, and Socrates, and Plato, and Hannibal, and Ramses II, and King Hammurabi.

Because we have more FIRST CENTURY accounts of Jesus's life than all of those people put together.

[familiadedios]

It's " was Jesus liar lunatic or Lord?"

And he, sir.... Is Lord of Lords, King of

[stephenmason]

This is so off topic, but that's a sweet leather jacket.

[heavenhelpus]

Jesus said he was God, by his words & actions, & God the Father called Jesus God. He was crucified, because of his claim that He was God, forgiving sin, which is only God's domain. The Jews considered his claim, as a blasphemy, & therefore the only crime, they could execute him for. To have the power of Gods healing, miracles & wisdom in Him, and claiming Godhead, is proof He was telling the truth. The Jews could not deny Gods power & miracles, but they did not want to share power with Jesus, as they believed would happen. They then falsely accused Him of using the devils power, to try to turn others against Him, which failed to work. If He was lying, the power of God would not be in Him, & no miracles would have taken place. Also having Gods power in Him, was proof of His Godhead, and therefore, He could not lie.

[georgetravers]

Paul, having never met Jesus while persecuting Christians, had a capitulating moment, a breakdown. This behavior is still in Churches today, with people acting-out goodness, claiming to have had their divine "seeing-Jesus" experience, and denying their evil pasts. A covering of themselves in a shroud of saintliness with thorns remaining within. This easy route to change into a new identity has gone so mainstream. 'Repent, for the kingdom of god is near' has been dropped for an association to a Virtuous One. White being Black, men being Women... resentment and allegience, hate and love, fight and submission... looking for Peace where there is no peace.
Stop staring at the finger and see where the finger is pointing.

[forumcashful]

Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE

[mr.leblanc]

Great stuff, Matt Walsh. I agree that LLL argument is not as compelling today as it might have been when Lewis penned it. Things have changed. The 'legend' option is about the validity and reliability of the testimony of Jesus, and no question Paul is a great place to start. We could expand it to the apostolic witness, including oral tradition and written texts. It applies really well that the apostles must have believed they were telling the truth (it still leaves open the possibility they were mistaken in their belief). The martyrdom of the apostles, including Paul, speaks really well about whether the kerygma was a conspiratorial invention - an invented narrative does not hold up to torture. The 'legend' option is kind of the 'lunatic' option for the apostles, isn't it? That they were delusional in misrepresenting the words actions and appearance of Jesus, extending them to fit a myth that was compelling. So much of this might be tied to technical archaeological evidence regarding the New Testament texts, but maybe we can think about it this way: who would 'come up' with such an implausible story? A crucified victim as the Son of God? I know the 'legend' argument says the Gospels are derivative, but Paul again serves really well: 1 Thessalonians writes that Jesus died and rose, and calls him Lord and God's Son, written within decades of the crucifixion. Such a claim would be seen as literal nonsense in the ancient world. How could a group of mostly illiterate peasants find the motivation and the means to 'sell' this story across the Empire? How could they attribute the claim to Jesus himself, knowing it would discredit him? If you thought he was a great teacher and wanted to spread his message, why would you invent an in-credible claim, how could you attribute to him mistakenly somethings so difficult to believe? Eh. my take.

[lukaviwifalc]

The creation of the world can be morally debated. The life and purpose of Jesus cannot.

[KennyBare]

There are too many manuscripts from the 1st century that would debunk the legend hypothesis. Either he was the LORD or he was made up by disciples.

[MojoPin]

*“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. 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 with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”*

*― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity*

[geisl]

Incorrect- the reason Lewis argument *is* good and is not, in fact, a problematic one, is that he is arguing *given* that this is who Jesus is really is. Lewis is arguing that the Jesus presented in the gospels- one who is living, breathing, working and rising- must be one of those three. So no, it isn't a bad argument at all.

As for that notion of *legend*, Lewis, upon other bases not within that argument, was clearly not convinced the gospels were mere narrative legends and fabrications.

[TheCybercoco]

Argument is non sequitur. It doesn't follow that calling a man a legend would somehow replace the conclusion of the character of the man, as in what sort of man claims to be a deity. Saying "a legend" makes no sense. A man can be a legend and a liar, a legend and a lunatic, or a legend and lord. There is no mutual exclusivity. C.S. Lewis is correct, and if there are atheists making a "legend" argument, it has serious fallacious flaws (shocker!). Those who would claim the story legend do not believe in the facts of the story and might go as far as to believe he didn't exist at all. This is preposterous, but would be par for the course for anyone making such claims or arguments.

[lindadustin]

JESUS GOD in the flesh, Savior of humans. EPH 2:8-9 Believe all JESUS, not religion JESUS.

[laurentheheiress]

As a Christian I was disappointed after reading Mere Christianity. I don't think the book is valuable for someone in the faith or someone new to it.

[petergaines]

You just said “risen Lord.” When speaking of Paul’s conversion

[vryc]

I don't think your assessment of Paul is accurate. Paul is the exception that proves the rule. IF Christianity is true, if Jesus existed, we would expect direct conversions from Jesus himself - the 'Road to Damascus' conversion ala Paul, to be a banality among many/most Christians and they would all conform around a similar sequence and perhaps even a known 'historical' face of Christ. However, we find precisely one. And like any outlier, we can dismiss this outlier as a positive example that demonstrates some sort of truth. Paul is that one. This is not the convincing argument that Christians seem to think this is.

[Daderdog]

Jesus was documented as a real person by contemporaneous writers and historians. Legend does not work.

[judashegarty]

You don't need to call Paul a lunatic just like we don't need to call those who believe alien abduction claims as lunatics. Humans have experiences, and sometimes we misunderstand or remember them. It's reasonable to think that Paul dealing with the stress of persecuting believers had a mental breakdown or anxiety induced experience. He claims to have met the spirit of Jesus. Well that's how he interpreted his experience, but we don't have to take his word for it.

[madisonone]

Why does it matter if you believe in Paul, one witness of Jesus - sort of, but not Jesus himself. Jesus has many witnesses. Either you believe in Resurrection & Salvation or you don’t. No basis for you to question Jesus, period.

[laleydelamor]

Many people don’t understand Saint Trinity. Cristians belive that Gesus was true God and true human. True God by pure love in him, and pure human by flesh. Holy Spirit was given to people as a spirit if guidance for those who are willing to accept to be guided. It’s simple as that- we have to accept LOVE but not the way we see it, just allow to be guided by love. Nowadays, Jesus would be more lunatic- by destroying merchants tables in front of few tousend people, drinking wine and not respecting protocol.. but that lunatic was ABSOLUTLEY for fee speach and put LOVE before any religion. You have to be lunatic to live like that, to love those who hate you... 🤗❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️