Ted Hoffman

I must admit he has really overused his appeals to authority. Jesus! even Physics professors are considered authority in biblical matters, and lawyers, and engineers!

This issue if blood flowing with water when the rib is punctured being an indication of death by a heart rupture, how conclusive is it?

Is it valid to consider one synoptic gospel supporting the claim made by another as self-referencing?

Sojourner553

Hi IntenSity:

We are on the same side on this issue!

Have you seen this review of McDowell's Trilemma from his earlier book A READY DEFENSE It applies McDowell's Trilemma to OTHER RELIGIONS to show their logical conclusion? (Somehow McDowell forgets to do this himself.)


McDowell's "Trilemma": Was Jesus a "Liar", a "Lunatic", or the "Lord" God?

One of the most dramatic sections in McDowell's book A READY DEFENSE, is
his "Trilemma" proof.--This proof states that there can ONLY be three
alternatives regarding the TRUE nature of Jesus. That is, Jesus must either
be:

(1) A "Liar",
(2) a "Lunatic" or
(3) the "Lord" himself.

There are simply no other possibilities!

From this basic premise, McDowell's reasoning proceeds as follows:

(1) Obviously Jesus was NOT a liar, because according to McDowell:

"Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught,
and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar"!

(2) On the other hand, according to McDowell, Jesus was obviously NOT
crazy:

"it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who
spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions
have liberated many individuals from mental bondage." McDowell also
quotes from Clark H. Pinnock: "Was He deluded about His greatness, a
paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic? Again, the skill
and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental
soundness. If only we were as sane as He!"

(3) The conclusion? Obviously since Jesus was NEITHER a "liar" nor a
"lunatic", then:

"he MUST be the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed." (emphasis mine,
Page 244)

McDowell is very determined that there can ONLY be three choices! He
relates how when he discusses his trilemma "with most Jewish people" they
almost always agree that Jesus was a good, moral, upright, and sane prophet.
However, after McDowell leads them carefully through his reasoning,
they STILL refuse to take the next logical step, and acknowledge that
he is therefore God!

According to McDowell, this is unacceptable -- afterall "one only has
so many choices"! (p 245)

Application of the "Trilemma" Theory to the World's Major Religions

Since McDowell, in the same book (A READY DEFENSE), also describes other
major world religions--ie Islam, Buddhism, and Confucism. I determined to
see how McDowell applied his trilemma to the leaders of these great NON-
Christian religions. Unfortunately McDowell does not apply his "trilemma"
logic DIRECTLY himself. Yet he drops plenty of clues, so that the interested
reader can easily piece these together.

Remember the rules, though, for McDowell's "trilemma"--if the founders are
NOT "Liars", nor "Lunatics", then by McDowell's definition, they MUST also be
considered a god!


--Islam

In reviewing Islam, one would think that since Mohammed NEVER claimed
to be a God (but clearly designated himself as a prophet), that McDowell
would go a little easy on him. Not so! McDowell strongly hints that
Muhammad, the founder of Islam--falls under the "Lunatic" category:

First, McDowell quotes from a source that tells us: "There is evidence
in a tradition which can scarcely have been fabricated that Muhammad
suffered in early life from FITS." (emphasis mine). Also, according to
McDowell, when Muhammad began having visions at the age of 40, he "was
at first unsure of the source of these visions, whether divine or demonic".
(p 304)

McDowell concludes that the doctrine of Islam is less inspired and
profound than Christianity, stating that Islam:

"is ultimately unfulfilling. The Islamic God of strict judgment,
Allah, cannot offer the mercy, love, or ultimate sacrifice on
mankind's behalf that the Christian God, incarnate in Jesus Christ,
offers to each individual even today." (p 313)

--Confucism

Regarding Confucism, McDowell gets around the issue of Confucius'
divinity by arguing that Confucianism is NOT a religion, but instead
primarily an "ethical system teaching man how to get along with his
fellow man."(p 290) This is fortunate, because based on a reading of
Confuscious' background, it is apparent that Confucious was NEITHER a
"liar" nor a "lunatic"!

--Buddhism

The Buddha presents more of a problem for McDowell. First of all,
McDowell acknowledges early on that the Buddha was not a "liar"! Indeed,
the young Buddha had renounced his former wealthy princely life, and
embraced a life of poverty in his search for wisdom and enlightenment.

Likewise, it would be difficult to argue that the Buddha was a
"lunatic" for the same reason Jesus Christ was not. That is, he taught
great moral precepts which had a profound impact on millions of people
in the East. McDowell himself relates how Buddhists preached the following
commandments (note the strong comparisons to the Ten Commandments):

"(1) Kill no living thing (including insects).
(2) Do not steal.
(3) Do not commit adultery.
(4) Tell no lies.
(5) Do not drink intoxicants or take drugs"

Monks and nuns are further exhorted to eat moderately, avoid excitement
to the senses, to not wear adornments, not sleep in luxurious beds, and
not to accept gold or silver. (Ibid, p 279-80)

Since the Buddha is neither a "liar" nor a "lunatic", one would expect
McDowell to apply his own rules and proclaim the Buddha (like Jesus) a god.
But McDowell has obviously anticipated this argument, and thus includes the
following caveat:

"... in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories
arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama".
(p277)

This concept is so important, McDowell repeats it again a few pages later:

"Some time after his death, the Buddha was deified by some of his
followers, even though veneration of the Buddha is against the basic
teachings of Buddha himself." (p 279)

It should be obvious to the reader what has happened here! That is,
McDowell has for the Buddha, set up NOT THREE --but FOUR alternatives.
(Or, instead of a TRILEMMA, he has basically posed a QUADLEMMA!)

Since Confucious was excluded, because he apparently did not set up a
"real religion", we could probably also add this to our list of alternatives,
expanding our QUADLEMMA into a five-way dilemma, or QUINTLEMMA!

Therefore McDowell has used one set of criteria (the TRILEMMA) for
Christianity, and another (the QUINTLEMMA) for all non-Christian sects.
Applying the QUINTLEMMA towards Christianity would no longer absolutely
"prove" that Jesus was the Lord God.


taken from:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RESPONSE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RESPONSE.TXT</a>

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>


Sojourner

Kosh

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Amos

The problem here is that Jesus died after Christ was set free under the name of Barabbas and so Christ did not resurrect. Jesus did, which now becomes difficult to trash.

The water and blood thing was because Jesus was stabbed from the right side through the cavity of the chest to annihilate desire. The blood represents the incarnate desire of the netherworld and the water represents this world.

This is similar to the reason why water is added to wine prior to consecration.

Happy Wonderer

Well, that certainly clears it up! Now if only the trinity could be explained so succiently and, er... logically.

HW

David Bowden

Amos, from what source did you acquire this information?

-Wanderer

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Amos

Three times Pilate said "look at the man" for he saw nothing wrong with the man image of the man at this trial. The Jews looked at Jesus the Jew and it was Jewish law only that convicted Jesus as Jew . . . which, of course, was the purpose Moses had in mind with the law.

Amos

The trinity only exist from a human perspective. In heaven (or in reality) the trinity does not exist but since we as humans are alienated from our selves (from God), the trinity is a way to explain the relationship between our true self and our ego identity. In other words, it is only because of our alienation that the HS can function which must be true because in heaven we should not need a comforter nor a paraclete after "all has been made clear."

Notice that as soon as Jesus entered purgatory he made the statement "the father and I are one" which is right about when the dove descended (to stay). The trinity is already redundant while in purgatory because the liberation of Mary is from East to West (from Eden to the narrow gate of metanoia--which is where purgatory begins), and it is from here that she leads us back to Eden if the wise men (Magi) affirm the virgin birth (if the star of Bethlehem is visible to them). Notice that Mary is in charge of the Magi in this sense already because they follwed her. Also note that when they arrived at the stable they looked in and saw Mary and Christ with Joseph absent wherefore they entered (Mt.2:10) as compared with the shepherds who saw Joseph and did not enter but admired (Lk.2:16).

This kind of means that the trinity is not for Christians but only for humans while sinners.

Ted Hoffman

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Amos
Who set christ free?
If christ did not resurrect, then in what sense was he set free? Free from what?
What is the difference between christ and Jesus in terms of identity?
What are your sources of information?
Where did Jesus' body go? Why wasn't it left behind?
What does the body, bereft of the incarnate desire, represent?
Why did the incarnate desire of the netherworld have to be annihilated and yet the body (the means and the end for that desire) was resurrected?
Is it also similar to the reason why urine precedes excrement? (the body fluids and faeces are both lost, just like the blood and water are lost, and the person relieving himself rises up relieved and unburdened, just like Jesus did when he resurrected). The toilet here repsents Barrabas. And the relieved individual represents Jesus. The individual before shitting is Christ.
If not, please explain why your analogy fits.
The only perspective we have is the human one.
Who is it that went to heaven and told you about the perspective from there? What words did it/he/she use in doing so?
What is the difference between true self and ego identity?
can we also say the trinity is redundant because of the liberation of the Jews from the Egyptians to Israel(from Eden through the desert--which is where purgatory begins), and it is after Moses had seen the promised land from atop a mountain he had to go down the mountain and the desert-wandering continued before they reached Israel. The dark cloud that led the Israelites is analogous to the star of Bethlehem as the Magi sought christ.
Is that a fitting way of looking at it?
If not, please explain why.
In the same way, Moses saw the promised land and admired it but did not "enter" it.
This also kind of means that the promised land was not for Moses (who saw it atop a mountain), but the merry-making idol-worshippers at the bottom of Mount sinai - who made it to the promised land.
Is that correct? If not, please explain.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>