Hobbs

Carr's point here points to a serious problem with the trilemma argument. The argument rests on the premise that someone honestly claiming to be God is crazy, unless of course the person really is God.

Well, sure, someone now, in our society, would be thought to be kind of nuts if he went around claiming to be a god or a son of god. But back then, that's what all the Pharaohs and Caesars and just about everyone who was anyone went around claiming, and lots of people believed them. Given that context, consider the case of a person who believed that the Roman government was corrupt and evil, who believed that it should be overthrown (or at least its authority in Judea should be overthrown), and who seriously and sincerely believed that he could provide the leadership to do it (and remember, it is quite common for people to think more highly of themselves and their abilities than an objective analysis of the situation would warrant; for example, something like 90% of drivers rate themselves as above average drivers). What would be so insane or unexpected about such a person claiming to be a god or a son of god?

So, since it is far from obvious that a person back then who claimed to be god must have been, or would be considered by others to have been, a lunatic, which is more likely: that he really was god, or that he was sincere but sincerely mistaken about who his daddy was?

NOGO

Jesus never claimed to be God.
I would certainly vote for misunderstood and not too far from lunatic.

Richard1366

".. bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I ..."

Old song lyrics but somehow it fits....