PopeInTheWoods

I'm looking for a pithy comeback to the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" assertion. In keeping with the alliteration inherent in the trilemma, could one accurately reply "... or Mistaken, Misquoted, or Mythical"?

Andy

Mods, I posted this here since the attributes of Jesus seem to be more biblical/historical than a straight "existence of god" issue. Feel free to move.

Kosh

People are fleeced by Liars and Lunatics in the
name of the Lord all the time...

Vorkosigan

the common one is
or man, myth, or misunderstood.
It scans too...

James Still

The trilemma begins with a central proposition p:

(p) Jesus is God.

We are told that there are three (and only three) choices regarding this claim:

(1) Jesus is telling the truth by asserting that p.
(2) Jesus is a liar by asserting that p.
(3) Jesus is a lunatic by asserting that p.

Given these are our only choices, if (2) and (3) are false, then (1) must be true. Yet a trivial counterexample demonstrates a case in which (2) and (3) can be false and yet (1) is not necessarily true. Consider the proposition:

(p') Sally was born in New York City.

Sally asserts that she was born in New York City. Sally bases her knowledge on the fact that she has clear and distinct memories of growing up in New York City. Further, her mother confirms her claim as do teachers, friends, and neighbors. Her doctor tells us that Sally is in perfect mental health and she even passes a lie-detector test when asked about her claim that she was born in New York City. It is clear that we are justified in conceding that Sally is neither a liar nor a lunatic. Since these two options are ruled out then (1) must be true:

(1') Sally is telling the truth by asserting that p'

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that Sally was born in London. She was given up for adoption as a baby and her mother has never told her of her true origins.

What do we learn by this counterexample? That truth is not merely a matter of a person asserting that a proposition is true. At best, the trilemma tells us nothing more than the fact that Jesus believed that he was telling the truth about his claim to godhood. Jesus was probably a swell guy but excuse me if I need a little something more than his word for it. And this is where the argument gets it strength: Christians already believe that Jesus is infallible so (1) is understood by them to mean:

(1'') If Jesus knows that p, then it cannot be that he is mistaken that p.

Given this understanding of the first option to the trilemma, then of course one must conclude that Jesus is God. But doesn't this beg the question? It is the godhood of Jesus that is at issue. By implicitly asserting that Jesus cannot be mistaken about something, the proponent seems to beg the very thing that is at issue.

Kosh

Of course, the other assumption made is that
Jesus did indeed claim to be God, rather than
having the claim inserted into his mouth by
the Gospel authors.

Peter Kirby

Simon ben Kosiba, Sabbathai Zwi, and Schneerson.

Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but it does indicate that there have been several people hailed as Messiah during their lifetimes.

best,
Peter Kirby

James Still

Indeed. I was bracketing that out for the sake of the argument. The trilemma aside, a study of the primary sources would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Jesus never claimed to have been God. In fact, it's absurd to think that any observant Jew of the period would have done such a thing. But the trilemma needs that absurdity in order to make the other two legs of insanity and lies seem plausible by comparison. Claims to Messianism, however, are not absurd and should not at all be confused with claims to godhood. The Messiah was a human being and king who would consolidate the people of Israel. That's a very different construct from being God himself, a claim that was not advanced until well into the post-Easter situation.

PopeInTheWoods

Thanks all for the in-depth commentary. So the "Mistaken" is possible via Mr. Still's example, the "Misquoted" is covered by kosh's point, and the "Mythical" has received, umm, exhaustive attention elsewhere in this forum.

Lord Auditor, I'll stick with my version because "man" is already implied in some of the other choices.

So what else can we add to the now sexlemma (hexlemma?) of Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Mistaken, Misquoted, or Mythical?

Andy

Kosh

Entrepreneur?

"There is no money in atheism"....

Bruce Wildish

This is the solution to the so-called "Trilema". The logic of the Trilema presupposes that Jesus in fact said everything attributed to him in the gospels. But this an assumption that no one competent in biblical and gospels scholarship would make. It is accepted by almost everyone in the field today, and has been for many decades, that only a small percentage of all of the sayings of Jesus in the gospels are authentic to him; the rest are inventions of the later church. Once one accepts this fact, then the Trilema problem disappears.