2. Lord, Liar,  Lunatic? (2)

☼ Exhibit #1: Not a Liar, Not a Lunatic, but the Lord.

Since Jesus identified Himself as the unique Son of God, there are only two alternatives: He is God or He is not. If He knows He is not God and still teaches He is, then He is lying, and that, of course, makes Him a liar. If, however, He is not God but He thinks that He is, then He is deluded; He is a nut and He is a lunatic.

These are simply the only three options:

• He is who He claims to be – Jesus is Lord.
• He knows He is wrongly claiming to be God – Jesus is a liar.
• Or He just thinks He is God, but He is not – Jesus is a lunatic.

Many people try to define another Jesus, one who will not fit the above logical reasoning. History has beyond doubt (as we have seen from Biblical and non-Biblical sources alike) established that Jesus was a historical person who preached throughout Judea and round about.  He was acknowledged as a great moral teacher and miracle worker. Denying His very existence is not realistic. Amazingly, many non-Christians will agree that Jesus was a great teacher of moral values but, they will say, He was not God. He was merely a man with great teaching skills, and His moral and wise teachings started a world religion. Nothing new here, though.  Why?  The same can be said for Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammed.

However, this logic falls apart for one important reason: none of these great teachers claimed to be the unique Son of God. Their message was considered by many of great importance and moral content. Jesus however, taught He was God. So no one can logically accept Jesus as a great teacher of moral values and reject His teachings that He is God. That does not make sense. How can anyone be a great moral teacher if a significant part of his teaching is false?

Lord, Liar, Lunatic

 

If Jesus isn't God, Lewis' case for Jesus

No one has said this better than the renowned agnostic-turned-Christian author and scholar C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), in his book Mere Christianity:[1]

“I’m trying here to prevent anyone from 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’s the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said wouldn’t be a great moral teacher. He’d either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he’s a poached egg—or else he’d 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 don’t let us come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He hasn’t left that open to us. He didn’t intend to.”

Jesus Was Not a Liar

If Jesus claimed to be God and yet knew He was not, He was lying. In fact, He would be a liar of the worst kind because He tricked people into accepting a religion that, if not true, would inevitably lead them away from the true God and into eternal damnation. He would also be a hypocrite because He taught honesty, whatever the cost, while living a colossal lie. Above all, He would be a incredible fool. As we have seen, His claims to deity were the reason He was crucified. During the trials He was quiet, not responding to His accusers. He spoke only to confirm their accusations that He claimed to be God. A simple denial would have set him free. If He knew He was lying, He was a fool to die for it. He would be tortured and subjected to an excruciating execution by crucifixion, and for what?  To maintain that lie? Someone may die for something he thinks is true, but surely not for something he knows is false.

Given what the Bible reveals about Jesus’ teachings and His life, He would not have been a deceiver. Nor is it likely a liar would have had such profound and lasting influence. He taught disciples to be truthful at all costs, to give sacrificially, and to share unconditionally. Jesus not only taught these things, but lived them. He did not have the character of a liar.

In the words of church historian and theologian Philip Schaff (1819-1893): [2]

“The hypothesis of imposture is so revolting to moral as well as common sense that its mere statement is its condemnation…..No scholar of any decency and self-respect would now dare to profess it openly. How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter – that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man – have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could he have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed his own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of his people and ages?”

Jesus Was Not a Lunatic

Perhaps Jesus thought He was God, but in truth He was self-deluded? Many people have claimed divine status, but their madness is usually quite transparent. A self-deluded person, or lunatic, is mentally ill, often dangerous, quite foolish and thoroughly unpredictable. Does what we know about Jesus fit this image?

Neither the Bible nor history bares the slightest hint that Jesus was a lunatic. He showed no symptoms of madness common to those who suffer from mental disorders or hallucinations. His teachings were not the ravings of a madman. He showed no signs of paranoia or schizophrenia. He was neither rash nor impulsive. In each circumstance, even the anguish of the cross, Jesus appeared self-assured and in full possession of emotion and reason. It mattered not on which subject He spoke, His advice was profound, insightful, intelligible, and reliable. His instructions in all areas of human relationships (religious, moral, political, psychological, social) were so reliable that they have molded and shaped Western civilization for nearly 20 centuries. Jesus set thousands of people free from the bondage to mental illness, drugs, and alcohol. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Jesus Christ was anything less than fully sane.[3]

Once again in the words of Philip Schaff: [4]

“Is such an intellect – clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as the sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed – liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!”

Therefore He Is Lord!

Research far and wide uncovers virtually nobody who seriously claims Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. No realistic person could support either conclusion. Logic and the preponderance of evidence force even the most liberal and critical to eliminate the liar and the lunatic alternatives.

Therefore, logically Jesus must be who He claims to be – He is the Lord!

How do persons escape this undeniable conclusion? They introduce a fourth alternative: Legend. They claim that Jesus is not Lord, because He never claimed to be such. This is the view that the New Testament texts are not historically true. The Jesus of the gospels, the Jesus who claimed to be God and to save us from sin, the Jesus who performed miracles, and rose from the dead, is a legend very different from “the historical Jesus.” Thus, the New Testament tells the truth about Jesus’ human personality, but not about His divine nature or His miracles. Those who hold this position discard from the gospels what they dislike and declare that only what remains is historical truth. Thus, Jesus was neither God nor a bad man because He never claimed to be God, as the New Testament says He did. His claim is neither true nor false; it is simply fraudulent.

As we have discovered in previous chapters, the Bible texts are reliable, the gospels are founded in history, written by credible, reliable and honest eyewitnesses, circulated well within the eyewitness period and corroborated by archaeological discoveries as well as contemporary, non-Christian sources. Dismissing a most significant part of the texts as legend is a weak attempt to deny the evidence.

So, the only way out of the dilemma is simple:  deny the data. Because if you admit the data, then you must deal with Jesus’ claim to be God, for that is the essence of the New Testament. Then only two options remain: If His claim is true, become a Christian and worship Him; if His claim is false, denounce Him as a blasphemer or lock Him up as a madman. [5]