This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Liar Lord or Lunatic

Comprising most of Lewis' writings.
Forum rules
Please keep all discussion on topic and in line with our code of conduct.

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » August 3rd, 2004, 3:06 pm

I always understood this quote:

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
(Whole Chapter: John 8 In context: John 8:57-59),
to be Jesus's way of proclaiming his divinity. I know he doesn't say "I AM GOD", but the name "I AM" was used by God in the Old Testament as a name for God. "IAM that I AM".
Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » August 3rd, 2004, 3:40 pm

Those who heard Him understood Him in exactly that way, for they took up stones to punish Him for an alleged blasphemer.

Pace e bene,
~Karl
Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » August 3rd, 2004, 5:05 pm

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Micah » August 3rd, 2004, 9:49 pm

Hi, Jo...

As some of the others here have said, the LLL argument kicks into gear once you have accepted the assumption that Christ did indeed claim to be the Son of God. Of course, if you haven't arrived there yet, and don't believe He claimed it in the Gospels or that the Gospels are trustworthy sources, then you're not at the point at which LLL makes sense.

First of all, let me add to some of the other arguments made here already, regarding Christ's claims to be the Son of God (all quotes NKJV):

Matthew 26:63, 64 - "And the high priest answered and said to Him, 'I put you under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!' Jesus said to him, "It is as you said..."

During the Crucifixion, the group mocking him said, "He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.'" - Matthew 27:43

Christ speaking: "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:17, 18

One of the more stunning passages, where Christ accepts Thomas' recognition of Him as God: "Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.' And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" - John 20:27-29

There are many more examples from the Scriptures that provide similar support, and I think an honest reflection on these things will show beyond reasonable doubt that Christ did indeed claim to be the Son of God, an equal with God, God Himself. The Pharisees saw straightaway what He was claiming--and they picked up stones to kill Him because He was making Himself out to be equal with God.

So, it is clear that, according to the Gospels, Christ DID claim these things. This only leaves two options: agree that the Gospels are a trustworthy source of what Christ actually said or not. It is a whole separate argument when it comes to demonstrating why the Gospels are indeed more historically trustworthy then any other ancient documents; but once you are willing to accept them as accurate recordings of Christ's words, then and only then are you on the threshold of the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' question.

So, if you accept that Christ DID claim to be the Son of God, God Himself in the Gospels AND that the text is accurate, there indeed are only three possibilities:

1) Christ was telling the truth (Lord)

2) Christ was not telling the truth

a) He was knowingly not telling the truth (Liar: evil, possibly a devil)
b) He did not realize He was not telling the truth (Lunatic: madman...like your average deranged cult leader, etc.)


Anyway, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts in reply.

Take care,

Micah
"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" ~ Micah 6:8 (NKJV)
User avatar
Micah
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Apr 1999
Location: Oregon

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Micah » August 4th, 2004, 12:59 am

Are you for or against President Bush? I guess I'm not sure how to interpret your comment.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if there are some anti-Bush zealots who would actually enjoy doing what you ponder, sad-to-say.
"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" ~ Micah 6:8 (NKJV)
User avatar
Micah
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Apr 1999
Location: Oregon

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby a_hnau » August 9th, 2004, 8:05 pm

Going off at a tangent... I've always been a very intellectual sort of person and I've spent more time than I care to think of engaged in the sort of apologetics that books like Evidence That Demands A Verdict and other such publications represent. But latterly I'm becoming convinced that these arenot, or not usually, or for most people, the place to start. The place to start is, what a person connects with most in their heart. I think this is what is represented by Lewis in his "fictional" mode, e.g. Narnia and the Trilogy. Another of my all-time favourite passages is Puddleglum's speech to the Queen of the Underworld; "Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself... Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world... Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one". Lewis expresses this more propositionally with "A man being hungry doesn't mean he will get bread. But it is a strong case for the existence of bread". In the top five of my favourites is the passage about the Great Dance from Perelandra - surely, something which is this beautiful must exist, reality - as Puddleglum realises - cannot be as banale as the Witch would have it, if we are capable of imagining something more. I'm aware that this echoes a now-bypassed proof for the existence of God, viz that "that which no greater can be conceived, must exist". But this "argument from imagination" works for me. I'm reminded of ?Chesterton's remark - an atheist is a man, when he's grateful, he finds he has no-one to thank"...
Urendi Maleldil
User avatar
a_hnau
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby loeee » August 9th, 2004, 8:23 pm

a_hnau, you and I have some of the same favorite Lewis quotes. I keep meaning to frame that Puddleglum speech and hang it on my wall somewhere. :D
"You can't go walking through Mordor in naught but your skin."
Put on the full armor of God.
User avatar
loeee
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: California

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby a_hnau » August 9th, 2004, 9:16 pm

Why thanks, loeee. I have a couple of framed quotes up on my walls - I downloaded or scanned some of the original illustrations and typed up the text, they look pretty good, and make quite nice presents too - inexpensive (I just use clipframes) but obviously can be made very personal by picking the right quote.
Urendi Maleldil
User avatar
a_hnau
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England

Re: Liar Lord or Luau *NM*

Postby Guest » August 9th, 2004, 9:18 pm

*NM*
Guest
 

Re: Liar Laird or Lunkhead

Postby sehoy » August 13th, 2004, 11:50 am

cor meum vigilat
User avatar
sehoy
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Nov 1999
Location: TN, USA

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » August 17th, 2004, 12:26 am

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby w4tvq » August 20th, 2004, 3:54 pm

"Christianity does not, thank Goodness, hang by such threads" -- right, Larry. You have reached the core of the matter. The simple fact is that no matter how much fun these debates, such as this thread, are (and they are great fun), one cannot arrive at Christianity logically. The answer to all of these questions, whether the witness of the apostles is trustworthy, whether Jesus claimed to be and in fact is God, whether Satan has this power or that, all lie in one single place, and that place is the heart that has been submitted entirely to Jesus and to which Jesus has spoken directly by His Spirit. Once you've met Him, you understand what Aquinas meant when he put down his pen and refused to write any more, saying, "I can write no more. I have seen things that make all my writings seem as straw." Perhaps that is why the psalmist instructed us to "Be still and know that I am God." We can talk about Jesus all day and arrive nowhere; in one split second we can know Him and lose all doubt.

Shalom
Art
w4tvq
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Aug 2004

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » August 23rd, 2004, 1:25 am

I love the argument he gives about the LLL thing. I'd always taken it that he wasn't nessisarily trying to dispel every single idea anyone might have about Christ or even prove that Christ existed (not many scholars doubt that), but was trying to make clear that you cannot just say "He was a good moral teacher". If you look at His life it just doesn't work out that way.
Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » August 23rd, 2004, 6:36 pm

Guest
 

Re: Liar Lord or Lunatic

Postby Guest » September 8th, 2004, 1:39 am

Sven,

Eureka! Got a copy on loan through my municipal library loan program. I picked it up Saturday and would have nearly finished it already (no mean feat for me, considering I pour over books rather than scan then - I don't know whether that's a good habit or a bad, but it's a habit).

At any rate, I'm finding it fascinating, if heavily weighted to favor Lewis' point of view. I understand Kreeft wrote a biography on Lewis, so I suppose that's not surprising. I favor Lewis' views as well, of course, but it did make me wonder if he presented Kennedy's and Huxley's views as "accurately" as someone who favored the views other than Lewis'.

He did so well with Lewis' view (or what I perceive of Lewis' view from what I have read) that at times I imagined it was a record of an actual dialog. It makes one wonder what each of the men thought of the other.

Huxley and Lewis were no doubt familiar with Kennedy, if not intimate with his view on spiritual things.

Given the popularity of Brave New World, one imagines Lewis and Kennedy had a passing acquaintance with Huxley.

I also imagine Huxley was very well aquainted with the works on Lewis, if not the man himself. But one wonders how familliar - if at all - Kennedy was of Lewis.

Since the day I knew that the three shared the same "death date," I often thought how interesting a book one might write involving all three men. Kreeft's Socratic offering was a perfect fit, I think.

Thanks for the tip!

Darrell
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to Apologetics & Other Works

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 11 guests

cron