1. What is the “documentary hypothesis”? And, how does it contradict the problem that the gospels have a severe lack of contemporary confirming documentation?

2. You seem to be ignoring the bulk of the OP’s argument, which lists many examples of Jesus not being a great moral teacher. Furthermore, saying that someone has been “deliberately vague” strikes me as being a very poor way to argue for them being a great teacher. A truly great teacher would know how to convince people even if they started out disagreeing with him.

3. You’re seriously saying that there are no Jews who deny that Jesus performed miracles? This is (a) an arbitrary redefinition of the word “Jew” which I suspect many actual Jews would strongly disagree with (b) beside the point, because people believing in a supernatural thing happening is poor evidence by itself for that supernatural thing having actually happened (or else we’d have to conclude that Peter Popoff actually had miraculous powers).

4. The OP specifically mentioned John 10, and the language you’re referencing in John 14 is much weaker (what does being “in the father” mean anyways?)

Problem 4: Jesus didn’t say who he was

Uh, I don’t think you have thoroughly done the research. Please see John 14:11, and John 10:30, John 14:11,20 etc.

These things are written in one of the most historically reliable documents on account of the sheer number of extant source documents that date to within 30-60 years of Jesus’ life. They may not agree with your presuppositional world view, but are perhaps more reliable than the Histories and Annals of Tacitus upon whom a whole lot of what we call history has been built upon..

Sorry!

The bible is the one of the most historically reliable documents compared to any if you apply the documentary hypothesis to it.

Problem 2: Jesus was not a great moral teacher

Jesus was purposefully vague to those who had already made up their minds about Him. Please see Matthew 13:10-16. The word “gross” in verse 15 is a bad translation for “thickened, or fat”

Problem 3: Lunacy is an open option

This is true, but has been pretty much debunked by the fact that His detractors NEVER, EVER refused to recognize His supernatural interventions with time and space referred to as miracles. And these were the Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots and the Essenes. Not then or since has anyone who is a Jew and has bloodlines dating back to that time denied Him doing amazing things.

Problem 4: Jesus didn’t say who he was

Uh, I don’t think you have thoroughly done the research. Please see John 14:11, and John 10:30, John 14:11,20 etc.

These things are written in one of the most historically reliable documents. They may not agree with your presuppositional world view, but are perhaps more reliable and as the Hisories and Annals of Tacitus upon whom a whole lot of what we call history has been built upon on account of the sheer number of extant source documents that date to within 30-60 years of Jesus’ life.

Jeffrey (I apologize for spelling your name wrong!):
I agree that Lewis uses the trilemma to support the Lord conclusion.
I did not read the “not” as a typo, but I should clarify:
Jesus’ parables DID confuse people, but this is different from saying they were used TO confuse people. Even the parable of the sower had to be explained by Jesus to the disciples. When initially heard, Jesus’ parables are not easy to understand. Matthew 13 (which also sites Isaiah 6) is an excellent passage to turn to and demonstrates how parables act as double-edged swords. For those with a ready-heart, one earnestly seeking God, they would seek the truth and the meaning behind the words, and in response, God would grant them GREATER understanding and wisdom. On the other hand, for the others (“For this people’s heart has become calloused”), they would hear the words but not REALLY hear, they would see but not truly see, they would be blind and simply turn away, and they would not understand (the truth would not be revealed to them).

As Lewis sets it up, there are four possibilities: Good human teacher, liar, lunatic, and Lord. He begins by excluding good human teacher, which leaves us with the trilemma. The goal of the trilemma is to support the Lord conclusion. This is why Lewis says it’s obvious that Jesus was neither a lunatic or fiend.

>Jeffery claims, “Jesus spoke in parables so that people would not understand” and he states that this is poor teaching. OH THE IRONY!! It could be argued the very opposite: that Jesus used parables when people were confused on matters to clarify and to help people understand.

You should reread the phrase so that people would not understand. That “not” is not a typo. In Matthew 13, Jesus says that he speaks in parables so that some people will not understand. Had his goal been to communicate clearly, he would have taught differently.

The multiple perspective viewpoint bothered me as a Christian, as it said some odd things about the scriptures as “inspired”.

I was on vacation in Oregon for a couple of weeks, but I did read Luke 24 this morning. I’m still investigating. I do suspect however I will come to the same conclusion—these are accounts from several different sources—-each giving their PERSPECTIVE on what occurred. For example, Luke says that Peter went to the tomb and viewed the grave clothes. However, one of the other Gospels (John) says that John actually ran ahead of him and got there first before Peter entered.

it appears to be contradictory, but then we realize that Peter was telling what HE DID when relating the story to Luke, and may not have mentioned John. Whereas John remembers his place in the scenario and DOES mention it.

I’ll continue comaparing though—-very interesting.

Try reading all of what Jeffrey quoted from Mere Christianity, and see if you understand Jeffrey’s points then. If you’re still confused, feel free to ask for help. (Hint: the final paragraph is key).

By the way, Joe, how’s your work on the Resurrection Challenge going? I haven’t seen you around since you said you were going to work on that.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all of those points so clearly, and I think quite effectively.

It’s not even necessary for me to refute the details of Jeffrey’s argument because the basis for his entire argument is incorrect, but just to make a point, I will address the “Problems” Jeffrey outlines:

Jeffrey’s Problem 1 discusses “Biblical reliability” and Problem 4 states, “Jesus didn’t say who He was”. We don’t even need to “trust the historical reliability of the Gospels” to support Lewis’s argument. Jeffery claims disparity between the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” (which is a whole different debate), but whether we’re considering the “biblical Jesus” or the “historical Jesus” is irrelevant. Either perspective we find a man whose actions and words expressed to others that he was God. We don’t need to know and trust to be true “EVERYTHING that the Gospels say He said”. All we need to be clear on is the fact that He, whether directly or indirectly, claimed to be God. The evidence is sufficient to say… He did.

Problem 2 states, “Jesus was not a great moral teacher… What’s wrong with the possibility that Jesus was a lunatic or fiend?” Ironic again because Lewis’s argument actually agrees with this. Lewis says Jesus could have been a lunatic (a madman), a fool, or a demon… or He was who He said He was: God. Lewis is simply stating that Jesus could not be a great moral teacher and at the same time falsely claim to be God; that’s just not an option. He either was God or if He was not, then He must have been crazy or a liar to much such a TREMENDOUS claim, and thus, he certainly wouldn’t be a great moral teacher. That’s the point Lewis makes in this trilemma. You CAN believe Jesus was a lunatic or fiend, but to believe he was merely a great moral teacher is foolish and contradictory.

Jeffery claims, “Jesus spoke in parables so that people would not understand” and he states that this is poor teaching. OH THE IRONY!! It could be argued the very opposite: that Jesus used parables when people were confused on matters to clarify and to help people understand. I personally think parables are an excellent teaching strategy because people tend to remember stories and the symbolism and true meaning behind them can be applied to their own lives.

Problem 3: “Lunacy is an open option… Jesus did not have to be nearly crazy enough to warrant a lunatic label.” Jesus didn’t just claim to be God, he also made claims indicative of being equal with God. He claimed, as Lewis discussed, to forgive any sins. Lewis states that “this is really so preposterous as to be comic”, if He was not God. Obviously Lewis doesn’t think Jesus was a lunatic, but he’s making the point that for a man who is not God to claim the power to forgive your sins is CRAZY and ABSURD! I would have to agree!

Conclusion: I find Jeffery’s argument to be quite ironic because his levels are actually in accord with the trilemma argument; none of the four lines refute the true argument. C. S. Lewis’s argument does not fail on any of those four levels, because those levels incorrectly interpret Lewis’s argument. Ultimately however, even if Lewis’s argument did fail, this would still not negate the argument that Jesus is God.