"Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either:
He was Lord,
He was a liar, or
He was a lunatic.
It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?"
Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable.
Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation" (see the "Constructing a Logical Argument" document). That is, the argument attempts to restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more.
Two of the more likely alternatives are:
He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord.
The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians.
Quoted from: The Atheism Web: Common arguments
a0z0ra @ 10:19 AM  |