Quote:
Lewis comments (Lord, Liar, Lunatic) does not pertaining to every bible verse in the NT. His comments were specifically about Jesus being God and rising from the dead.
and even those are hardly that simple. What jesus specifically claimed and what was developed by the early church is anything but cut and dry and probably contains good measures of both.
In
Honest to God,
John A. T. Robinson, then
Bishop of Woolwich, criticizes Lewis's approach, questioning the idea that Jesus intended to claim divinity: "It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus claimed to be Son of God, let alone God".[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-30][30][/url] However,
Michael Ramsey,
Archbishop of Canterbury, thought that Robinson's theology was weak, and that he had only a vague understanding of many of the issues.[
citation needed]
John Hick, writing in 1993, argued that this "once popular form of apologetic" was ruled out by changes in New Testament studies, citing "broad agreement" that scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God, quoting as examples
Michael Ramsey (1980),
C. F. D. Moule (1977),
James Dunn (1980), Brian Hebblethwaite (1985) and David Brown (1985).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-31][31][/url]
Larry Hurtado, who argues that the followers of Jesus within a very short period developed an exceedingly high level of devotional reverence to Jesus,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-32][32][/url] at the same time rejects the view that Jesus made a claim to messiahship or divinity to his disciples during his life as "naive and ahistorical".[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-lord_jesus_christ_a01-4][4][/url] According to
Gerd Ldemann, the broad consensus among modern New Testament scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a development within the earliest Christian communities.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-gerd-33][33][/url]
N. T. Wright says the trilemma argument lacks historical context, oversimplifying first-century Judaism's understanding of the nature of God's dealings with his people.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-Wright_2007-29][29][/url] Wright points out that arguments over the claims of Jesus regarding divinity have been passed over by more recent scholarship, which sees a more complex understanding of the idea of God in first century Judaism.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-Wright1999-34][34][/url] But, Andrew Loke argues that if Jesus did not claim and show himself to be truly divine and rise from the dead, the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet, but not as truly divine, which they did. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#cite_note-35][35][/url]
Quote:
It is directed at the false narrative that Jesus was a nice guy/ prophet, Buddha type who was later turned into a God myth. That option is not on the table when you read the NT. Also not on the table with Paul's early time date comments. From the beginning it was taught. So Jesus was either God or a fraud, there is no middle ground.
That's not at all the opinion of people who study the new testament.
Quote:
Jesus coming back during life time in the synoptics is about many things. It is primarily about the destruction ofhe temple in 70 AD, which happened. It is also referencing OT quotes and symbolism, and Jesus does come back- see stoning of St. Stephen in book of Acts 7 55-56. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
This is false. Jesus does not come back, it's very clearly about a second coming, nothing in acts and nothing about the destruction of the temple even begins to fulfill that prophecy. Further, since you like lewis so much you should know that he rejects this argument. He admits it's a failed prophecy and considers it "the most embarrassing verse in the bible".
Quote:
I think your hang up, is you fail to recognize God exists. The minute you know God exists and there is life after death, then NT and Jesus makes sense. Until then you will limit how you can see Jesus (you will ignore the St. Stephen account).
I can grant a god and the NT still fails. The st. stephen account is a joke in reference to the actual prophecy. The prophecy has jesus return in the clouds with angels in full glory, gathering all the elect.This would be no secret, invisible or "spiritual" event. Instead, the whole world would see him in the sky. It's not the transfiguration either, that argument similarly fails.
