Jesus the liar?

[coolduude]

Hi all,

As some of you know, I have really been struggling with the Divinity of Christ. For me, it just seems that God wouldn’t become a man, though I suppose He can if He wants.

Anyway, the liar part of C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma argument seems to be my biggest hurdle. I am having the hardest time trying to understand why Jesus was truthful.

I found this:

"Why Jesus can’t be a liar:

A). It does not fit Jesus’ identity – anyone who has ever read the bible would have to conclude that Jesus possesses traits that are diametrically opposed to that of a liar. He cared for the oppressed, healed the sick, showed compassion to people, selfless, corrected others and showed them the truth. No person at that time even the religious authorities, withstand to the challenge of Jesus to falsify His testimonies (cf. John 18:23)."
(tridentinecatholic.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-is-jesus-christ-proving-divinity-of.html)

But here’s the problem: I’ve known liars who have done good works on ocassion. So it’s hard for me to combine words and actions. In my head, I’m thinking ‘Sure, Jesus preached that stuff. And he healed people, etc. But He could still be a liar’ I just can’t make the connection and put it all together. Does this make sense?

I know I’ve posted other threads on Jesus’ Divinity, but I’m still not accepting Jesus as God. I really need help I guess
By the way, if clarification is needed please ask.

Thank you!
Coolduude

 

[millersatthefar]

Struggle but do not be obstinate. In order for the Jesus to be a liar he could not be God. It is outside of God’s nature to lie so the two are incompatible. So, if Jesus is not God he would have to not only be a liar but a charlatain of the highest order. The New Testament is full of accounts of the miracles of Jesus. If you claim that it was trickery then the 12 apostles and the hundreds of first generation disciples were credulous enough to start a new church, endure beatings, trials, and humiliations, and suffer martyrdom for a really slick illusionist, kind of like David Copperfield! What’s more, the disciples and apostles who lived with Jesus never figured it out.

Finally, how did Jesus fake his crucifixion, rising from the dead, and ascension into heaven? To reject Jesus’ divinity you must reject the whole of Christianity as fruit of a poisoned tree.

Peace

 

[lakeview]

As some of you know, I have really been struggling with the Divinity of Christ. For me, it just seems that God wouldn’t become a man, though I suppose He can if He wants.

In the Incarnation, God the Son took on a human nature. He did not stop being God. He added a human nature to his divine nature, remaining a divine person. It sounds like you think that it’s an issue of God’s willingness to do this. Remember that God is love. Christ became man because of his loving obedience to the Father as well as his love for us.

But here’s the problem: I’ve known liars who have done good works on ocassion. So it’s hard for me to combine words and actions. In my head, I’m thinking ‘Sure, Jesus preached that stuff. And he healed people, etc. But He could still be a liar’ I just can’t make the connection and put it all together. Does this make sense?

Sure, there are liars who do good things. But I don’t think there are liars who do good things all the time, otherwise they wouldn’t be liars! Jesus said “Can any of you charge me with sin? If I am telling the truth, why do you not believe me?” (John 8:46) If Jesus was a liar, he would be a sinner in need of salvation like anyone else, not our Savior. In his divinity and humanity, he never sinned.

 

[lax16]

Hi all,

As some of you know, I have really been struggling with the Divinity of Christ. For me, it just seems that God wouldn’t become a man, though I suppose He can if He wants.

Anyway, the liar part of C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma argument seems to be my biggest hurdle. I am having the hardest time trying to understand why Jesus was truthful.

I found this:

"Why Jesus can’t be a liar:

A). It does not fit Jesus’ identity – anyone who has ever read the bible would have to conclude that Jesus possesses traits that are diametrically opposed to that of a liar. He cared for the oppressed, healed the sick, showed compassion to people, selfless, corrected others and showed them the truth. No person at that time even the religious authorities, withstand to the challenge of Jesus to falsify His testimonies (cf. John 18:23)."
(tridentinecatholic.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-is-jesus-christ-proving-divinity-of.html)

But here’s the problem: I’ve known liars who have done good works on ocassion. So it’s hard for me to combine words and actions. In my head, I’m thinking ‘Sure, Jesus preached that stuff. And he healed people, etc. But He could still be a liar’ I just can’t make the connection and put it all together. Does this make sense?

I know I’ve posted other threads on Jesus’ Divinity, but I’m still not accepting Jesus as God. I really need help I guess
By the way, if clarification is needed please ask.

Thank you!
Coolduude

Hi Coolduude - I never thought about Jesus being a liar. Interesting question.

Please explain what you mean. He could be a liar because He said He was the Son of God? It was all a hoax and He lied to everyone around Him?

Have you ever read St. Athanasius On the Incarnation?

Also, have you read/seen the latest information on the Shroud of Turin (the possible burial cloth of Jesus Christ)?

that’s a start!! Lots of questions to your questions I know…

 

[NeedImprovement]

It could be mentioned (my own limited opinion) that any word other than “liar” would be a more palatable choice.

It’s a normal part of our faith to have to struggle against doubts and commonly we all experience various doubts from time to time. I believe I once read that Jesus had asked St. Jerome to give Him his doubts; the Apostles doubted after the Resurrection - not only good St. Thomas - the others too …

Luke 24 :37-38

But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts?

Mark 16 :10-11

She went and told his companions who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

So the doubting part is pretty much a “given” and if we’re going to grow, then we need to question things.But why I would hesitate to put the word “liar” beside the name of Jesus in the same sentence , is because of the way Jesus spoke about/used that word liar:

**John 8 :44 **

You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

So while it is fine to question sacred scripture and what it teaches us, it must surely be more beneficial to avoid calling Jesus a lair. He said: “…I am the way and the **truth ** and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”, [John 14:6] .

 

[frindro]

Peter Kreeft’s book Between Heaven and Hell did a good job defending Lewis. I highly recommend it. Kreeft points out that sages can be trusted. Kreeft then notes that non-sages who claim to be God are often the mentally ill. So if Jesus is a sage (which I hope you at least accept), and not insane (which you do not seem to think), it follows then that Jesus is a trustworthy sage who claimed to be God. You have little reason to believe he is not telling the truth since he is sane and a sage. You don’t doubt Socrates, do you?

Maybe a piece of Kreeft’s writing will help you.

 

[Cachonga]

Here’s a couple of links that might help settle the question of the divinty of Jesus -

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3894 (The Water-Calming God)
aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3899 (The Heart-Knowing God)

FYI - these are links to an “anti-Catholic” site (I suppose they could also be considered an “anti-Muslim”, “anti-Jehovah’s Witness”, “anti-Mormon”, “anti-athiest”, and “anti-KJV Only” site, just to name a few). These links go directly to the blog articles, so there should be minimal “contamination” (just in case someone thinks “anti-Catholic” is catching).

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here’s a couple of links that might help settle the question of the divinty of Jesus -

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3894 (The Water-Calming God)
aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3899 (The Heart-Knowing God)

FYI - these are links to an “anti-Catholic” site (I suppose they could also be considered an “anti-Muslim”, “anti-Jehovah’s Witness”, “anti-Mormon”, “anti-athiest”, and “anti-KJV Only” site, just to name a few). These links go directly to the blog articles, so there should be minimal “contamination” (just in case someone thinks “anti-Catholic” is catching).

Umm… the linked apologetics are quite good, however speaking of minimal contamination, the site is also anti-papal infallibility , anti-Purgatory, in fact there’s an entire section devoted to (the dismissal of) Roman Catholicism as indeed the previous post forewarned us : vintage.aomin.org/Roman.html

… but it also turns out as evidenced through the above link, that this site , or at least the predominant bent of James White contained there is also particularly anti-Karl Keating.:doh2:

In my opinion, any site which says "Catholics attempt to get around biblical truths", and which even criticizes Mass stipend offerings- and calls the Mass blasphemy, would seem just as likely to ultimately reinforce the OP’s doubts as to dispell them…perhaps even plant some new doubts ?

So now in a series of a mere seven posts, we’ve heard Jesus referred to as a liar at least twice, and we’ve been referred to an anti-Catholic, anti-Papal, anti-Karl Keating and anti-This Rock site.

… In view of all this insidious (yet perhaps inadvertent) literaal litterature cast before us, I have to wonder if there would ever come a point in time where it might be permissible for a Catholic Answers-loving member to , say , provide a link referring people to a site which might perhaps express the following sentiment to someone like James White , or to one who adhered to his aforementioned views : “Excuse me , if it isn’t too much bother , at a time when it is most convenient for you, would you kindly b_te me ?” ,

 

[Cachonga]

NeedImprovement:

Umm… the linked apologetics are quite good, however speaking of minimal contamination, the site is also anti-papal infallibility , anti-Purgatory, in fact there’s an entire section devoted to (the dismissal of) Roman Catholicism as indeed the previous post forewarned us : vintage.aomin.org/Roman.html

Golly, maybe I should have just given a direct link to the specific blog articles and warned people that it was an “anti-Catholic” site. Oh, wait a minute, I did! You said “the linked apologetics are quite good”, and that is why I gave them. I also advised that the site was known as an “anti-Catholic” site so people would know what they could expect if they explored further. I’m trying to help the OP understand that Jesus is fully God, and even you admit that the links have good information. What are you trying to do with your comments (not to mention an actual link to an area that would definitely be considered “anti-Catholic”)? How have you helped the OP to understand the divinity of Jesus with your post? Finally (and this is off topic, so don’t feel you need to answer), wouldn’t anti-papal infallibility and anti–Purgatory be included in the term “anti-Catholic”?

 

[NeedImprovement]

Golly, maybe I should have just given a direct link to the specific blog articles and warned people that it was an “anti-Catholic” site. Oh, wait a minute, I did! You said “the linked apologetics are quite good”, and that is why I gave them. I also advised that the site was known as an “anti-Catholic” site so people would know what they could expect if they explored further. I’m trying to help the OP understand that Jesus is fully God, and even you admit that the links have good information. What are you trying to do with your comments (not to mention an actual link to an area that would definitely be considered “anti-Catholic”)? How have you helped the OP to understand the divinity of Jesus with your post? Finally (and this is off topic, so don’t feel you need to answer), wouldn’t anti-papal infallibility and anti–Purgatory be included in the term “anti-Catholic”?

Well, now we discover one of the reasons why I chose my screen name “NeedImprovement”… I’m certainly one who could always stand to practice a little more charity - particularly towards people who make a living out of condemning Catholicism ; even when their methods evolve into personal attacks. The best thing I could have done for James White, would have been to simply pray for him without posting what I did. I had also considered deleting my last post (#8), but had surpassed the time limit that would have permitted me to do so. This is a something we actually agree on Cachonga and your criticism of my previous post is well warranted. I apologize if my comments have offended you or anyone else. They weren’t intended for you directly.

Perhaps I can explain myself a little:

First of all, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that anyone following your links who wished to determine credibility would peruse the site. We human beings are a curious bunch by nature and it only makes sense that we would want to make a determination of credibility ourselves ; it’s part of being able to think independently. Commonly we are required to cite sources to substantiate things.

If you are suggesting that people strictly follow those two links and read only those two items exclusively , isn’t that similar to putting blinders on people and then telling them, "Only look twice - and only when I tell you…but watch out for the rest " . You don’t believe our curiosity is going to be piqued somehow ? We already have something called *cafeteria Catholicism *- a “pick and choose when it’s convenient” mentality.

…What are you trying to do with your comments (not to mention an actual link to an area that would definitely be considered “anti-Catholic”)? How have you helped the OP to understand the divinity of Jesus with your post?..

Let’s remember that you provided the initial links for the site – not me… All I said was, “Okay then, let’s dig a little.”

… Finally (and this is off topic, so don’t feel you need to answer), wouldn’t anti-papal infallibility and anti–Purgatory be included in the term “anti-Catholic”?

Indeed they would, actually even my posting of the words “byte me” would be anti-Catholic and anti-Christian according to our Blessed Lord’s words [Matt 5:44]
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who insult you and persecute you.

I don’t have any issues with non-Catholic Christians, so to speak. My best friend is a Baptist and on occasion I love to listen to God’s word presented through various ministers ; to cite 3 of my all time favourites, Billy Graham, Dr. Charles Swindoll and Dr. Michael Yousef.

Whether as a former Roman Catholic you get the next part… I can’t know

“The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life” [CCC 1324-25 ; Lumen Gentium]

Our blessed Lord told us “… whoever is not against you is for you [Luke 9:50]”

Unlike the other Christian ministers just mentioned, I can’t see someone as being “for us” when they resort to personal attacks on CAF and its founder. I would cite as further support the fact that the “someone” additionally calls the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass “blasphemy”. This, in and of itself in a Catholic mindset, could also be construed as calling Jesus a liar.

Again , I realize you are a former Roman Catholic so I don’t know if you get it, but I don’t believe any well-meaning Catholic would refer a fellow- Catholic to explanations provided by someone who calls the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass blasphemy. Of course, in post # 8, I let my emotions get in the way of making that point.

Thanks for your correction in the last post, and again I apologize.

 

[DPMartin]

Hi all,

As some of you know, I have really been struggling with the Divinity of Christ. For me, it just seems that God wouldn’t become a man, though I suppose He can if He wants.

Anyway, the liar part of C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma argument seems to be my biggest hurdle. I am having the hardest time trying to understand why Jesus was truthful.

I found this:

"Why Jesus can’t be a liar:

A). It does not fit Jesus’ identity – anyone who has ever read the bible would have to conclude that Jesus possesses traits that are diametrically opposed to that of a liar. He cared for the oppressed, healed the sick, showed compassion to people, selfless, corrected others and showed them the truth. No person at that time even the religious authorities, withstand to the challenge of Jesus to falsify His testimonies (cf. John 18:23)."
(tridentinecatholic.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-is-jesus-christ-proving-divinity-of.html)

But here’s the problem: I’ve known liars who have done good works on ocassion. So it’s hard for me to combine words and actions. In my head, I’m thinking ‘Sure, Jesus preached that stuff. And he healed people, etc. But He could still be a liar’ I just can’t make the connection and put it all together. Does this make sense?

I know I’ve posted other threads on Jesus’ Divinity, but I’m still not accepting Jesus as God. I really need help I guess
By the way, if clarification is needed please ask.

Thank you!
Coolduude

Coolduude

In this alone can it be understood

Gen:1:
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Note there is the creation and without God’s presence it is “without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Then God’s Presence in His creation “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.“ Then God speaks in His Presence (no different then you must be present to speak) “ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light”. And what fulfill the commandment “Let there be light:”? It would have to be God’s Word in the Power of His Presence.

Hence my friend:

Gospel according to John 1:
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

So who is Jesus of Nazareth?

The Word of God from God in the Presence of God (Holy Spirit) in the Son of man. Who fulfilled all commandment unto man from God for man. Because man was and is not able to fulfill God’s commandments to man without His Word in the Power of His Presence to His satisfaction, that it would not only be done, but Good.

It’s not as complicated as we might think. Jesus is the fulfillment of what God made man to be. Thus the restoration unto God’s Will for man, God’s Choice for man. But all of God’s commandments to man must be fulfilled. In the state in which Adam found himself after the tree of knowledge, he was not able to fulfill the commandment, and live.

Gen:2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Therefore God’s Word in God’s Presence in the Son of man fulfills and restores what was once lost. And now Jesus lives and sits and the Right Hand of the Father.

It is the Power of God with Him that is the witness of Him that He (Jesus Christ) is the Truth the Way and the Life, of God, in the Presence of God.

Jn:5:36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Jn:10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38: But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

 

[coolduude]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I’m still in despair though

Anyway, I was reading up on pathological liars. They basically make stuff up just to do it and create other identities for themselves. To me, Jesus sounded like He could have been a pathological liar just saying what I think

I hope no one takes this as blasphemy; I’m just trying to rule everything out so I can believe in Jesus.

 

[abucs]

Cooldude,

A pathological liar tells many lies to many different people and has a self centred nature.
Can you name me anyone, friend or foe who says that Jesus was a pathological liar in the 1st century or self centred ?

Such a pathological selfish liar gets caught out. Especially if the guy ends up in destruction.

He doesn’t generate a movement who use his very name for a byeword for truth and who have enough faith in the truth of the ressurrection that they risk their own lives spreading that truth and love in His name.

Could you please state the lies you think he might have said and any evidence for this ?

 

[lax16]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I’m still in despair though

Anyway, I was reading up on pathological liars. They basically make stuff up just to do it and create other identities for themselves. To me, Jesus sounded like He could have been a pathological liar just saying what I think

I hope no one takes this as blasphemy; I’m just trying to rule everything out so I can believe in Jesus.

coolduude -

Have you read St. Athanasius On the Incarnation? He addresses much of this in his book.

Let’s think about who have been famous pathological liars in history and what was their motive? Can anyone name a few? (Hitler comes to mind…)

Did anyone lie knowing that they were going to be killed for it?
Did anyone use a pacifist’ tone in their speaking?
Did they promote love of neighbor and enemy?
Were they conformists towards government and God’s law?
Were they selfless in their pursuits?
Did any of the liars have a message that included all people and was for the betterment of society?

 

[DPMartin]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I’m still in despair though

Anyway, I was reading up on pathological liars. They basically make stuff up just to do it and create other identities for themselves. To me, Jesus sounded like He could have been a pathological liar just saying what I think

I hope no one takes this as blasphemy; I’m just trying to rule everything out so I can believe in Jesus.

Then ask Him (Jesus Christ) if He is who He says He is you will get your answer.

 

[coolduude]

Cooldude,

A pathological liar tells many lies to many different people and has a self centred nature.
Can you name me anyone, friend or foe who says that Jesus was a pathological liar in the 1st century or self centred ?

Such a pathological selfish liar gets caught out. Especially if the guy ends up in destruction.

He doesn’t generate a movement who use his very name for a byeword for truth and who have enough faith in the truth of the ressurrection that they risk their own lives spreading that truth and love in His name.

Could you please state the lies you think he might have said and any evidence for this ?

I’m saying that I can’t debunk His claims about His identity (being God). I’m having a hard time seeing why He was truthful in what He said concerning His identity, as opposed to lying about it.

Did anyone lie knowing that they were going to be killed for it?
Did anyone use a pacifist’ tone in their speaking?
Did they promote love of neighbor and enemy?
Were they conformists towards government and God’s law?
Were they selfless in their pursuits?
Did any of the liars have a message that included all people and was for the betterment of society?

I would have to answer ‘no’ to all the questions, but I fail to see your point. I’m sorry, I must just be out of it

Then ask Him (Jesus Christ) if He is who He says He is you will get your answer.

Ok. I’ll try it. I’m sorry if I frustrated you; it sounded like I did

 

[abucs]

I’m having a hard time seeing why He was truthful in what He said concerning His identity, as opposed to lying about it.

If you think someone is lying, you generally have to have a reason why they were lying and evidence for it.

 

[coolduude]

If you think someone is lying, you generally have to have a reason why they were lying and evidence for it.

I’ll play devil’s advocate:

The motive would be prestige: “I’m God, worship me and obey me”
The evidence would be the Gospels; they recorded Jesus’ life.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I don’t know,…… the way I read the Gospels, I can’t really hear Him saying “Worship me”, too often.

For me it’s more along the lines of *Matthew 20:28 *- his own words were :

“Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

Philippians 2: 5-8

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.