 |
| In it for the cash! |
Religion was invented when the first con artist met the first fool. ~ Mark Twain
Assume what Ray Comfort says is true on his blog:
"Few people know that Jesus had a donor-based ministry. It costs money to feed and lodge 13 itinerant preachers. Many people knew that, and gladly supported the cause."
If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist.
Now, let us consider CS Lewis' argument:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S,.Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")
C.S. Lewis' argument is often recast as:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S,.Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")
C.S. Lewis' argument is often recast as:
P1. Either, Jesus was a Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord, (or sometimes as "Mad, or Bad, or God")
P2. Jesus was obviously not a Lunatic and not a liar.
C. Therefore, Jesus was Lord
C.S. Lewis thinks that P2 is obviously true. Is this the case? P2 is not obviously true, and Ray Comfort has provided us, indirectly, with a plausible motive and reason why P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.
Let us reconsider P1. CS Lewis' main premise in his argument, "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. As pointed out above, If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist. Thus, in the case of P1 we can add "or a swindler and con artist".
Either Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic,or a swindler and con artist, or a lord,
C. Therefore, Jesus was Lord
C.S. Lewis thinks that P2 is obviously true. Is this the case? P2 is not obviously true, and Ray Comfort has provided us, indirectly, with a plausible motive and reason why P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.
Let us reconsider P1. CS Lewis' main premise in his argument, "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. As pointed out above, If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist. Thus, in the case of P1 we can add "or a swindler and con artist".
Therefore, P1 ought to read:
:Either Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic,or a swindler and con artist, or a lord,
As Ray Comfort points out, the gospels claim that Judas was the treasurer. We know that if you have a treasurer, you must also have a treasury. In this case, the treasury consisted of silver. Now, we know from modern day evangelists, that they often times use the poor, starving, and oppressed to get "donations" that they then use on/for themselves. Now here, in the bible, we have an EYEWITNESS account that Jesus was doing the same thing!! Jesus had been given some expensive oil that he was going to use on his.feet, and from what Judas said, we can infer that such donations were supposed to be used to feed, clothe, and house the disciples and the poor. Judas, our eyewitness, points out that this very expensive oil, that was DONATED, ought to have been sold, and the money used to FEED THE POOR. (John 12:4-6 )We can infer from this that Judas felt deceived by Jesus, and called him out on it. Judas was a whistleblower. Again, like in modern times, the whistleblower is often attacked, and made into a scapegoat by those who have committed the indiscretions. Note, that according to the gospels, Judas was attacked after he called out Jesus for using the expensive oil on himself, instead of selling it and using the money to feed the poor. Lastly, the gospels have Judas exclaim "I have betrayed innocent blood" (Matt 27:4) and then he killed himself, as if he was guilt ridden. However, given what we know about what happens when a person blows the whistle, that is, how the company belittles them, lies on them, and so forth--another possible alternative we can infer is that the other disciples began to lie and spread bad rumors against Judas, and that the disillusioned Judas committed suicide because he was duped by Jesus, and everything he believed in was a sham, and turned out to be false.
Whether my explanation is correct or not, is not the point. The fact of the matter is, it is a PLAUSIBLE, AND VIABLE explanation, given our EYEWITNESS account, according to the gospel, and what we experience with many modern day evangelicals, and church leaders in general, where they misappropriate funds for their own selfish use. Note, I gave a plausible explanation already for the EYEWITNESS accounts against Judas.
CS Lewis' P1 in his argument, "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. Furthermore, P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.
As a side note, Judas' calling out of Jesus calls into question Jesus' character, and points out another inconsistency in the bible. Part of the Bible paints Jesus as being totally selfless, and only concerned with the plight of the poor. But here we have Jesus selfishly using oil that as Judas points out, ought to have been sold, and the money used to feed the poor. Jesus' reply to Judas is very telling. Jesus said:
"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have ME." ( Matt 26:11)
This shows his egotistical side. (A common characteristic of many of the charismatic swindlers and con artist types of our day.) This would further support the disjunct that Jesus was a swindler and a con artist. If Jesus was a swindler and a con artist, then he was also a liar. If Jesus was a liar, then he was also a swindler and a con artist. At the same time as both of these disjuncts, he might also have been a lunatic! Of course, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible.
Addendum: Someone who read this post recently asked me what the difference was between a liar and swindler. Here is my explanation of those differences:
A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power. There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property. A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler. Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”
Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.
Addendum: Someone who read this post recently asked me what the difference was between a liar and swindler. Here is my explanation of those differences:
A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power. There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property. A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler. Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”
Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.
