Acts20.com

exactly who he said he was. There is no other choice.This has resonated with me when I first read it. I have friends who are very left wing dems who are quick to quote the bible regarding refuges or any cut in social services. I have at times wanted to asked them where they stood regarding Jesus. Was He the son of God and the only way to heaven? Which most would say no. To which I want to reply, why are you quoting a liar or lunatic.

Yes, there is a fourth option. It was put forward by William Lane Craig and proposes that Jesus could have been a

I'm not sure the 4th option is valid in the context of arguing whether Jesus was in fact a good man. The 3 traditional options are in response to a person stating that Jesus was a good man/teacher/etc.., (which I suppose is assumed that He actually existed) and Lewis's answer is based on the fact that good person is not an option. I suppose another tier of the argument could be presented in that first you have to answer whether he existed or not, then if he did the 3 options are presented, if he did not, then end of flow-chart and the question is moot (for the person making the good argument). But again, I assume if a person is saying that Jesus was simply a good person, there is no need to bridge the first tier (whether or not He existed). As far as the historical argument, we only have the actual history from Biblical and other near-first-hand records of the early Church and possibly Josephus, both of which either directly claim that Jesus claimed to be God, or not desputing that He claimed such as in Josephus' case (where it is reasonably argued that he knew of Jesus's claims that he was more than just another Jewish rabi). there are no historical sources for another Jesus at all (or if there are they are from gnostics or other 'sects', and not historically valid). In other words, as far as I've ever studied there is only ONE historical Jesus present in the extant of records. This then becomes a is the Bible and tradition of the church a trustworthy source, which is another subject entirely. So as it stands there is but one historical Jesus so the argument could only be whether or not THAT Jesus (of history) existed or not, and hence it goes back to my earlier thesis of that not being a valid option in the context given by Lewis.

Good points, UncleJD.In my opinion, the legend response doesn't challenge the historicity of Jesus, just the biblical narrative. In the context of the good man argument, someone could retort, Yes, the Jesus of the Bible would clearly be God. However, the real Jesus of history was just a good man...