system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Lord, Liar (or Fictional), Lunatic argument is correct (With some slight amendments).

Edit: Thank you everyone for participating. While I don't feel that my view was changed, I greatly appreciate the discussion. Still, I feel 3 hours is enough of an investment of my time on this discussion so I'm bowing out.

The Lord, Liar, Luncatic argument or Trilemma from C.S. Lewis' *Mere Christianity* is here for reference:

>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.”

In response to possible counterarguments:

* Jesus never claimed to be God: While I will agree that Lewis erred by making his claim that strong, I don't think this counterargument really strikes at the heart of the matter. Whether or not Jesus said anything in his lifetime that would defend Nicene Christianity is not as important as whether or not he claimed supernatural status. Thus, the claims to Messiahship, miracles, speaking with authority are all crazy statements if they aren't true. 

* Jesus was misquoted: See the counterargument above to see how I've broadened the scope to include all supernatural claims of Jesus, and not just his divine claims. When we extend the scope that far, we are left with very little within the gospels that wouldn't require us to claim that he was misquoted. IMO assuming that he was misquoted that badly is a little too implausible to believe. Furthermore, even if we assume he was that badly misquoted, then we have no reason to assume that the historical Jesus said anything that we know about him, hence we should fall into the Fictional camp (which I added).

* We can take his teachings while ignoring the supernatural stuff: A significant number of his teachings revolve around things that no non-theist would accept. At the very least a non-believer must conclude that his teachings about the coming kingdom of God, discipleship, giving all of our heart to God, etc. are not valid.

* His moral teachings are valid: Even if we reduces his teachings to only those morals which apply to secular society, we are left with the problem that his moral teachings were directly based on his religious worldview. Jesus didn't say forgive others because that's a nice thing to do, Jesus said forgive others because God has been so damn patient with you all of this time and for you to be unmerciful makes you an ungrateful prick. Jesus didn't say the Sabbath and fasting was stupid, he said that because he was the Messiah those rules could be bent around him. So, while some of his conclusions might be accepted by modern society, without the arguments to justify them they are essentially worthless. Lastly, by reducing Jesus solely to the small sliver of his teaching that directly relates to morals, we're left with a teacher that didn't teach much of anything that is not found in other teachers of the day.

**TL;DR**: Jesus is either who the Gospels claim he was (some sort of supernatural figure, possibly God), someone whose testimony isn't credible either because he lied or the authors who wrote the Gospels lied, or Jesus was crazy.
gpt
It is possible to be wrong about supernatural beliefs without being crazy.  Believing in a supernatural claim that happens to be false is very different from having a falsifiable belief about the physical world (e.g. such as believing one is a poached egg).  It is very possible for Jesus to believe that he is the son of God, while being wrong.  This wrongness would in no way invalidate his moral teachings.

Also, even if we do accept the idea that Jesus' supernatural claims were exaggerated in the Gospels, we do not have to just throw up our hands and say that we can't attribute anything in the Bible to Jesus.  It is possible, through critical analysis of the text and the history of early Christianity, to identify statements that are more or less likely to be exaggerated, and thereby come to a middle-ground understanding of a "historical Jesus."