Daniel Howard-Snyder on the Trilemma Argument
(Redating post originally published on 30 April 2006) http://faculty.wwu.edu/howardd/mbgfp5web.pdf
Interpretation of McDowell’s Trilemma
I summarize the premises of the Trilmma argument in Evidence that Demands a Verdict as follows: 1. Jesus claimed to be God.2. If Jesus claimed to be God, and Jesus was not God, and Jesus knew that he was not God, then Jesus was a liar.3. If Jesus claimed to be God, and Jesus was … Interpretation of McDowell’s Trilemma
The Trilemma – How Old? part 2
I have not been able, so far, to find any references prior to the 1800s to a Latin sentence presenting a dilemma (e.g. aut deus aut homo non bonus – either God or a bad man) that could have been the original basis for the Trilemma. Because of this, I am skeptical that the Latin … The Trilemma – How Old? part 2
Trilemma Revisited
My old friend J. P. Holding thinks I have committed a category mistake and provides a counter-argument of his own: Peter claims that Jesus was God incarnate. He makes this claim based upon what he considers to be justifiable evidence. Jesus told him that He was God incarnate. Further, Jesus has fond memories of being … Trilemma Revisited