> Jesus said that He was God. He said that one day every person in the world
> would be judged and each person faces an eternal punishment for their deeds.
> He
> said that HE alone offered a way to escape that punishment.
Well, you *CLAIM* he said that anyhow.
> In this context, a person must conclude that Jesus was telling the truth
> which
> would make Him, Lord; that he was outright lying, making Him a very effective
> liar; or that Jesus was basically crazy and thought He was God when He was
> not.
Or, he didn't make the claim at all or he was misunderstood or he was really convinced that he was God but was mistaken or one of a dozen or so other possibilities.
The real problem with the Liar, Lord, Lunatic argument is that apologists assume that because Jesus was not a Liar or a Lunatic (and their arguments against these are basically empty claims) that Jesus must be Lord. As I have shown above, there are many other possibilities. Rationally, an argument stands on it's own merits, not because it is the only option left on a particular list. This is where C.S. Lewis failed and where Josh McDowell failed. The Liar, Lunatic, Lord trilemma is not only irrational but illogical.
-Brian