Comment 22 by Nordic11 :

Excellent comments reddog, but I will go one step further. Jesus was either who said he was (God's son), a lunatic, or some type of pathological liar. If you study the gospels carefully, it leaves little wiggle room for Jesus being a "good salesman" or "moral example."This is not my idea, by the way. I know theologist Josh McDowell expanded on this idea in a book he wrote in the 70s, and I do believe either Dawkins or Hitchens also voiced a similar choice.

Or the fourth option - He existed but was misquoted in the books of the New Testament. He existed, but the Jesus we read about and the Jesus that actually existed are not the same at all. Isn't it awfully convenient how people using the lord,lunatic,liar argument speak the assumption "if Jesus existed" when what they really mean is the assumption "if the bible is accurate about Jesus", which is a FAR less likely premise.

Creating a dichotomy and trying to narrow it to one conclusion by eliminating the others is a very tenuous logic path that is wholly dependent on the dichotomy being correct in the first place. It MUST cover all possibilities, and Lord, Lunatic, or Liar does not. It leaves off "Never said what the BIble says he did", and is thus a false dichotomy, which is a massive fallacy.

Accidentally using a fallacy can be simple ignorance or sloppiness. But deliberately using a fallacy is being dishonest. Never use that argument again or you will be identified as a liar.