Lewis' Trilemma

[Talishi]

In Mere Christianity C.S Lewis proposes a famous thought experiment taught in Apologetics 101 in every Sunday School:

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.

It seems to me that Lewis omits a fourth possibility, that rather than being insane, Jesus simply held an erroneous religious belief. It is likely that Jesus did the reckless things he did that led to his crucifixion because he believed, erroneously, that God would intervene, and perhaps no one was more surprised than he when he found himself nailed up there. Of course, a generation later the gospel writers would put words into his mouth to the effect that Jesus knew full well that he would die, but they would have been foolish not to do so.

[The Nice Centurion]

I tend to agree with Lewis that Jesus could not simply have held an erroneous religious belief. If a man genuinely believed that he was God, and the belief was not true, then I would have to call him a lunatic. A man who believes himself to be a microwave oven is saner than a man who believes himself to be God.

That's the thing. The only place Jesus might have indicated that he believed himself to be God was in John 8:58, written c. 110 by a school with a high Christology for the 2nd Century.

This !!!

And all serious scholars today agree that Jesus never said to be God.

That he did is only a religious fundie perspective.

L.T. builds on that perspective!

[The Nice Centurion]

( [Replying to bjs1 in post #25]

It was about Jesus as a moral teacher in light of the fact that he consistently claimed to be God throughout all four Gospels and built his ethical teaching on that foundation. 

I tend to agree with Lewis that Jesus could not simply have held an erroneous religious belief. If a man genuinely believed that he was God, and the belief was not true, then I would have to call him a lunatic. A man who believes himself to be a microwave oven is saner than a man who believes himself to be God.

That's the thing. The only place Jesus might have indicated that he believed himself to be God was in John 8:58, written c. 110 by a school with a high Christology for the 2nd Century.

This !!!

And all serious scholars today agree that Jesus never said to be God.

That he did is only a religious fundie perspective.

L.T. builds on that perspective!

So much to Jesus saying to be god.
(But for the sake of argument we shall go along with Lewis while debating his Emma, but nonetheless he got his base facts wrong!)
Son of god? Literary or metaphorically?*Barf*
Full Human and Full god? Really?In the Gospels?*Barf Blargh *

FACT 1 WRONG

Next Jesus was a moral teacher (Lewis assumes a lot) and built his teachinng on wrong fact 1.
You cant build on something that doesnt exist.

FACT 2 WRONG

LEWIS: Jesus teaching was sensational, godlike wise and original new!
(Yeah right. Who is delusional now?)

FACT 3 WRONG

LEWIS: Unless Jesus was a Liar or Lunatic. Then his teaching was criminal and old stuff and satans school!
(That Lion-story-writer speaks against himself here. He cant have it two ways.)

FACT 4 WRONG AND A LOGICAL FALLACY.


AND WITH ALL THAT HOGWASH WE HAVE TO GO ALONG IF WE EVEN BEGIN TO DEBATE LEWIS EMMA.

BUT WHATEVER; HERE WE GO.

Oh and the abrahamitic god in the first century was not necessarily as understood to be as today or just back in Lewis time! But Lewis just assumes. So he got a

FACT 5 WRONG

Lewis wants to SHOVEL THE READER TO :LORD!

Therefore he give this word at the end of his Trilemma.

That is not Wrong fact, but bad and dishonest Behaving.

LETS CALL IT ERROR 6


Also for now lets call his emma a Hexalemma
I might have been wrong with Lunatic Lord if Liar and Lunatic are understood about wrongly calling oneself Lord it would be impossible to be two or three of Lewis origal emma at once.

Lets settle for now for:

Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend, Led on or Lemurian !

What do you say ?

Liar = Jesus lied about being God et cetera (et cetera means gods literary son and full god and full human)

Lunatic = Mental illness made Jesus wrongly assume he is God et cetera

Lord = Jesus saiid rightly that he was the abrahamic God et cetera

Legend = Jesus never existed or never said to be God et cetera

Led on = Someone or something, but not Lunacy, made Jesus falsely believe he was God et cetera.

Lemurian = Jesus said this things but didnt mean them in the way they were understood. Perhaps because of Cultural differences. Jesus could have been from today lost continent Lemuria where all cotizens could be Full human and Full God at the same time et cetera.

LEWIS HEXALEMMA

What do you say?

[Purple Knight]

A serious possibility is that Jesus did have actual superpowers and it drove him sort of mad. This is a bit of a middle-ground between liar (or maybe, simply mistaken) and lunatic.

If the Bible is true, we're assuming the supernatural anyway. So why can't there be the supernatural that has nothing to do with God? It's at least as credible as everything Jesus said being true, taking it only as a possibility.

And what would you think if you were the only one walking around with actual superpowers in a hyper-religious society? Would you think God would let you and you alone (for example) bring people back to life if you weren't special to Him? And you see this corrupt religious organisation and you get the idea that you're supposed to do something, you're this great hero, you have a special destiny, so you do it. All of this is very natural reasoning but it leads to something that is probably, quite rightly classified as insanity.

Thinking you have great power when you do, is not necessarily delusional. Having a secret fantasy that you're an alien, well, you have this other side that knows not to do anything about it, so not delusional in my opinion. It's when you both have the delusion and do something about it, out in reality, something that is very very foolish and likely to get you hurt, especially if it does, that's functional craziness. And you can have every rational reason to be crazy (or worse, have unlucky factors combine to convince you) and it's still functionally crazy. However, it is understandable and potentially even rational.

[TRANSPONDER]

A serious possibility is that Jesus did have actual superpowers and it drove him sort of mad. This is a bit of a middle-ground between liar (or maybe, simply mistaken) and lunatic.

If the Bible is true, we're assuming the supernatural anyway. So why can't there be the supernatural that has nothing to do with God? It's at least as credible as everything Jesus said being true, taking it only as a possibility.

And what would you think if you were the only one walking around with actual superpowers in a hyper-religious society? Would you think God would let you and you alone (for example) bring people back to life if you weren't special to Him? And you see this corrupt religious organisation and you get the idea that you're supposed to do something, you're this great hero, you have a special destiny, so you do it. All of this is very natural reasoning but it leads to something that is probably, quite rightly classified as insanity.

Thinking you have great power when you do, is not necessarily delusional. Having a secret fantasy that you're an alien, well, you have this other side that knows not to do anything about it, so not delusional in my opinion. It's when you both have the delusion and do something about it, out in reality, something that is very very foolish and likely to get you hurt, especially if it does, that's functional craziness. And you can have every rational reason to be crazy (or worse, have unlucky factors combine to convince you) and it's still functionally crazy. However, it is understandable and potentially even rational.

It is a fantasy of course, and no particular reason to credit that as a viable alternative explanation. But it is an alternative explanation. Or it gives as much weight to 'lunatic' as to 'Lord'. It would explain why God apparently kept information from Jesus and why his mission to the Jews failed. It is explained that the Jews would not listen, but that excuse has so many problems.

[The Nice Centurion]

Lewis Hexalemma:

Led on, Legend, Lemurian, Liar, Lord or Lunatic.

As far as I am now, that covers all possibilitys