Talk:Lewis's trilemma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis's trilemma article.
Article policies
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Anti-psychiatry angle

since lunacy is defined with relation to society, I don't see why Jesus cannot have been a "great human teacher" in 1st century Judea, and would still have been considered a lunatic in the modern age. It is rather straightforward, rather, that he did have just the right kind of lunacy, at the right place and time, to become such a "great teacher", while under other circumstances he would have had a minor career as a salesman or TV personality or something. dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense, since the point is that people today claim to admire Jesus as a great human teacher by the standards of today, but do not believe that he is who he said he was.
I've always thought though, that there is a fourth alternative. That is, that people have constructed an accidental teaching out of his words, that is very different from his original intention. That is, he might have said that he came from heaven, existed before Abraham, claimed to be the bread of life and the only way to God, and that he would be crucified and rise again to judge the world at the end of the age; but, he didn't mean what those words seem to imply. He was using words in such a peculiar way that people are helpless to reliably determine what he meant.
Nevertheless, Lewis's point stands up, someone so confusing cannot be called a great human teacher. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
A lot of people from Moon is a great human teacher. I mean if they wrote books about Rev. Moon they would be filled with all sorts of great human teacher like qualities. He's crazy and calls himself God. Frankly, it's pretty obvious from a cursory glance that Lewis' point is completely silly. Both lunatic and liar are far more likely, as are myth, legend, divinity added later, and misinterpreted. I've learned some fantastic things from people who are completely insane. Tat (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Son Of God

A significant aspect of this article is that the popular Trilemma presumes that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and that this is an implicit false assumption because the New Testament doesn't quote him as saying this. However Mere Christianity, the main source of this trilemma, doesn't treat the argument on these terms:

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 a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

The quote suggests that what Jesus said implies that he is the Son of God (this is the third outcome of the trilemma itself; the other two presume that he was lying). Unless someone who know more about the subject has a source that associates the trilemma with the said assumption, I think this part should be removed or amended.

Bigbluefish 21:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for a man as brilliant as Lewis, but I imagine that some of the things he was referring to when he said "the sort of things Jesus said" include Jesus forgiving sins and referring to himself as "I am" in John 8:58, among other things. In that time, such actions/statements were quite provocative and considered blasphemous (note Jewish response to each), leading many in today's Christian church to consider them to be evidence of Jesus's belief that He was God. Does that answer your question? --Spangineer (háblame) 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Your talk reply didn't so much answer my question as confirm what I was saying - but your major edit of the page has removed that statement that assumed the trilemma required Jesus to have called himself the Son of God, so I no longer have any disagreements on these terms. Well done for being bold - as a relatively new Wikipedian I didn't want to do something like this unless someone else had the same opinion. I'll go over the article later to see if I have any problems with the rewrite. Bigbluefish 15:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The most obvious and direct reference is in Mark 10. When he is called "good teacher", he answers, "why do you call me good?" His answer to the the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" is designed to instruct the questioner to see how his whole attention is directed on a human level, the second table of the law. His challenge to him shows that because the man cannot trust God, he also comes short of what he might do in love for man as well. The pinnacle of his lesson however, is "come, follow me".
It ignores the logic of Jesus's argument to conclude that "follow me" implies "because I am a good moral teacher", or even "because I am a follower of God". He excludes this at the beginning, by saying "none is good but God alone". He is arguing, "follow me" - not any moral teacher; that is "follow God". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Lewis' argument rests on the fact that Jesus claimed to have power to forgive sins (which implies that He is God). Technically, Lewis argues that Jesus must be crazy, sinister or God based specifically on this claim to be able to forgive the world's sins. Perhaps the article should be edited to include a longer quote from Mere Christianity to clarify. Alcuin 05:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article depicts Lewis's argument as concerning Jesus' claim to be the "Son of God." But Lewis's argument concerns Jesus' "claim to be God." Is there a reason for me not to simplify the text and make this refer to "God" instead of (or in addition to) "Son of God"? Jonathan Tweet 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, I'll make the change. Jonathan Tweet 05:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to this; however, a number of the criticisms interpret the argument in a grossly "simplistic and foolish", "textually careless and theologically unreliable" way; and on the basis of this distortion commence to chew it up and spit it out without really dealing with it at all, but rather attempt to circumvent its logic by changing the premises of the argument.
For the given premise of the argument can be substituted whatever claim Jesus did make based on the Gospel account (if you don't think he claimed to be God, nevertheless what did he claim, according to the Gospels?). The test could have been limited to the components of his tendered interpretation, that Jesus was claiming things for himself that can only rightly be posited of God. For example he claimed to be "the Son of God" and therefore, his opponents said that he made himself "equal to God". He claimed to "forgive sins" - someone who would claim such a thing, given the authority which Jesus can be shown to have accorded to the Hebrew Scriptures and to their teachings concerning God, of sin and justice, would be a lunatic, or a liar, or he really did have the authority to forgive sins ... and so on. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 213.3.64.145

I agreed with most of the changes to the article made by 213.3.64.145 today, although the rewording of the first part of the first one [1] seemed a little illogical, and a shade POV. In the context, the quotations are being used as examples by apologists to convey their argument. To call it scriptural evidence suggests that everyone accepts that that it does show Jesus claimed to be God - the reality is somewhat more indirect. --BigBlueFish 21:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


There's also now a lot of biblical references relating to the initial premise of the trilemma, that he claimed to be God, or whatever the interpretation, etc. I was wondering if it'd be more readable to present these in an unordered list. My only concern is that this may present it too much as a fundamental part of the Trilemma topic, or as a balanced viewpoint. The critical argument doesn't present itself in a form that could also be turned into a list. If it isn't made into a list, it is still a little unreadable, so does anyone have any other suggestions to improve this? --BigBlueFish 21:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in the last few edits

Some edits that don't make sense:

  • The use of "over against". I think this appeared in the old version of the article too... it makes no grammatical sense. "Over" is sufficient. The use of "the illogical choice of" is also POV and is made redundant anyway by the use of "logically" earlier.
  • Change of wording in this edit. Who "mentions" these passages? The preceding sentence is talking about the fact that apologists in general use other quotations. The rest of the sentence also generalises the context, by only indicating the type of quotations that may be used.

--BigBlueFish 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

These are good but inconsequential changes. You can feel free to fix grammar or remove oddities of style without any apology being necessary. Good work. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you think so but I still prefer make myself clear, particularly since I've essentially reverted these edits. --BigBlueFish 16:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 26:63

The NIV translates Jesus' reply to the high priest as "Yes, it is as you say,". That's a lot more affirmative than the previously quoted KJV version, "thou hast said"; others are worded along the lines of "you have said it yourself", probably reflecting more accurately the ambiguity. I initially made the comparison because the archaic lanugage is out of context here—su eipas was, in its context, contemporary language—however now I don't think affirmatively quoting an English translation, so I hope the new wording is better. --BigBlueFish 16:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trilemma oversimplifies

The concept of trilemma is a rather facile simplification of the issue. One can certainly be deceived in one's beliefs without being a lunatic. Every one of us has held beliefs at times, even of ourselves, that in hindsight turned out to be incorrect. That doesn't make us insane, only ignorant. So the construction of the trilemma argument may be simplified to make a point, but it does not succeed when addressed in detail. (This is cited as an example of a false dilemma in the article on CS Lewis book Mere Christianity). Nearly all of our ideas are adopted from other persons based on their considered authority. The actual veracity of the ideas, beliefs, or opinions are determined by experience or experiment that are shared among a relatively few people. In this instance, Jesus could have developed his own views based on the authority of scripture, for example. --Blainster 19:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the trilemma oversimplifies the reasons people have for faith - indeed, belief in the trilemma isn't an essential part of Christian faith. Which is just as well, considering that it's got more holes in it than a lump of Dutch cheese.
However - the article is about the meme of the trilemma, as created by C S Lewis, and the impact this meme has had on culture around the world. The article is not a debating ground. It is appropriate to include criticisms of the trilemma that have appeared in credible third party sources, however, any of your own criticism of the trilemma constitutes original research, and therefore can't be included in Wikipedia - even if they're logically valid.
So I reckon the best thing to do is try using Google or Yahoo search, or your local library, to see if someone from a respected source has thought of the same thing. If they have, great, stick it in, together with citations - but if they haven't, I think we'll have to leave it out. Squashy 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Excellent points, which is why I commented here rather than making any changes to the article. --Blainster 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything excellent about calling anything a "meme". What I do see is the obstinacy with which distortion has been forced upon the topic, throughout the history of this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You (Blainster) are using your own definition of "lunatic" and saying that being mistaken about being the son of God doesn't apply. I would suggest actually reading Mere Christianity. I'm not going to get into a debate of whether or not you understand what a lunatic really is but that argument is a simple dodging of what the point of this whole concept is. I also suggest looking to sources outside of Dawkins to form views on the trilemma. Using a "meme" to describe this concept is reductionalist in of itself and it would be refreshing once and awhile to see someone reference an actual philosopher, psychiatrist, or theologian rather than drawing upon the arguments of an ethologist... --Localdistortion 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Though this article is not a place to debate the trilemma, I think it would still be useful to present other options people have come up with, to demonstrate that the three options presented in the trilemma are not the only options available. - Brian Kendig 18:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article doesn't emphasise this point clearly enough but it does explain that the trilemma is based on the assumption that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. There is no real contention that I'm aware of that while assuming the truthfulness of this statement, the three choices of the trilemma are exhaustive, and mutually exclusive. The article does identify, however, suggestions that have been made along the lines that Jesus didn't ever make this claim, and therefore could just have been a good teacher whose actions were misinterpreted. If you think these points should be made clearer, if some bold structural changes should be made even, it would be most welcomed - try to bear in mind the primary goal of encyclopedically documenting the trilemma as opposed to helping people make decisions though. --BigBlueFish 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The assumption is supported not by the trilemma itself, but by looking at what the Gospels say he taught concerning himself. All of the criticisms suggest that there are other, reasonable interpretations of what he taught - but it is unclear whether any of them accept that the Gospels are the source relied upon for those interpretations. For purposes of clarity, what Lewis actually tested was not a bald "claim to be God", but the specific teachings and didactic acts of Jesus (which Lewis summarizes as a claim to be God). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis's Intent

It shocks me that this article does not actually have the language of the Trilemma itself, since its already supplied on the CS Lewis page. The context of the passage makes it pretty clear that he is NOT trying to prove the divinity of Jesus, as other editors have said. I mean, really- how on earth can this article proceed without the text of the Trilemma inserted in it?

Here it is:

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 and you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

You need not go any further than the man's own formulation of the Trilemma to see that he was not trying to A. make an explicit logical formulation or B. Argue for Christ's divinity. As indicated in the two parts I bolded... note the "I am trying here" which I think is about a clear statement of intent as you'll find anywhere, ever, by anyone, except to say "I intend here," about what his purpose really is. That purpose is to disallow someone from entertaining a view of Jesus as a 'great moral teacher' apart from his claims of divinity. You must take them both. Lewis says: "He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." —This unsigned comment was added by Sntjohnny (talk • contribs) .

You're right, but we have to remember that the argument has developed beyond what Lewis originally said. In any case, I've added back some of the things you changed, only edited somewhat. Let me know if the text works better now. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


The problem is that the part of the article in question is not about how it developed, but rather about Lewis himself. This is indicated especially in the paragraph beginning "he trilemma is principally associated with C. S. Lewis." If the point of the paragraph is itself to explain its origins, than it naturally follows that you'd represent its origins fairly! So, the fact that later apologists did something different with it should specifically be distinguished. Furthermore, people coming across the article will be left thinking that some sort of formal argument was being made, like with Josh McDowell, when he certainly wasn't. This is also why the first paragraph needs changing, too. Even if McDowell used it as a 'proof of divinity,' Lewis decidedly did NOT.

The reason why this is so important is because the fact is that when you look at what Lewis actually said and his stated goals in saying it, it is completely different than what McDowell (or the first paragraph says) had as his goals. However, this is all conflated currently. People will be attacking Lewis when they ought to be attacking McDowell, and Lewis's own point will be completely lost.

Let me submit that we really, really, really, ought to put the actual CS Lewis text up immediately, and if possible, if anyone cares (I don't), they should put the McDowell text up, too. Sntjohnny 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sntjohnny 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Biased

I feel this article is biased. I have attempted to add additional opinion to this page. I have tried to correct it but it got deleted so I am asking everybody's opinion on this issue. I hope that people can give me feedbacks so I can add some additional opinions. Here is the addition I am attempting to make:

Alternatively, Apologist have pointed out that Trilemma is merely meant to be a logical deduction based on widely accepted assumptions held by people who claim Jesus was a great teacher. People who claimed Jesus was a great teacher certainly assumed that he existed and he taught great messages now preserved in the writings of his followers. Apologist argue that if his existence is questioned based on lack of source and possible invention by his followers, then Socrates should also be questioned as a possible invention by Plato. On questions of what Jesus really meant when he said what he said, apologist argued that while logic can be objectively performed and universally accepted, semantics is a much more complex field where people's opinion differ and objectivity can rarely be established.

User:haow 8:20, 8 April 2006

I can't tell what perspective you're providing here that's been excluded from the article. The idea that Jesus didn't exist at all is pretty fringe and doesn't need to be addressed. As to semantics, you seem to be saying that no one can know for sure what Jesus (or anyone) meant, so you can't base a logical argument on it? Jonathan Tweet 01:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea that the bulk of gospels are invented is not fringe. Even then, the argument suggest that these are the only three options. And work of fiction certainly makes for a Jesus who is neither a liar, a lunatic or a god. Thus, the suggestion is a sound rebuttal to the argument. In fact, if one points out the arguments against the existence of God and were to overlook all the other flaws in this argument, it would seem an argument in favor of Jesus as fiction (assuming you wanted to limit it to just four). Even without regard to historicity, even a secular Jesus and inaccurate scriptures are more than enough to rebut the argument. Tat (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scholars and the claim to be God

I changed the vauge "some secular scholars" to be more specific. I changed "believe" to "conclude" because they worked together over years to reach academic "conclusions." Academics truck in conclusions, not beliefs. Jonathan Tweet 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it was better than your original insinuation that all scholars concluded the same. 100 scholars does not really make a sizable percentage of the academics with a right to an opinion. Your citation only shows that one self described group of "liberal theologians" hold that view. It would be easy to find another 100 scholars that hold the opposite opinion. Your current version seems balanced to me. 12.24.233.2 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it to the talk page. You're right. My first try went too far. The topic, however, is not scholars in general but specifically secular, academic scholars. It is the majority consensus of secular, academic scholars that Jesus did not claim to be God. Jonathan Tweet 03:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, your citation doesn't support the assertion that "It is the majority consensus of secular, academic scholars", only that a group of self-described "liberal theologians" came to that conclusion. Well big surprise, they are "liberal theologians"! Anyhow, your current article rendering seems accurate enough to me. Have a good one. 12.24.233.2 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bible references implying divinity of Jesus

This list of quotes seems to me highly POV and I have attempted to restrict it only to the specific wording used in the original (quotes taken from New International Version).

However, I am not sure that this much detail belongs here. Perhaps we need another page. There is a Divinity of Jesus page but it redirects to Christology, which is way more complex and not easy to follow.

Whether these quotations realistically reflect a claim to divinity is an interesting question, but I don't think that discussion belongs here. Where could it go?

Rbreen 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses where Jesus actually claims to be God seem to be relevant to the topic. After all, Lewis based his argument on Jesus claiming to be God, not on anyone else saying that he was God, not on Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, and not on Jesus' claim to be the Son of God. So the verses where Jesus claims to be God should stay. I don't know where the other verses should go. Away, maybe. Jonathan Tweet 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonathan. I wasn't arguing that the verses were not relevant, only that they were part of a bigger topic - whether Jesus claimed to be God, and whether the Bible implies this - which at the same time is only one part of the question of whether the trilemma is a valid argument or not. They represent too little detail for the first, and too much for the second. Maybe it's time to reopen the Divinity of Jesus page.Rbreen 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I did a pretty extensive trim on the validity section. Lewis's trilemma is based on Jesus claiming to be God, so the stuff about other people hailing him as God, demons calling him the Son of God, him calling himself the Messiah (not the same as God), etc. are all better off on a page about Jesus' divinity in general. The topic is the trilemma, not whether Jesus was God. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] debate over Lewis's trilemma

Why is this section so long? Lewis's argument is based on Jesus having claimed to be God. As near as historians can tell, he claimed no such thing. Why is there a debate on this topic? Even a prominent Catholic scholar has concluded that the earliest Christians didn't refer to Jesus as God. Jonathan Tweet 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with historiography knows that you can cherry-pick scholars to prove anything. The hypothesis that early Christians did not think of Jesus as divine is highly speculative, and contrary to the explicit statements in the Pauline and Johannine corpuses. Djcastel 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This section seems to have grown out of proportion because editors tend to want to discuss the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God or not; this is not the place for this discussion, which is simply about the trilemma and its critics. I am going to trim away all material which does not deal directly with Lewis's argument. Editors who want to discuss the broader question should consider taking it to Christology or Incarnation (Christianity).Rbreen 10:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I Agree with the above statement. The author of most of these sections doesn't seem to grasp the fact that you can't say "all historians" because that is just plain false. And even if there is a majority that agree with you Tweet (which I highly doubt) it doesn't make them anymore right than the historians that have another opinnion.
-Heres the point, an interpretation of an observation and a solid fact are not the same thing... --Localdistortion 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Presentation of C. S. Lewis criticism

The criticism section reads as follows.

The argument is often criticized and not taken seriously by biblical scholars. The proof is foolish. The proof is a failure because there are other options and Lewis’s logic is poor. The assumption that Jesus claims he was God is false. Many modern scholars say Jesus did not claim he was God. The Jesus Seminar agrees. Though Jesus says he is God in the Gospel of John, even conservative Christian scholars say the Gospel of John is untrustworthy. Lewis admitted this but tried to salvage his case by claiming the case is implicit in the synoptics. The proof is a failure because there are other options. Richard Dawkins thinks there is a fourth possibility that Jesus was honestly mistaken. The problem with the argument is the unreliability of the gospels.

This just doesn’t seem like a fair way to present the material at all. Notice how the possibility of “other options” and the untrustworthiness of the gospels is mentioned twice, sandwiching claims that (weekly) point otherwise. Lewis’s proof does assume that Jesus said he was God, but Lewis gives pages and pages before he presents the proof establishing this. This presentation makes it sound as if it was an after thought.

Also, saying that Jesus did not say he was God does not entail “another option”, rather it means an assumption is false (the above says both). A false assumption is different than another possible option logically follows.

The implication that “conservative” scholars admit that John is untrustworthy is certainly a faulty characterization of scholarship. If you want to say that certain scholars think John’s gospels is inaccurate, that’s one thing – but it must be acknowledged that others disagree; instead, the section just sets “conservative” scholarship (what does that mean, anyway?) up for a self-professed fall.

The entire sections looks, and reads, like an attempt to make Lewis look stupid, and that just isn’t very encyclopedic.

Lostcaesar 08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Thomas Szasz is referenced, especially at length. He's got an opinion, but I'm not sure it's notable. The rest of the section is excellent and way better than it used to be. I've been working on this page on and off for a long time, and now it has Lewis's own responses to critics, etc. Nice work. I'd still like to see it broken down into subsections. The intro paragraph is wonderful (a defender of the trilemma says that it gets criticized a lot). Then there should be a section about the trilemma's unfounded assumption (that Jesus said he was God). Then a section about the trilemma's artificial constraint of three possible explanations for the thing that might or might not have happened (Jesus claiming to be God). Putting the trilemma in the general context of Lewis's habitul misuse of logic seems appropriate. I think those two criticisms cover most of it. But more important than all of this, LC says tha Lewis establishes that Jesus claimed to be God. If that's true, then that's groundbreaking news! LC, what's Lewis's proof that Jesus claimed to be God? Jonathan Tweet 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Lewis discusses this at length before he introduces the trilemma argument, in order to support the most likely to be challenged assumption (for example, he points out how Jesus knows other’s thoughts, their past sins, and the like). Now, if someone wants to say that this assumption is nonetheless false, that's certainly an issue. But one cannot logically say that there is another possible conclusion may follow. Whether or not Jesus said he was God is an assumption of the proof, not a conclusion, so it cannot follow from the assumptions that "maybe there is another option". In other words, the proof is certainly valid - the debate is whether it is sound, and debate has centered on the assumption that Jesus said he was God. Anyway, this aside, the part about John's Gospels is very pov, because it makes it sound as if all scholars think John is unreliable history, even "conservative" scholars, which is untrue. Like I said, the section is designed to make C. S. Lewis look foolish, and in this respect its just juvenile. I’m not talking about the trilemma or whether it works or whatever, I am talking about presentation. The presentation here isn’t charitable or fair to the topic. Lostcaesar 16:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you (Tweet) have made the criticism so one sided when many other Wiki articles offer a refutation to criticisms, take a look at Dawkins' page where every criticism is answered by Dawkins.

And this is to Tweet, just because you have read a couple of works (at best) saying there are doubts of whether Jesus actually claimed to be God doesn't make those scholars right over ones that have always claimed that its unreasonable to say Jesus did not proclaim he was God. Looking at the evidence you can have many interpretations, but you don't include that these are really all just interpretations of the results.

Including Dawkins in this section is also biased because I know there are critics much more notable than Dawkins which could put forth a better argument. The argument you put from Dawkins is a painfully old one (by which I mean it had its orgins long before Dawkins used it and made it seem like he thought of it), but of course I'm not surprised you quoted Dawkins because that speaks volumes to the fact that this criticism section is clearly biased from current popular culture. Dawkins is not saying anything new which hasn't been refuted a thousand times over and the fact that Dawkins even includes that quote in his argument (and of course he does it without offering the criticisms of that idea) speaks to the ignorance he has of both theology, philosophy and apologetics in general.

I recommend that you take a look at this site http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html because there isn't enough room to go into why these criticisms are things that have been around forever and counter-refuted endless times. Nothing in this article ever mentions the history of the debate over this subject.

As for now I argue the quote from Dawkins be removed or put into context at least. Localdistortion 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why this section is tagged for Neutrality. If the focus is on Dawkins, the article itself considered as a whole contains arguments which counter it. It makes sense in the flow of the article to include this statement - especially if it is made clear that Lewis's argument can be interpreted much differently than Dawkins characterization of it. I've made a few adjustments to language, and I've removed the tag. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thats the point, it isn't made clear that the Dawkins statement is really just a barrowed idea that he uses for the purposes of his own book. It needs context and I am trying hard to find where in this "criticism section" it is said that his statement is part of an ongoing debate. Maybe if you wouldn't mind quoting from this section what you mean when you say "it is made clear that Lewis's argument can be interpreted much differently than Dawkins characterization of it" because I don't see that in this specific section. And its not "Dawkins' characterization of it" he is using an old argument without saying a word about different views. That is yet another reason why I don't understand why Dawkins' book is cited, it's a book of his personal views rather than of true scholarship (which this quote from him is evidence of).
I think a more important issue with Dawkins' quote is that it is a complete re-hash of what better minds before Dawkins have said and yet no mention is given to the people he takes the idea from. It seems asinine to me to quote the person who is in a sense quoting others. It's a second hand interpretation. I know the real reason why the author of this section included Dawkins and its because of Dawkins' recent book. But I think people tend to forget that Wikipedia is supposed to be a work of scholarship and in my opinnion it is in poor taste to quote a recent New York Times best seller over other time-tested, peer-evaluated, true acedemic articles.
On that note I'm putting the neutrality tag back on because I want it made clear to me why Dawkins, of all others, should be quoted. I think it's pretty hard to argue that someone didn't just get done reading "The God Delusion" and then decided to come into this section with their blinders on and ready to quote it as a novel idea. Isn't it painfully clear why that is not a good motive to approach any historic subject? Especially on a website which has the goal of being a good representation of an online Encyclopedia...
--Localdistortion 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
How is what you are describing a POV problem, as far as Wikipedia is concerned? It is irrelevant, for our purposes, whether Dawkins' argument is old, or new, or borrowed (or blue). Rather, a POV problem is created by putting a banner up that simply is not justified by the editing policies of the encyclopedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the section you are discussing is labeled "Criticism ...", and follows a section which clearly sets forth Lewis's argument in its proper context, the reader can be left to his own resources to decide whether Dawkins has even actually interacted with Lewis's argument (which, it's almost too obvious to need mentioning, clearly he hasn't). If the Dawkins quote is inaccurate, or inaccurately presented, then you have a reason to remove it, rather than defacing the article with a "POV" tag. Since Wikipedia gives the weight of notability to peer reviewed sources, but does not set that as the bar to which verifiability must attain, it doesn't make the section "POV" to cite his book as long as it is presented informatively rather than prejudicially: then the quote can remain without the need of the disclaimer. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I tagged it with neutrality in large part due to this statement in the Wikipedia neutrality section "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better." The point I'm trying to make is that there is absolutely no background given to Dawkins' comments specifically, and therefore I contend that using those quotes without any background does not help make the section as neutral as it could be. I do realize that Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't set a bar for verifiability, but it is not benefiting anyone if special cases (such as quoting a non-academic source) are not at the very least put into context in order to benefit those who are reading these quotes. I suggest looking at other articles where each criticism is then answered by the possible views of the other party. I'm not arguing we change the whole section to that style, only that Dawkins' comment in particular should be addressed due to the fact that this specific book was not intended for academic purposes but as an outlet for personal views. --Localdistortion 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The preferable approach to the perceived problems of this kind is to address them directly, by removing the quote, replacing it with a more suitable quote, or couching the quote appropriately (that is, informatively, without implying either criticism or endorsement). It seems to me that the problems you're talking about are in the paragraph that expresses the personal opinions of the cited authors. I tried to address the style problems in that paragraph, but I've evidently come short. A comparable problem exists in the paragraph where the "typical" opinion of Christians is referred to - it seemed appropriate to add this as a place-holder, in that context where everyone seems to be invited to share their views of things; but when the section looks more exactly as it should, this weaselly statement will also be changed or deleted. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disproportion

I believe the discussion on C.S. Lewis' trilemma disproportionate to the prominence of the authors involved. When one googles "C S Lewis", you get 2.4 Million. Peter Kreeft who is pro-Lewis receives 207,000. I've done a google on "John Hick" and got 160,000; and the other anti-Lewis writers got about the same as Hick, even less.

Presently there are three paragraphs for anti-Lewis.

There should be at least a 50:50 distribution or even a 60:40 in favor of pro-Lewis. Benedict XVI somehow mentions the dilemma in his book Jesus of Nazareth as he discussed Rabbi Neusner. And Benedict XVI receives 2 Million hits. So does Ronald Reagan. Josh Macdowell receives .5 Million.

  • Marax 00:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that we cannot make judgements about the relative importance of the authors simply on the basis of who gets the most Google hits. Google hits are a poor basis for judging notability. It doesn't matter how many hits Reagan or MacDowell get - they are not scholars, and though the fact that they use the argument is notable, their interpretations are not, especially as neither adds anything to the substance of the argument. They merely repeat it. Peter Kreeft does not develop it much, and although he has written many books they are popular apologetic works which are not referenced by scholars. John Hick and A. T. Robinson are both very highly regarded scholars. Beversluis and Craig both engage significantly with the argument, and Wilson brings a useful perspective as one of Lewis's most notable biographers. Josef Ratzinger, as an exegete rather than as Pope, is certainly notable and scholarly, and if he has a different view of the critical point in question - which is whether Jesus did in fact, claim to be God - that is worth noting. But saying that he 'somehow mentions the dilemma' suggests that he does not do so explicitly, which sounds like original research. Can you supply a citation?
The other point is that, over a long period, this article has a tendency to slip away from an explanation of the Trilemma and its position in philosophy and into a discussion about the details of the assumptions which Lewis appears to be making - whether Jesus claimed to be God, and whether the historical evidence is entirely reliable (which Lewis conceded was arguable, which is why he said he based the trilemma only on the Synoptic Gospels). These are interesting issues, but it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss them. They belong in Christology, Historicity of Jesus. We are not arguing whether these things are true, only pointing out that the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars doubt both of these points (and Hick gives numberous citations in support of his view). Rbreen 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Rbreen. :) Some clarifications to your questions. Rudolf Schnakenburg is a great biblical scholar. Hans Urs Von Balthazar is considered one of the greatest theologians of the previous century. Ratzinger describes the dilemma in Jesus of Nazareth, and shows it to be dilemma of Rabbi Neusner, as I mentioned in the reference. And it is not one small argument in the whole book, he uses up many pages even different sections to put his points forward. The whole book's main point is that Jesus brought nothing else but God, and that he is God and he is historical.
As regards the historicity issue, I only placed it there since Hick brings it up, and based on the principle of balance and proportionality, there should be a counter to what Hick says. I believe that there are many Catholic and Christian historians who defend the historicity of the texts, and since 1 out of 6 people in the world are Catholics, and since the university system was started by the Catholics in the middle ages, there are very many Christian scholars around the world whose notability might not be that accessible to North Americans or Europeans. Please also read this article here and the books of scholars it refers to some of whom are Harvard scholars. Marax 07:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the C.S. Lewis article, so that the number of google hits for "C.S. Lewis" is patently irrelevant to its notability or the notability of its critics. The trilemma is only even notable to the extent it has been received and criticised. The criticism cited establishes its notability. Now, it may be that the trilemma only ever became noted because Lewis was known as an author of popular literature: taken for itself, it is incredibly naive, and doesn't add anything original to the debate. It is, in short, rhetorics. It manages to ignore 600 years of Christian theological history as if they never existed and implicitly takes a Monophysitist position, for some reason, even though no church Lewis ever was in contact with would have held such a doctrine. Unless you are a Monophysitist, the simple "tertium non datur" of "was he God, or wasn't he?" breaks down from the start. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One thing at a time

I just made a drive by reduction of weasling. To exaggerate, what stood in the text I found was a less obvious weasle, but still a weasle of the kind, "Lewis seems to have probably believed his own speculation, given there is objective reality, and a unique sequential time-line, thus history, and that we can have knowledge of some history, despite challenges to this, that at least in principle, one can posit a concept of a historical person called Jesus, and documents that may or may not refer to this concept, but would do so, were he in fact historical."

I've spun this out to try to illustrate what can be good faith weasling. In the above I've included a whole bunch of forms of scientific and philosphical scepticism. All these forms of scepticism have reliable sources, some are broadly ignored, others are foundational to disciplines like history. It is POV and OR to include them however. Since Lewis argument does indeed imply belief that history can be reliably known from sources and that texts can be reliably interpreted, we do not need to specify these for the reader—stylistically they are redundant. Technically, such inference could also be argued to be OR. If such things are at all relevant to published discussion of Lewis, they can be sourced and mentioned at that point.

Lewis' argument does not depend logically on the historicity of the Bible, and I don't expect quality sources would suggest this. Lewis' argument is against a view held that also assumes the historicity of Jesus, viz. the he-was-a-great-moral-teacher view. Is anyone willing to go looking for a "moral teacher" source that doesn't believe Jesus to be historical? If we're allowed to infer Lewis believed the Bible to be historical, we must allow the same inference to be made of those Lewis was critiquing. Lewis does the normal thing of starting with the same assumptions as his opponents, then proceeds from those to a logical conclusion.

I can see two hopeless escape attempts from this. First one: Lewis believes the teachings of Jesus de re, where his opponents only believe them de dicto. But this is hopeless for Lewis' oppenents, because it means they have no rational basis for their claim, they think Jesus is a great teacher, without knowing what he was talking about! Those who would defend against Lewis this way do escape, but only at the cost of becoming irrational—"we don't know what he actually said, but whatever it was he said, it was great, moral teaching". A version of the same argument can be applied to those who are sceptical about the historicity of sources of Jesus' teaching. The more sceptical they are, the less rational their own position regarding calling Jesus a "great" teacher.

The other escape from Lewis' argument (that I can see) is to believe the sources of Jesus teaching in so far as it doesn't claim divinity, but to be sceptical about that part of his teaching which does indeed do so (or some superset of this, which retains enough other moral teaching to warrant the attribution of "great"). In one way this escape is fine logically, however, it has two profound weaknesses. Firstly, it is so particular that it smells of being inauthentic, what objective basis is proposed for believing the non-divinity-claiming teaching as opposed to the divinity-claiming parts? The position seems determined by an attempt to escape the Lewis challenge, rather than study of the sources themselves. Secondly, those familiar with Jesus' moral teaching will realise that it is so pervasively conflated with relating rightly to God and to Jesus himself that divinity-claims cannot be easily isolated from it. They can be, but again, doing so seems to be guided by avoiding Lewis' argument, rather than objectively evaluating the sources in a historiographical manner.

I've reworked the lead to reflect Lewis' argument as he stated it. Looking forward to the fireworks. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, nice to see you! I'm not sure I follow your argument though. (I am a bear of little brain, and long words bother me). The question is whether Lewis, as an ordinary layman of the Church of England, is accurately interpreting the Gospel accounts. His interpretation is a traditional one, but one that was becoming outdated in his time: that Jesus clearly implied a claim to be God, and believed himself to be so. As far as historicity is concerned, I don't think any part of this concerns doubts that Jesus was a historical person; the questions at issue are (a) how reliable the Gospel accounts are, as reports of the teachings of Jesus; (b) whether the teachings reported in the Gospels amount to an implicit claim to divinity; and (c) to what extent such a claim, made within the context of Second Temple Judaism, could possibly amount to the full Trinitarian position that Lewis seems to assume.
Nice to see you too, I'll interleaf a response. I'm a bear of little brain too. And big statements confuse me. What is traditional and what is outdated is a very big question, much harder than interpreting "love your neighbour as yourself", which laymen are generally presumed to be able to do for themselves. I do, at last, see where you are coming from though. You believe that at some point scholars (whether Christian or not) came to understand that, properly read, Jesus' statements in our manuscripts do not entail a claim to be God. Previous scholars like Augustine, Calvin and pretty much everyone until (date please) were overlooking X, where X allows us to definitively see Jesus made no claim to divinity. What is X please? Forgive me if I doubt your reconstruction of history here, without evidence. But I think this is beside the point.
The problem with all your points (a) to (c) is, I can't see how they are relevant. Lewis was only arguing against people who believed precisely the things you describe as traditional, but outdated. If your points (a) to (c) were correct, Lewis' argument would be perfectly rock solid and valid, but it would be irrelevant, because the people he was criticising would be wrong already by virtue of your points (a) to (c).
Would it be appropriate to go to the Isaac Newton article and sprinkle references to "assuming same inertial reference frame" throughout? It's anachronistic. If your points (a) to (c) are correct. Lewis' trilemma is of purely historical interest. Valid, but useless, 'cause premise (A) is known to be false.
Points (a) to (c) are relevant at Divinity of Jesus type articles, not here.
It's not relevant, because of the above, but I can't see Trinitarianism implied by Lewis' premise (A) (see my version of lead to article), (A) doesn't even imply Jesus was God. Those Lewis was criticising certainly didn't believe Trintarianism, they didn't believe Jesus was God. Lewis' whole argument doesn't even imply Jesus was God. The apologetic argument doesn't imply it either. Both arguments generalise, you can put any name, not just Jesus' name into them and they are valid, that's the whole point. People don't claim to be God, because no one will believe them, they'll just be considered liars or lunatics. Put David Koresh into the arguments, they still work. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Lewis was a medieval scholar, and not a New Testament one, and his views do seem to be out of keeping with the currents of his day. It's perhaps unfair to suggest (as Wilson does) that he was completely unaware of developments, since he evidently knows that GJohn was widely regarded in scholarly circles as a less authentic source for the teachings of Jesus than the Synoptics (he says somewhere that he believe his case can be based on the Synoptics alone). However, in doing so, he presents what are essentially his own views on what he sees in the Gospels - views which are not in keeping with much of modern scholarship (I may be wrong in the first part of that, although he does indeed appear to base his argument on Chesterton's and not on scholarly works, as far as I can see). The idea that Jesus implicitly claimed to be God was general in 19th Century scholarship, based I believe mainly on other sources (such as GJohn). However, there seems to be a very widespread belief among late twentieth century NT scholars that (a) the Gospels cannot simply be viewed as completely historically accurate [with, obviously, a very wide range of views between those who seem them as very largely accurate and those who see them as only somewhat accurate]; (b) Jesus' teachings do not necessarily imply a claim to divinity, and indeed, his self-understanding probably could not have encompassed the idea of full divinity; and (c) a claim to divinity, even if made, could only be meaningful as something less than the Trinitarian interpretation it was to take the early church several centuries to work out. [Forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know, and this is of course my own understanding of the situation, but I believe it is well founded; possibly you're going to show me I'm completely wrong about that, and I look forward to discovering more!]
To my reading, and I mean me as a Bible academic, but not researched up to speed for a literature review (so I rightly expect to be ignored), but anyway, to my reading, John in the form we have it is the most assertive of Jesus' divinity. Here's just the top of the google hit list for "I and the Father are one", note the Jewish reaction.
One of the fun things about the 20th century is that many atheists have studied and written about the Bible. A lot of what they write is very good, some seems biased to my Christian perspective. Actually, atheist scholars tend to say the same thing about scholars of faith, lots is good, while some seems biased. In OT studies, Jewish and Christian scholars find the same thing. By and large, there is a lot of agreement on many issues, irrespective of background. In a number of cases, divergent perspectives actually take time to resolve but often lead to deeper insights into passages (rarely, if ever, are previous insights completely rendered obsolete). My area, the Song of Songs, might be an exception, though even here, old allegorical readings actually provide one important insight, although we all agree they are fundamentally flawed.
Regarding your point (a), personally I never start by assuming the Bible to be true, historically or otherwise. Likewise, I never assume a paper or book I read about the Bible is true or false. It turns out, I've never found an error in the Bible myself (though I did find one place where the Greek OT translated incorrectly from the Hebrew, but hasn't been published yet). There are a few places where I agree with scholastic consensus about particular words where the Greek seems more reliable than the Hebrew. I nearly always find English translations to be excellent, having generally done much better than I could. But I never make decisions based on English translations.
My point here is that all four sources I work with -- Hebrew, Greek, English and Scholarship -- are regularly (but rarely) in error. I simply don't have access to anything free of error, even at the level of words. However, regarding what these words talk about, I've never found anything I can prove to be false. But then, I'm not likely to am I? I'm crazy enough to believe a virgin had a baby boy who grew up to walk on water and then walked around for 40 days after being crucified and stabbed through the heart with a spear. If I can believe that, what can't I believe?
Well, you'd be surprised. I don't believe a Greek translation of a Hebrew book can exist before the Hebrew book was written. I don't believe there were X number of Johanine communities piecing together a patchwork Wiki of a gospel unless the evidence is really good. And I don't believe that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" is uncommitted regarding the divinity of Jesus. More importantly, I don't believe there are many academics who think differently to me, I need evidence. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In that context, it seems reasonable to point out to readers that some of the assumptions Lewis makes have been challenged, and the argument that Jesus' teachings lead inevitably to an assumption of claiming divinity is seriously and widely contested either as plain wrong or at least simplistic (an opinion expressed, as I read it, by Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and a generally conservative scholar, and indeed an admirer of Lewis).
I think it's a little unfair, then to speculate that challenging Lewis's interpretation "seems to be guided by avoiding Lewis' argument". --Rbreen (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've only now read most of the article. I'm pleased to see that there is some reference to logic. I'm also pleased to see William Lane Craig cited. I'm not pleased to see writers that support Lewis refered to as apologists (implying bias) while critics are designated as having various forms of expertise.
Overall, I think the article is trying to do the right sorts of things, it just needs a little tidying, imo. Unfortunately, not only have I spent four years studying the Bible, but also four years studying logic. This makes me potentially the most insufferable kind of participant on a project like this, but I think it means I should sign up.
Now, I'm not backing off anything I've already said above, however, I think this article doesn't need to be very long to cover the topic, so there is room for exploring tangents. That's good news for compromise, there's space to work with.
What I would propose is that we look at Lewis two-fold presentation in historical context. I think that should clear up certain points. For example, the critic that suggests Lewis sets up a straw-man is absolutely correct in one sense. Lewis argument is indeed an absolute put-down, but only for a particular kind of view, and that view is actually rarer now than it was when Lewis attacked it.
Just to reinforce this point and give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I've been preaching evangelistically for about 15 years, and despite being well aware of Lewis' argument, and aware that it is logically sound, I've never once used it. The reason I haven't, is not because there are any unsound premises or whatever, the reason I don't use it is because I simply have never been preaching to the kind of people who hold the sort of view Lewis was addressing. They are rare now.
I need to check the sources and their contexts, but I think I'll find the problem is that many recent Christian writers have used Lewis' argument in inappropriate contexts. These will have been evangelistic or apologetic, hence the use of that word. It is also precisely the kind of situation that renders the argument irrelevant. Not, I would argue, for the sophisticated reasons you have advanced, but for the even more basic reason that Lewis was addressing people who considered themselves to be in a Christian tradition, without accepting the "mythology", say the divinity of Jesus or the miracles. Note how the argument depends on teaching not actions. It depends on teaching because that is what Lewis' targets actually accepted, they rejected miracles, so Lewis couldn't use them.
Lewis' point is basically saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You can't claim to be positive about Jesus and the Bible and avoid the awkward bits at the same time.
I guess another reason I'm interested in this article is I spent 17 years before becoming a Christian as a regular member of an Anglican church that included quite a few members who believed exactly the things Lewis is criticising. It's a very specific cultural phenomenon. People of English background born around 1900 had cultural ties to Christianity, but were increasingly sceptical of the supernatural elements of the faith, while wanting to express support for the moral elements, so deeply engained in English culture.
Lewis was directly challenging precisely these people, and precisely this kind of cultural issue.
If you ask me, Lewis' argument may well have contributed to helping polite English people decide it was indeed time they stopped kidding themselves. Jesus probably said a range of good things, but he did claim to be God, and that did make him pretty suspect. For all we know, Lewis probably helped a generation of Anglicans leave the church.
I hope I'm explaining this clearly. Lewis' argument is absolutely logically water-tight. It is very specific though. It addresses only a certain kind of person. Problems start if the argument is applied unmodified in other contexts. Now, whether Lewis does this in Mere Christianity I don't remember offhand. That others use it I know well from some of the sources mentioned in the article, but again, I can't remember precisely how they nuanced it.
I've already been looking for sources to explain the Anglican background to the BBC interview. But here's a shape I'd propose for the article overall.
  1. Lead -- roughly as is
  2. Radio interview in historical context
  3. Adaptation in Mere Christianity
  4. Similar arguments in history of literature
  5. Adaptations of Lewis
  6. Criticisms

(a) of general form of argument in history (b) of Lewis in particular (c) of those who've adapted Lewis

  1. Biblical texts

(a) current interpretation (b) 2 millennia of transmission (c) original composition (d) proof-texts cited

I don't think the above varies much from the current article, and it extends as far as covering the issues you've raised in discussion. I may add a brief section from standard sources on logic if the sources or editors get in too much of a tangle over the issues.
Lewis was a brilliant man, knowing Latin and Greek sources by heart for centuries either side of the NT. I think you'd find few Bible scholars around today with that kind of mastery of the cultural background. However, it is quite true that as an interpreter of the Bible and as a theologian he deviated from conservative scholarship in a number of significant places. However, he was still very conservative and so did not endorse fashionable 19th and early 20th century theories in biblical scholarship. So, in two important ways, he's not a reliable source regarding details of Bible or theology. I agree. But as far as his argument goes, I don't think we're going to find there's a substantial case against the common knowledge that Jesus claimed to be God, so it will continue to have enduring relevance.
It is going to be a little unfair when it comes to the issue of Jesus claiming to be God, because there are thousands of reliable sources in favour, and merely dozens (I'd expect) against. You have to be rigidly literalistic to avoid what Jesus is saying, but the sources will point that out.
It's great there's so much material already in the article, and there really has been an attempt to be neutral.
What do you think of the proposed restructure anyway? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Orthodox Alternative

I think we also need to keep into account the premise that led Lewis to Christianity: the truth of myth. Tolkien and (I forget the other gentleman's name) discussed at length with (then atheist) Lewis about the subjective truth of stories (myths), and how they reveal the true soul of man -- which is why they resonate. Think "Jung / Campbell / Neumann" here. Once Lewis accepted the idea that the New Testament was a "myth" (in the sense of a profound metaphorical truth) then he was able to get at the heart of that truth and embrace it as a reflection of his own soul as a human being.

In a Jungian sense (or even a Neo-Orthodox one), a person can say "Jesus is God" with absolute conviction and not necessarily mean the same thing that a fundamentalist believes. Did Lewis believe that Jesus was literally God? I'm sure he did. But he also seems to have gotten to that point through a Neo-Orthodox or Jungian window.

Although on a surface level a Christian is a Christian, the path one takes to get there will be reflected in the flexibility one can use once there. And I think this is why Lewis was so resonant in the 20th century. He spoke of Christianity with the same zest that Joseph Campbell did for myths -- with the added benefit of ultimately believing Christianity on MORE than the subjective level that Campbell had to stay in. At the same time, Lewis could speak of Christianity with the same zeal as Jerry Falwell -- with the added benefit of ultimately believing Christianity on MORE than the objective level Falwell seemed to stay in. Lewis had both, and he truly bridged the gap by finding the "Mere" heart of Christianity that was penned by apostles who believed on both objective and subjective levels.

In other words, it's one thing to say "Jesus is God" -- but what does that MEAN. I think this is what Lewis was really driving at. The liberals of his day would insist that the New Testament was mere metaphor, but never answer the question: "metaphor of WHAT?" The conservatives would insist on the literal facts but again never answer the question: "WHAT do those facts mean?" So, Lewis would posit his liar, lunatic, or lord idea. But he wouldn't stop there. Lewis would present it as a means to take both disparities to the "Mere"ness that they needed to share -- the meaning at the heart of their beliefs.

Was Lewis meaning this in order to objectively prove Jesus is God? No. He was simply trying to dismiss the pleasant dismissals of Jesus as a nice guy, but irrelevant.

Okay, for the sake of the article I'd suggest that Lewis' background be kept in mind. Lewis' Jesus is not merely "lord" on an objective level, but he is also the archetypal expression of what "lord" means to human beings, in the same way that "Aslan" is not merely a talking lion.Tim (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He was simply trying to dismiss the pleasant dismissals of Jesus as a nice guy, but irrelevant.

—Tim :)

Yes, that's exactly it. It's not just English people of the early mid 20th C that can be like this, but the English made something of an art of it. As you say, they spoiled the "myth" by pretending to appreciate it. Lewis loved it so much he pushed through to the reality on the other side of the wardrobe. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)