C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".

gaiagirl

Author C.S. Lewis once wrote that one of three situations exist:
1) Jesus was the Son of God
2) Jesus was not the Son of God, but said he was, knowing this was not true, thus making himself a liar
3) Jesus was not the Son of God, but believed he was, thus making himself insane

For C.S. Lewis, the second and third propositions were unacceptable, therefore the first situation MUST be true. However, I see a flaw in his logic here:
I propose that perhaps Jesus never did say he was the Son of God, but OTHER people writing decades after he had died said he made that claim.

Can anyone find additional flaws in C.S. Lewis argument?

R.Crusoe

Yup = he does not take account of the fact that we are all sons and daughters of god and so the statement is a fundamental necessity!

Narkissos

Hmm... what if Jesus was both the Son of God and insane, or a liar?

This kind of "logic" is only compelling to people who have already locked themselves within a narrow corridor between the common Christian expectations about what God and his relatives should be, and the common Christian fear of blasphemy.

Apologetics according to Kierkegaard (once again): the Judas kiss of stupidity.

XJW4EVR

I propose that perhaps Jesus never did say he was the Son of God, but OTHER people writing decades after he had died said he made that claim.

This statement does not follow logically. If these incorrect statements were made within decades after Jesus' death, then why didn't His followers (who would still be alive) correct the erroneous statements?

Lewis' trilemma still stands.

IP_SEC

Lewis' trilemma still stands.

Not really. They might have corrected them, they might not have. The fact that they might have does not cancel the proposition that they might not have.

The fact that Lewis' argument was logically flawed does not cancel his premise. Just his argument was flawed.

hmike

Lewis wrote at a time when, even though the miracles of Jesus were disputed by skeptics, his historical existence and words were generally accepted. In other words, Lewis proceeds from the assumption that the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus said—it's just a question of whether what he said was true or not. That is no longer a "given." Now, the words, and even the existence of Jesus, are in dispute which presents other options. Increasingly less is taken for granted, and the apologist has to go further back for a starting point.

XJW4EVR

They might have corrected them, they might not have.

Yeah, right. I guess these would be the first people not to defend their leader?

The fact that they might have does not cancel the proposition that they might not have.

This makes no sense at all.

The fact that Lewis' argument was logically flawed does not cancel his premise. Just his argument was flawed.

Lewis' argument is not logically flawed. The OP's is.

BurnTheShips

Apologetics according to Kierkegaard (once again): the Judas kiss of stupidity.

I am on the verge of ordering a Kierkegaard anthology, and also some Unamuno, which is besides the point.

Thoughts?

Unamuno seems to be a man with the same soul as mine, Kierkegaard, well I picked up a bit in college, bit only a scent.

Burn

BurnTheShips

Lewis proceeds from the assumption that the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus said—it's just a question of whether what he said was true or not. That is no longer a "given."

The Gospels are accurate in the essentials.

Burn

Rapunzel

Gaiagirl: Not to be nit-picky, but I find option number three poorly phrased and ambiguous. For option number three, you write: "Jesus was not the son of God, but believed he was, thus making himself insane." Does this mean that Jesus rendered himself - caused himself to go - insane by believing himself to be God's son even though this was not the fact? Does this mean that Jesus' delusion of believing himself to be God's son drove him to insanity?

Or do you mean that his delusion about being God's son would enable other people to classify Jesus as insane? That is to say, would Jesus' delusion about being God's son enable, or justify, other people's including him among the ranks of the insane?

And what if he had deluded himself into thinking that he was God's son? Would that necessarily constitute a basis for considering him insane? Could he not have been under the delusion of being God's son, and yet still be perfectly sane, for all that, in every other aspect of life? In other words, could others condmen him for being insane simply because he believed himself to be God's son? After all, are we not all "God's children?

Did Jesus ever specifically make the announcement that he was the son of God? Or did others make this claim about him after his death? To what extent can the Bible character named Jesus [actually, Joshua] be considered as an actual, historical personage? To what extent is he real? To what extent is he a fictional composite? To what extent is he a fictional conflation of characters in the oral tradition of that time period? To what extent does he reresent a sort of "ideal" type [or stereotype]? Assuming that there was such a personage, could he not be considered simply as an apocalyptic Jew who fell far short of the messianic expectations of his contemporaries? A very strong case could be made that Jesus did not possess the requisite qualities and characteristics of a "messiah." He led no army. There was absolutely no way that he could have delivered his fellow Jews from the yoke of the Romans' tyranny.

I think that it comes down to how you want to interpret Christian mythology. I realize that the words Christian and mythology are rarely juxtaposed so closely, but in the end, all we are left with are stories and narratives. As Narkissos ointed out, the three options that you present are not necessarily mutually exclusive if you interpret broadly enough the mythological narratives associated with the "Joshua" or "Jesus" character. And there are many narratives associated with Jesus. Moslems and Jews reject the idea that Jesus was the messianic savior. The Gnostics preached docetism - the idea that Jesus' body and his suffering on the cross were merely appearances.

C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".

Share this