C.S. Lewis on Jesus
C.S. Lewis seems to be famous especially for two things: his Chronicles of Narnia and his theory of Jesus. According to Lewis, Jesus could only have been evil, insane, or God. Let's see how this works out.
First, how do you know Jesus wasn't evil? In Luke 9:60 Jesus said "Let the dead bury their own", apparently saying we should disrespect the dead. In Luke 14:26 he tells his disciples to "hate" their family members and in Matthew 10:34-42 he said he came to bring violence. Now, do we interpret these in the way Christians do or do we say Jesus was evil? Either interpretation is valid. He truly could have been evil. If he drove out demons, he could have done it in cooperation with them. What was his desire? Maybe just that people should worship him. And they did (and do).
Secondly, was Jesus perhaps more insane than evil? Well insanity comes in many forms. How much awareness did he have? Was he convinced he was the Messiah because of a fantasy that was confirmed in a vision? He was definitely a unique person, but the possibility is real that he had some kind of insanity or was simply a very wicked person.
Thirdly, was he perhaps God? Well what do you mean by God? Was he "a god", or maybe just an enlightened person who realized his oneness with divinity? The great Persian Sufi Mansur al-Hallaj was killed in Baghdad in 922 for asserting "I am the Truth" and (since truth is one of the 99 names of Allah) they took him to mean he thought he was God. Jesus may have been speaking about his immanent divinity, not his transcendence.
Are the Gospels history? Sure, a lot of it is. Maybe the Gospels are reliable except for the virgin birth, rising of Lazarus, the Resurrection and it's aftermath.
But what if he was resurrected? Does this prove he was God? Not necessarily, although that is one interpretation. He could have been "a god". Or the devil could have entered him and made him appear to die, just as Christians say Rasputin was near impossible to kill because of his "demons".
Did Jesus do miracles? All religions have miracles claims. That is part of what makes a religion a "religion". If I compare 30 modern paranormal events with the four accounts of an ancient person, which one do you believe? All or none? Is there any way to know? Jesus could have done miracles from the devil's power. Muslims attribute most miracles to "the Evil One", and reject the Bible as not fully canonical.
So in conclusion, maybe God doesn't want us to look for signs for the reason that we can't determine whether they come from him, the devil, or somewhere else.
First, how do you know Jesus wasn't evil? In Luke 9:60 Jesus said "Let the dead bury their own", apparently saying we should disrespect the dead. In Luke 14:26 he tells his disciples to "hate" their family members and in Matthew 10:34-42 he said he came to bring violence. Now, do we interpret these in the way Christians do or do we say Jesus was evil? Either interpretation is valid. He truly could have been evil. If he drove out demons, he could have done it in cooperation with them. What was his desire? Maybe just that people should worship him. And they did (and do).
Secondly, was Jesus perhaps more insane than evil? Well insanity comes in many forms. How much awareness did he have? Was he convinced he was the Messiah because of a fantasy that was confirmed in a vision? He was definitely a unique person, but the possibility is real that he had some kind of insanity or was simply a very wicked person.
Thirdly, was he perhaps God? Well what do you mean by God? Was he "a god", or maybe just an enlightened person who realized his oneness with divinity? The great Persian Sufi Mansur al-Hallaj was killed in Baghdad in 922 for asserting "I am the Truth" and (since truth is one of the 99 names of Allah) they took him to mean he thought he was God. Jesus may have been speaking about his immanent divinity, not his transcendence.
Are the Gospels history? Sure, a lot of it is. Maybe the Gospels are reliable except for the virgin birth, rising of Lazarus, the Resurrection and it's aftermath.
But what if he was resurrected? Does this prove he was God? Not necessarily, although that is one interpretation. He could have been "a god". Or the devil could have entered him and made him appear to die, just as Christians say Rasputin was near impossible to kill because of his "demons".
Did Jesus do miracles? All religions have miracles claims. That is part of what makes a religion a "religion". If I compare 30 modern paranormal events with the four accounts of an ancient person, which one do you believe? All or none? Is there any way to know? Jesus could have done miracles from the devil's power. Muslims attribute most miracles to "the Evil One", and reject the Bible as not fully canonical.
So in conclusion, maybe God doesn't want us to look for signs for the reason that we can't determine whether they come from him, the devil, or somewhere else.
Comments (37)
It's fascinating to me that you look at Lewis's 3 possible categories. If you haven't read Mere Christianity by Lewis, I certainly recommend it. Especially since you are provided the necessary underpinnings of the Christian religion. Your question, "Is Jesus evil" I would argue is opposed to virtue and offers that he is not God, (if God is good) or that God is evil. The latter is consistent with Christ's claim that "I and the Father are one". Assuming then, the existence of God, which you seem to imply, I would argue further that God is not evil. This of course is proposed by the natural theology of humanity. We as a collective argue that the Good, True and Beautiful are something to imitate/aspire to. Not Evil, Falsehood, and Ugliness. So then, if Jesus is God then he is good by nature of his deity.
As for the scriptural quotes you mentioned, there are far better scholars than myself to consider. However, my simple understanding of these passages is that they emphasize the call to discipleship, by way of hyperbole. You will see this literary device in many New Testament passages, and I do not blame you for being mistaken by them.
It's shameless to put your sins on God, who would never become man. Jesus was a normal man who did strange things. It was his disciples who put divinity in his mouth as he had put himself in their through communion
You assume Christian theology is not convoluted against common sense
There is not much we can know for sure about ancient times.
Or he didn't exist, at least as depicted.
A bit sick of inane theological threads.
1) by saying God can become man
2) by believing in the resurrection of all human bodies
Human bodies change every atom every 7 years so you don't have one body throughout your life. Nobody gets a body back. They go to heaven or hell based on their merits, not Jesus's merits. He was just a man and to say God can become man annihilates the world by taking away the infinite gap between the world and God.
C.S. Lewis was a boring writer and knew nothing of philosophy. He knew nothing about philosophy. He has nothing to offer anyone and should have known better
Part of the problem with CS Lewis is he only gave us three options. A fourth one would be that Jesus was a character in some apocalyptical religious traditions. We know there were many gospels and only 4 were chosen during a charged political process. We do not know who wrote the gospels and we know they were written many years after the events they supposedly describe. Mark being the oldest at around 65CE. The gospels are claims made - fan fiction if you like. We can't make any conclusions about an actual person.
Well then I apologize to you. I have a lot of notes on the computer with various ideas on many topics and these ideas I had written down from a long time ago
I don’t honestly know where to start. There are so many assumed axioms in both camps.
Lewis' trilemma is a variation of Credo quia absurdum.
Quoting Gregory
Then maybe you should return the disfavor ...
Quoting baker
Whether I conceptualize God as a reality that my brain creates or someone out there, there really isn't any difference. It's two sides of the same idea. The claim that God became man and died for our sins is the most ridiculous theology that a human can conceptualize. Since it can't be proven otherwise, any interpretation of the Gospels is possible. The Christian interpretation is based on specific philosophical ideas, all of which are wrong
Pre-Christian Zoroastrian scriptures have their highest God telling their prophet: "Verily, when I created Mithra, the Lord of Wide Pastures, I created him as worthy of sacrifice, as worthy as prayer, as my self- Ahura Mazda." Very Christian phraseology. Mythra was adopted as the god of the Roman soldiers, and this Roman religion held Sundays to be sacred, held virgin birth as sacred, and had a religious sacred meal. Early Christian writers such as Augustine, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Julius Firmicus Maternus were worried that people would say Christianity took ideas from the Romans and therefore contended that the devil knew Christianity was coming and mocked it with imitations before it arrived. Any religion that makes arguments like that is flawed .
But above all of this, ancient history is quite the guessing game. We don't live in that era. Since language changes every generation, it is impossible to know if any of these documents have been properly translated. If you went back in time, you might not be able to even properly communicate with ancient people. Historians are always coming out with new interpretations, none of which can be confirmed by experiments (like in physics). Wikipedia mentions that "Two extant letters between Heraclitus and Darius I, which are quoted by Diogenes Laërtius, are later forgeries". Yet Diogenes Laërtius was very respected in the ancient world (so it appears) We have the word "hypocrite" which means the opposite of the how it is used in the phrase "Hippocratic oath", and Sophia supposedly meant wise (they say) but "sophist" were unwise, yet their title means literally "he who becomes wise". So no one can make perfect sense of that period of history. It was simply too long ago (WAY to long ago)
Some feel a strong connection to ancient times, and become Jews, Muslims, Mormons, or Christians. They all have their spiritual claims, and in "my book" Christianity alone stands out as absurd
Only the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as claiming to be God. it's odd that the other Gospels did not. One would think their authors would have thought that claim of some significance, if it had been made, and would have noted it. The Gospel of John was the last Gospel written, based on what is known. By then the astonishing process by which it came to be claimed Jesus was God had begun. Lewis' argument that this claim supposedly made establishes Jesus was God, like his others, are merely glib.
I'm aware of the fact that apologists maintain that the fact Jesus was God was implied in other Gospels, but am unimpressed by those claims.
In the case of some New Testament verses you say...
Quoting Gregory
Later on you generally conclude...
Quoting Gregory
It seems that in both cases you are assuming that either interpretation is equal because of one of two possibilities. Either both interpretations have equal evidence, or both interpretations have no evidence at all. I think you lean towards the second possibility, but correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think the first possibility is even a possibility anyways because how can you judge evidence as exactly equal, unless it is equally nonexistent?
When it comes to interpreting texts in general, but also ancient texts in particular, I have heard it said many times that it is difficult or impossible. But none of those times did I hear those words from someone who actually has the job of translating texts. Those whose job it is to translate texts often have disagreements about how it should be done, but I have never heard them say that it cannot or should not be done.
I admittedly do not have the knowledge or time to disagree with each of your individual points of interpretation. I can only say that there is definitely evidence that supports interpretations, either for or against any given interpretation. People do not say Jesus is God or God is good without any reason. Nor do people say God is evil without reasons. There is historical evidence, textual evidence, personal experience and the like to be discovered. It all starts with the evidence. A view that there is no evidence is a view that will go nowhere.
Scholars who interpret ancient text assume some probability as to what are best interpretations, but basing your life on these interpretations is basing your life on something very shallow. When someone understands that Christian philosophy is unsound, other interpretations of history start making sense
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
I agree. There is definitely a level of probability there. Almost nothing is certain. Interpreting ancient texts is far from certain. However, now that you have claimed that you believe Christian philosophy is unsound, and by extension that there is more evidence for one interpretation over the other, I would ask you to present the evidence.
My challenge is mostly rhetorical, since I don't expect you to have any evidence on hand, as I certainly do not have any evidence on hand for either interpretation. My point is mostly this. You seem to have come to the conclusion that the common Christian interpretation is wrong. You doubted that interpretation because it seemed weak to you. But have you been so critical of the side you changed to? Can you say that your new interpretation of Christianity is any different? I feel like we have returned to the realm of no evidence for either side, unless you do in fact have better reasons for being against the common Christian interpretation than for.
Christian theology is expressed by Pope John Paul II as "justice serving mercy". The concept of God dying is that God would give his merits in his blood into other people souls, who would partake of the divine nature by being a new creation with someone else's merits as their own. That's a very quirky, lopsided theology, don't you agree?
There are some quirky aspects to Christian theology, I will admit, but I am not sure I see what you are seeing. I will also say that an apparently quirky and lopsided theology is not necessarily untrue. It is common in stories we tell, and also was a belief of the Jews at the time of Christ, that a God is all about power. However, if Jesus's life and sacrifice tells us anything, it's that God is about giving up power. I would say our free will, if you believe us to have it, is also evidence towards this point. Even though he has all power, he takes this seemingly strange route to our redemption. It is not forced on us, and it is not without a cost to himself. Strange indeed. But untrue? I don't think so. Revelatory is more like it.
Nop taking on God's merits to become God by God becoming man is absurd. If that's not absurd nothing is.
I pity Jesus's death because he was a man like me. If he were God I would have no reaction to his suffering because the whole situation would just be absurd.
Could not God have arranged that people are like Mary and obtain heaven sinless and perfect on their merits? The Bible says "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" but Christians adopt the shameless position of having pity on God (never a good idea) in order to enter heaven, although unworthy, by someone's else's merits. Do you accept this dogma? In this thread I've offered alternative ways of seeing the opacity of ancient text in light of common sense and true philosophy. We can't know anything with certainty about Jesus, but looking at the Gospels with a desire to be saved without considering philosophy and how those matters work is going to end in believing something as silly as Family Guy. I don't take Christian philosophy seriously
It's not like the Christians care how they stand in your book.
Sad that Jesus has, even after 2000 years, failed to convince people that there's a god despite all that he had to go through. Jesus, to me, is a synonym of futility; so much painstaking effort - miracle after miracle, death by crucifixion - and, quite literally, nothing, absolutely nothing, to show for it. We're not just debating the veracity of his deeds but in fact whether such a person even existed.
That out of the way, let's discuss C. S. Lewis's trilemma - evil OR insane OR god?
I'm sure Jesus was being sincere and did what he did in good faith. Unfortunately or fortunately, the seed of peace he thought he sowed - his teachings - became the seed of discord - wars (crusades), persecutions (Spanish Inquisition) and other events that can't be included in a children's book. Now that I realize, this should be used as test for whether any religion is actually good or not. Simply imagine writing a children's book on that religion - the more that has to be left out, the more dubious the religion is. The Children's Book Test. So, does Christianity pass this test? You decide.
Was Jesus insane? Depends on one's worldview. To a dyed-in-the-wool materialist-atheist, he definitely would come across as someone who's lost touch with reality. The diagnosis, of course, would be ambiguous with uncertainty as to whether Jesus was insane or inane. People of other persuasions would have an entirely different opinion though.
Was Jesus god? God would've done a better job of conveying his message of love and peace, right? That said, they say (whisper) "god works in mysterious ways".
Of course they do
Yes, the different degrees of insanity and "evil" and combinations of the two are not considered by Lewis. He makes it far too black and white. How can we even properly imagine a "perfect person", let alone believe such existed in history
I should add that he also said God had abandoned him
Ye they are nerdy werdo's with a homo fetish for Jim Caviezel
Also, Hypatia is an interesting case of a figure who's story was latter changed into a story about Christian martyr with an almost identical story line. Legends change
Lastly, here are many examples like the following (I come across these all the time now that my radar for them is up): doctors practice their skills at medicine to get a profession, but only then are they said to have a practice. Isn't that strange language? If I see a barber shop that says "Kelly's shop", we here in American society know there likely is no "Kelly" but instead it's just a title for the place. But if an archaeologist in the future saw this, he would assume the closest Kelly who lived in the vicinity owned that barber shop. So that's just more reasoning on how interpreting ancient texts is very uncertain.