Jesus Christ: A Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? The Logic of Lewis's Trilemma
"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 or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - Mere Christianity, pg. 54-55
I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. I personally enjoy it but there are much better arguments in my opinion; Justin Martyr provided an argument steeped in the Logos. If any philosopher preached something like this (or equivalent to it) then they were, in his eyes, "Unknowing Christians" that foretold the coming of Christ because the Logos is Christ and likewise the Logos originates with God. One could apply this rationale to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Heraclitus just as we could apply it to a myriad of other philosophers of antiquity. What does everyone think? Lewis is without a doubt one of the greatest apologists and a good writer but his trilemma seems to be based upon his own subjective experience in coming to terms with Christianity.
I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. I personally enjoy it but there are much better arguments in my opinion; Justin Martyr provided an argument steeped in the Logos. If any philosopher preached something like this (or equivalent to it) then they were, in his eyes, "Unknowing Christians" that foretold the coming of Christ because the Logos is Christ and likewise the Logos originates with God. One could apply this rationale to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Heraclitus just as we could apply it to a myriad of other philosophers of antiquity. What does everyone think? Lewis is without a doubt one of the greatest apologists and a good writer but his trilemma seems to be based upon his own subjective experience in coming to terms with Christianity.
Comments (132)
The following makes Lewis' argument a non-starter.
As documented in the Four Gospels, while He walked the Earth Jesus never claimed to be God. Wherein Jesus claims to be literally God.
Yes, He claimed to be a "son of God". But He called for everyone to become "sons of God" as He was a son of God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9).
It's a theme that runs throughout the gospel preached by Jesus. For example, someone "born from above" IS someone "born of the spirit [of God]" IS someone who has God as their Father IS a "son" of God.
Yes, He claimed to be "one" with God. But He called for everyone to become "one" with God as He was "one" with God.
I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.
(John 17:20-23)
Jesus repeatedly makes a clear distinction between Himself and God. As but a couple of examples:
"He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me." (John 12:44-45)
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." (John 14:10)
I've yet to have seen a cogent argument that Jesus claimed to be God while He walked the Earth. Can you make one?
Weak sauce. His argument begins with a questionable assumption that a mere mortal could not be a great moral teacher.
Whether Christ existed or not his image and the words attributed to him have shaped the ages.
Quoting 180 Proof
Liar, Lunatic, Lord or Legend?
Legend.
A liar, eh? Do you mean to imply that to do good requires deception of some kind?
Good assumption! It's the same kind of logic in Cotard's delusion - I couldn't possibly have survived thaaat! (a major accident); ergo I don't exist.
So obviously circular that CS Lewis couldn't have written it because he was a smart guy. But it seems obvious to me that CS Lewis did write it, so however strange or unlikely it is that it's not circular nonsense, I have to accept that it's actually a great argument. QED, Jesus was and is God.
By whose standards? I might be able to pick a random bear in the woods as a moral teacher if the cult I was born into taught it so.
It's as if the crux of your argument is that you believe Lewis to be "smart guy" therefore it's a "great argument" therefore "Jesus was and is God". This despite your assessment that it be "strange or unlikely it is that it's not circular nonsense". In the words of John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious".
Demonstration by parody.
Glad to hear it. Seemed most likely what you were going for, but not knowing whether or not you're Christian...
Why was C.S. Lewis so anti-historical in his analysis of the Gospels? The problem with ancient writers is they wrote fan fiction and people were and still are allowed to take it seriously as if it is documented history of what the person written about said and did.
By "seriously" I take you to mean "literally" for all intents and purposes. The Bible is steeped in allegory, metaphor and other uses of figurative language. Unfortunately, many Christians seem to believe that taking the Bible "seriously" entails taking it largely "literally". That said, there is much wisdom contained in the Bible which should be taken seriously - particularly the gospel preached by Jesus much of which is remarkably deep and profound all things considered. This should not be confused with the Pauline "gospel" that serves as the basis for Christianity.
I guess what I mean by this is that it seems like C.S. Lewis did not at all mention the modern understanding of the Bible at least since Spinoza, which deconstructs it into its historical context. That is to say, you can't understand Confucious really unless you understand what China was going through in the 500s BCE. The same with Jesus in Judea ruled under the Romans.
Then we must understand the literary style of the Gospels and compare it to the Greco-Roman literature of the time and see where things were borrowed.. So you have two layers...
The substratum which is the historical Jesus, ever interpreted and re-interpreted, and then the Gospel writers who were Greek-speaking elites (maybe Hellenistic Jews, but definitely Hellenistic, and probably only Judaic-adjacent, and not Jewish proper). How does a resurrecting son of god compare with other Greek literature? How does a god-man who has a "last supper" before death sharing blood and body compare to literature (like the Satyricon)? How does this differ from the probability of what an actual Galilean Jew may have said and did 40-70 years earlier than the when the Gospel writers wrote their fanfiction of Jesus (the man), turning him into more of Christ (reinterpreted to having a meaning of a literal "son of God")? Anyways, this type of academic analysis should have been familiar to Lewis being a scholar of his time. But he clearly chose to frame things as an oversimplistic dichotomy of those who think Jesus just a "moral teacher" and those who take the Gospels as if they are, um, gospel.
I say it's a false trichotomy. Jesus could have been a great human teacher, and also not a liar, and also deluded that he was God's son. That would mean he said and thought wild things but that not everything he said and thought was wild. That would put in him the same bracket as many great people. "Either Newton was a great scientist or he thought there might be a way of making gold out of base metal." Well, both. "Either Conan Doyle was an inspiration for forensic science or he believed in fairies." Again, both. "Either Pythagoras was a brilliant mathematician or he thought that beans have souls." Both again. Lewis's trick is rhetorically persuasive but does not have a logical basis.
Actually Jesus can largely be understood without understanding the historical context. To be clear, I am speaking of the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth as documented in the Four Gospels as opposed to the mythology the NT writers wrapped around them. I agree that the historical context should be considered when attempting to understand that mythology.
Also I suspect that you didn't read my first post on this thread which can be found at the following:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
In what way do you believe Jesus "continues to be the leader of a billion or so people"? Christianity follows the Pauline gospel rather than the gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth.
Plus there's the fact that while He walked the Earth, Jesus never claimed to be God.
Jesus, by degrees of separation, is the moral leader of about a billion adherents worldwide. Degrees of separation are to be expected from someone who died thousands of years ago.
What Jesus claimed and didn't claim I have no idea about, I'm just responding to the quote.
It's not a matter of "degrees of separation". Christianity does not have the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth as its foundation. If it did, then your assertion about "degrees of separation" would be reasonable. But it doesn't. I can understand your confusion given the number of Christians who call Jesus "Lord" and themselves "followers of Jesus". Paul of Tarsus is the "leader" of Christianity by "degrees of separation". Perhaps this is another thing that you "have no idea about"?
Jesus is known through his apostles. This is well known. When I say people follow Jesus as leader I refer to this well known and accepted fact. Degrees of separation are Jesus-Paul-scribe-translator-king james version- local church pastor - worshipper. It's accepted by all they are getting someone else's version of Jesus.
If you are talking about the gospels, no one knows who wrote them. They are written many years after the events depicted and by anonymous writers. Mark being the earliest at around 60 years later. Subsequent tradition gave the books/gospels names. In most Bibles there is even a note about the text explaining this point. We literally have no contemporary account of whoever it is that may have inspired the Jesus myths.
For all intents and purposes, the underlying concepts of the Pauline gospel are antithetical to the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus. As such, it's absurd to include Jesus in the line from "Paul-scribe-translator-king james version- local church pastor - worshipper". I'm hardly the first to have come to that conclusion.
Consider the following:
[quote]"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart." - Thomas Jefferson to William Short, Monticello, 13 April 1820[1]
Pasted from
I'm feeling kind of sorry for wading into this one. All I know about this topic is that I know nothing.
The gospel preached by Jesus is remarkably complex problem domain if you're interesting in analyzing such things. By and large, I find the gospel preached by Jesus to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within itself. I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they can merely echo His words. At worst, they deviate from His words and at times substantially so.
It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. Anyone who doesn't accept them will reject the premises that Jesus made the statements.
The problem with setting the trilemma up as the only choices, is that all of the testimonial evidence, as to what Jesus actually said, is second-hand or hearsay, so it's very weak by definition. We actually don't know what Jesus said, because we don't know how reliable the second-hand testimony is. Of course if you believe that the words of the Bible are inspired by God, then your beliefs about the claims of Jesus, as given by the writers of the NT, will be governed by those beliefs. The trilemma only works if you believe the testimonial evidence is accurate.
If someone claimed to be God, he may not be a lunatic, he may just be delusional (you could argue that being delusional is a mental illness), or a good liar. Of course many Christians would respond that these options are not appropriate given that he performed miracles (supposedly), and rose from the dead (supposedly). The problem, again, is that the testimonial evidence is too weak, and the counter-evidence is enormous, i.e., our experiences run counter to people coming back to life after three days in a grave. You would need an enormous amount of testimonial evidence from a variety of sources, including extra-Biblical sources, to support such a belief, and we just don't have that kind of evidence.
Since you responded as if you believe that Jesus claimed to be God, can you address the following which I posted earlier?
Quoting ThinkOfOne
How did you come to that conclusion? I said, we don't know what Jesus actually said, because the testimonial evidence is too weak.
Based on the following:
Quoting Sam26
While we don't know that Jesus necessarily said what was attributed to Him, there's no compelling reason to believe that He necessarily did not. I've always found that argument really weak. The argument seems to be, "If we don't know that He necessarily said it, then there's no point in discussing anything that was attributed to Him". If that's an acceptable argument, then that argument could be used for many a historical figure.
Ya, "IF" he said it, but I have no strong evidence/reasons to conclude that he did say it, other than very weak testimonial evidence.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Why are you framing the argument in such absolute terms? I sure didn't frame it that way. Even if there was strong testimonial evidence to support that Jesus said X, Y, or Z, that doesn't support the idea that Jesus said it necessarily. The argument is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments don't give us conclusions that follow necessarily, only deductive arguments do that. So, again, it's not about what Jesus said necessarily. It's about what he probably said, or didn't say. If it was true that that is what I was implying, then I would agree, but it's not what I was implying.
The idea that Jesus is divine is paganism. Jesus would have been appalled and outraged.
Quoting Sam26
Actually you wrote "IF" He claimed it. Not "IF" He said it.
Quoting Sam26
The point you seemed to miss is that even "probably said" cannot be reasonably determined from the available evidence.
Obviously if Jesus claimed that he was God, then he said it, or at least implied it.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
That's my point. We can't reasonably conclude that Jesus said X, Y, or Z based on the testimonial evidence. It's just too weak. Geez, I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp.
You also seem to fail to grasp the distinction between "said" and "claimed". "claimed" implies that He said it. Not the other way around.
Yours is a common response from those who find themselves unable to reasonably back up their arguments. Classic.
How is it reasonable for you to say "I could [say the] same about you" when you're the only one who said "Well, we just disagree. I'll leave it at that"? Whatever your "background in logic" it isn't as good as you seem to believe it is. You seem to lose track of context.
That said, tell you what. Since you've been "analyzing these arguments for about 47 years" why don't you actually address what I asked you to address earlier instead of trying to find reasons for not addressing it?
BTW, I'm not a Christian. I never have been a Christian. You are correct that most Christians aren't good at defending their beliefs. It's also been my experience that former Christians aren't good at defending their beliefs either. As I once told a Christian friend of mine (now ex-Christian), "You think that things are true simply because you believe them". Took her a long time to admit it. She still often does it. Seems to be a side-effect of having been a Christian for over 40 years. Seems to be applicable to you.
Sure I can. A few pages later he comes back from the dead. Hardly seems a credible book to take literally -- so it's reasonable to conclude Jesus didn't say anything, given that it's a fantastical text written by fervent people and pasted together as a political convenience.
You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words. When Jesus spoke of things such as "giving sight to the blind", "raising the dead" being being "born from above" (resurrection) and so on, they were said figuratively. The NT writers made them literal acts as corny as it is.
Says the guy who side-stepped addressing the following:
"How is it reasonable for you to say "I could [say the] same about you" when you're the only one who said "Well, we just disagree".
Sorry, but you've made one bad argument after another. I point them out, you side-step them or address them in disingenuous ways.
How do you disentangle the two? Are you referring to the findings of phase 1 of the Jesus Seminars?
The most obvious problem with trying to separate the mythology of NT writers is that any talk of God, whether it was said by Jesus or not, is mythology.
There is another problem that you have avoided. Your interest does not seem to be in what Jesus said but with subjecting his words to a tortured reading that turns them into what you want them to say while ignoring the words themselves.
In the main it's really quite simple:
1) The writers of the four gospels were pretty good about introducing the words attribute to Jesus. Typically they supply introductory words such as, "So Jesus said..." and follow it by they words that are attributed to Him. Most modern translations put quotation marks around those words, though quotation marks are present in the original Greek text.
2) The rest falls outside of the words attributed to Jesus.
That's the basic idea anyway, though there is a bit more to it.
So when Jesus says in John:
Are they words attributed to Jesus or the mythology?
Those would be words attributed to Jesus.
Right, but are part of John's mythology wrapped around the words attributed to him.
Let's see if you can make a cogent case.
That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth.
Lewis did not give us much choice. Lunatic, Demon from Hell, Liar, or Lord. God was not one of the options (Lord means feudal superior in my books.) Well, he was not a feudal lord, that's for sure. He was not demon, that's for sure. He was not a Lunatic, and he was not a Liar.
What's wrong with this: He was a carpenter, a rabbi and a preacher. He was a rebel who thought outside the box. He was an optimist and a bleeding-heart Liberal. He was a reformer, and therefore a heretic. He was a criminal.
Since Jesus insisted that the myths he pushed are real, he MAY have been a lunatic or a liar. I dunno.
:100: :up: :cheer:
I don't know if Jesus thought he was the or a messiah. Perhaps the role was pushed on him by those who wished it were true. Perhaps he came to believe it. Perhaps he saw it as an expedient.
One thing is clear, although John's Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels have a common thread, the Messiah, they are not the same Jesus.
i get you.
That said, what did Jesus say?
Please, no cherry picking now saying "this is truly said by Jesus, that is not likely said by Jesus". I go by all he is claimed to have said, he actually said, or very close to it, so the semantic sense would not be altered by the potential paraphrasing by the scribes of the Gospels.
- he promised to return within a hundred years.
- he promised a bunch of things unverifiable by the living as they pertained to the afterlife.
He sounds like a politician. Maybe he was a liar, then.
So there were at least three Jesuses.
I buy that.
Jesus is speaking figuratively. Once again you take it literally. A theme that runs throughout the four gospels is that Jesus speaks figuratively and some take it literally no matter how absurd it is for them to do so. Why do you insist on doing so?
I go by the directive that what the Gospels say are not necessarily falsification of what Jesus said, and by your statement, that Jesus declarations as follow are myths.
Quoting Fooloso4Quoting Fooloso4
What my point is, is that it is irrelevant for my argument whether Jesus thought he was the Messiah. My point is that he pushed a myth, nevertheless, with or else without insisting that he was the Messiah; and pushing myths that are obviously not true is done through liying, deceiving, stupidity, or insanity.
Woo, hoo!!!
You can't judge a man's utterances two thousand years later as to the intent behind the words. I reject this notion you made.
If you accept what you say, then every impossible thing Jesus said is "figurative", and only those that we accept today are literal.
I call bullshit.
The bullshit I described here above is the backbone and the only and last refuge for the faithful to believe the Gospels.
Okay, even if we were to accept your rather weak argument, that it is figurative, it is still a myth. You can't go around that. Whether it's figurative or literal, it is a myth.
So what does he mean by these figures of speech? What is he actually claiming?
There's much more to it than this, but at it's most basic it can be thought of as a simple word puzzle.
John 14
6Jesus *said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.
"I" = "Me" = Jesus
Jesus = "the way, the truth and the life".
Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]".
It's a simple substitution puzzle.
If by "he" you mean the character in the gospels, then yes, he pushed a myth. What I am speculating about is the man behind the myths. How much of what is said are things he actually said and how much is a myth pushed on him. I don't think we can answer this question, but I think to a greater or lesser extent he became the ventriloquist's dummy.
And, as you say, the way, the truth, the life = Jesus. You have not said anything that is not evident in the statement from John. You have not identified what is figurative in the statement. It is a straightforward claim. Calling it figurative is a smokescreen.
Quoting Fooloso4
Do you really not understand the difference between "literal" and "figurative"?
You took Jesus to be saying that He is literally "the way". He isn't literally "the way", He is figuratively "the way".
And what does this mean?
A figure of speech is not without meaning.
Sorry, but you still don't seem to understand. There are many types of figurative language.
For example:
"Time is money" is figurative language.
Time is not literally money.
Time is figuratively money.
In the same way:
When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" it was to supply an equivalency the be employed in what immediately follows.
Jesus is not literally "the way, the truth and the life", but you took it that way.
Jesus is only figuratively "the way, the truth and the life".
The meaning of "I" is NOT the physical person.
The meaning of "I" is "the way, the truth and the life".
"the way" isn't figurative any more than "money" is figurative.
That equivalency is then employed in "no one comes to the father except for me" which is also figurative.
The meaning of "me" is NOT the physical person.
The meaning of "me" is "the way, the truth and the life".
It's basically a figurative language two-fer.
Here's a pertinent example:
Strawman -
A strawman is not literally a man made of straw.
It is a device used as an attempt to avoid addressing the argument by setting up another in order to knock it down.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
So, the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life?
Another pertinent example:
Begging the question -
It does not mean literally to supplicate the question.
It means to answer a question in a way that leaves the question unanswered.
The question remains: what is the way, the truth and the life? A tautology does not provide an answer.
I've been reading the NT lately and I agree with Lewis's point. It's a shame that so many in this thread have tried to bypass it by saying insubstantial excuses along the lines of "oh well we don't really know whether JC existed" or "well how do we know those are the real quotes?" We're philosophers here, give the document a bit of a charity. It wouldn't even matter if the person of Immanuel Kant never existed if we have his work. We'd just deal with the ideas. That's how we should treat the ideas in the NT.
JC has many ideas but when I read him as someone who grew up w/ a Jewish background what strikes me first is how he puts love center stage in a tradition with many values. Jews love to debate and it's a hard to reach anything firm -- or rather Judaism will only be firm over a few limited issues; JC is firm and he speaks with an insane degree of certainty on matters no human should know.
Also what I love about JC is how he says in Mark "I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners." The sinful Jews are on the bottom of the totem pole so why not jump ship?
Right, and he cites the Hebrew Bible as his authority:
Quoting Moses
As do philosophers. Talmud is similar to dialect. Both are methods of inquiry based on weighing one claim against another. Jesus proved to be a skillful practitioner.
It often goes unnoticed how polemical the gospels are in response to each other. In addition, there were the debates over canonical NT texts and Council at Nicaea, which debated the ontological status of Jesus.
Quoting Moses
As the insane often do. It is easy to make someone speak with certainty when the writer controls the narrative.
I did not say that "the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life" or anything of the kind.
You've reached an illogical conclusion. You've once again failed to understand.
Once again,
"I am the way, the truth and the life" is an equivalency just as "Time is money" is an equivalency.
Jesus is figuratively 'the way'" in the same way that time is figuratively "money".
They both employ figurative language. What part of that don't you understand?
Quoting Fooloso4
That's not the question you asked. You asked for the meaning of "He is figuratively 'the way'" which is what I provided. If you would have asked me that question, I would have answered it.
To top it off, you make false accusations about a "straw man" and "begging the question". You're really something.
Sure, but what's different about Jesus is how he prioritizes. Love is the most important commandment. Normal Jews don't speak with such certainty but Jesus is no normal Jew. Personally, I believe that on our death beds it is love that ultimately matters. Love is ultimately what matters in the universe.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't delve too deep into Christology I don't think we're ever going to understand it.
Quoting Fooloso4
The first time I read the NT I read JC as a disgusting false messiah. Then I read him again and he just got too many issues right: I love how he places love center stage, I love how he calls the sinner (what is a badly sinning Jew like myself to do?), I believe he's correct in that the Sabbath was made for man (and not man for the Sabbath). Also huge is his vision of a society where the servant is the master. He is a stunning visionary. The Torah says "an eye for an eye" (which is justified) but Jesus says "turn the other cheek" which is the next step -- that is ideal behavior, but *certainly* not always advisable. It takes a higher level of being. If the Law is the cake, JC is the frosting.
It is really quite simple: truth by decree.
Looks more like an equivocation.
If someone asks what "time is money" means, it can easily be explained. You have yet to explain what "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." means. You say only that it is meant figuratively. To say that "time is money" is a figure of speech tells us nothing. As an equivalence, to say "I am the way, the truth and the life" is a figure of speech tells us nothing.
Here is another pertinent example of figurative language:
Smokescreen -
An obfuscation.
Once again, a figure of speech has a meaning. That meaning is not that it is a figure of speech or an equivalency. What is the meaning of Jesus saying: "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?
My thoughts exactly. Excellent point on Kant. What really matters are the underlying concepts conveyed by the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth.
Quoting Moses
Jesus came to call sinners to righteousness much like the later OT prophets. God wants loyalty. Loyalty entails being righteous. The righteous do not sin. According to the gospel preached by Jesus, salvation, living in the Kingdom of God, eternal life all require that one be righteous.
Of course, Jesus also conveyed a different understanding from the OT as to what is and what is not righteous.
Evidently you're going to continue to ignore what I write in order to go off on irrational rants. More's the pity. You're free to pull it together at anytime.
Judaism and Christianity understand righteousness differently. Judaism understands righteousness through the lens of ethical conduct (i.e. action.) I am not quite familiar with how Christians understand the term.
Judaism has always been a religion focused on action over belief (or more generally it prioritizes the external over the internal.) If Jesus was initially preaching within Jewish communities his focus on the sinners is brilliant because the righteous believe that they're already saved due to their good deeds. The Jewish sinners have nothing to lose especially if they're already low on the social totem pole in addition to bleak afterlife prospects. His focus on them is brilliant.
It's still not entirely clear to me how one is saved under Christianity.
:snicker:
More obfuscation.
You are unable to explain the meaning of what Jesus is alleged to have said in this passage from John. So much for your "extraordinary" understanding of the teachings of Jesus.
There is a classic comedy theme that goes all the way back to the Greek comic poets. It is about what ensues when someone wildly overestimates their own abilities. Thanks for the laughs.
Just so you know, I am not and have never been a "Christian".
Christianity has the gospel taught by Paul as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus. Perhaps the following will help shed light on a key difference:
My understanding is that the above quote comes from Soren Kierkegaard, though I've never confirmed it. Here too what's of importance are the concepts conveyed. I should also add that while Kierkegaard "fixes attention" on "imitating Christ", the gospel preached by Jesus "fixes attention" on understanding, believing, keeping and ultimately "abiding" in the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel.
So, I was speaking of how the gospel preached by Jesus views righteousness and salvation rather than the views of "Christianity".
"Keeping" and "abiding" in Jesus' words focuses on "ethical conduct (i.e. action)". They are righteous. The righteous NEVER commit sin. "Abiding" in His word connotes actually "living" His words. Another way to think of it is that Jesus calls everyone to become "one with God" as He was "one with God". The focus increasingly becomes on producing more and more "good deeds" so to speak.
I'm not familiar with this first topic.
Sure, and there were debates over canonical OT texts as well. Man chooses what is canon. Not everything in the canon is absolutely essential or of equal importance. Some books are more authoritative than others.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
You seem to be talking about Christianity from a more modern social perspective. From a theological and philosophical perspective I see nothing wrong with a Christianity that clings to the word of Jesus and disregards those of Paul. One could hold that view and still call oneself a Christian. I'm lukewarm on Paul but he was undoubtedly influential but I don't think anyone can call Paul infallible. I'm familiar with anti-Paul views but I don't hate the man. I'd be interested to know in what way he perverts the word of Jesus. Your dispute is with the compilers of the canon.
Yeshua, the apocalyptic reformer becomes Jesus, Son of God whose death and resurrection "saves" you under Paul. That's it in a nutshell.
My speculation is Yeshua the man was a moderate sensation as a miracle-worker (mainly healer) in the Galilee, a student of John the Baptist, and probably had some ties with Pharisees (mainly of a Hillel-influenced variety). He may have even learned about Prophets and Law through Pharisees (probably the only ones in the Galilee with that kind of knowledge and literacy of Hebrew proper and not just Aramaic), who knows. He had disagreement with (other?) Pharisees, but picked up the apocalypticism of groups like the Essenes and pre-Zealots (Zealots as a party did not arise until much closer to the start of the Jewish-Roman War of 66 CE).
Paul did not know Yeshua. Rather, he knew of him and claimed to have a revelation on the road to Damascus where the already dead Jesus spoke to him and told him the "real" version of what his death and resurrection meant. To Paul, his life wasn't even that important. Rather, it was that his death was a replacement for the Torah, thus introducing mystery-cult ideas into the movement and putting it further away from its original roots in Jesus/John the Baptist's/James? (the brother of Jesus) interpretation of Mosaic law.
Pirkei Avot is a compilation of Jewish ethical teachings from around year 0. I recommend it and the teachings are sensible, often practical. The ethical/social teachings of Jesus are a different animal. In one stanza you have him yelling at a tree while in the next he's preaching very classy, advanced social behavior. He has one definitive vision of what society should be and goes all in with it. I think Jesus would have killed it with woman if he wanted to. In short the OT often presents what is justified; Jesus presents the ideal that one should execute if social conditions are right (turning the other cheek will do you no good in a Mad Max world). It's the combination of brilliance juxtaposed by seeming insanity that draws me in.
For me the jury is still out for Paul. He is a man and therefore not infallible. We could save a discussion on him for another time as I have already matched your length.
The Church Fathers, on their own authority decided what books were authoritative. For some scholars the concern is with texts that were excluded, texts that were condemned, declared heretical, and banned. The Gospel of Thomas is quite different than the canonical gospels. It consists of sayings of Jesus.
Quoting Moses
The problem with this is that Paul's influence is all over the gospels, both those that are sympathetic and those that are antithetic. Unless it can be determined what Jesus actually said we cannot say what is the word of Jesus. Here we return to the intertextual disputes and the suppression of texts based on self-appointed authority of the Church Fathers.
But not everyone is concerned with such things. For some it is simply a matter of the sayings that resonate with them, regardless or alleged authenticity. I recommend you read the Gospel of Thomas. Translations are available free online.
Sure, one could hold that view and call oneself Christian, but Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, does not have the gospel preached by Jesus as its foundation. The underlying concepts are worlds apart. It would likely lead to misunderstanding.
As to the dispute being with the compilers of the canon, seems like the compilers of the canon determined would have chosen what is consistent with beliefs already held. Beliefs based on the epistles of Paul and the other books of the NT which were already influenced by Paul.
As to the corruption of the words of Jesus, that's a really large topic. So let's narrow it to one aspect of the gospel preached by Jesus: The Righteous vs the Unrighteous.
According to the gospel preached by Jesus:
There is a lot that needs to be unpacked in what's been sketched out above. Hopefully you'll give it a thorough reading. Let's discuss it, then I'll move onto the corrupting influences of Paul. Comments? Questions?
I'm new to NT, but for me I just accept that there's some things we'll never know, such as what Jesus's last words on the cross were -- especially if there's contradictions between gospels. I'm more focused on his general ethical/social teachings, particularly ones that appear in several Gospels + gThomas. If the teaching appears in multiple places I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that JC preached it. There do appear to be common threads. If something is mentioned only once I would tend to view it as less authoritative. It's similar to the Hebrew Bible -- if something is mentioned several times it's likely of greater importance.
Jesus paints an ideal. Perhaps in an ideal world the righteous among us, with their pure hearts and proper means and perfect environment, never sin -- but in the actual world "all [have] sinned" (Romans 5:12). We see the universality of sin in the OT too; King David is as righteous as a king can be but he is not perfect. I consider David's moral imperfection one of the core truths of the OT that no one is perfect. I see Jesus's strength as a visionary. It's like he paints a picture for us and we run towards it despite the difficulties of the world.
I guess in this sense I'm somewhat sympathetic to Paul in his view that the material world brings us down, and it even seem to have perhaps vague roots in JC: "the flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing." I find Paul to be a complex figure. Did he ever demand his teachings be treated as authoritative or was he just writing letters with his ideas that were later established as authoritative by the compilers of canon?
It is generally assumed that in such cases there was a common source or sources, such as Q, from which the gospel stories were taken. Whether the source was Jesus himself is another matter.
During the early Jesus movement writing gospels was a common practice. They were based in large part on inspiration, what was believed to be the indwelling of spirit. The Church Fathers, seeking to establish a unified Catholic or universal Church, put an end to that.
In both letters to the Corinthians, he presents the Spirit he has introduced to the congregations as higher than the law required for participation in Jewish communities.
Your question goes to the larger result of Paul only knowing Jesus through visions but claiming to be a witness at the same time.
Many years ago I took a course to learn Greek (I think it was soon after the gospels were written), but soon after my attention way pulled in a different direction and did not practice enough to become proficient. I forgot most of what I learned. I did purchase the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon and was able to consult it to look up terms and phrases that seemed important.
Now I usually use biblehub.com and biblegateway.com. They provide several different translations, including Young's Literal Translation. Bible Hub also has a tab that gives you the Greek term and English together as well as a concordance and commentaries.
What a curious response.
You made the following request:
"I'd be interested to know in what way he perverts the word of Jesus."
My post was in order to begin to fulfill that request. In order to show how Paul "perverts the word of Jesus", it is logical to first establish what the word of Jesus says. My post was in order to do that.
Whether or not you believe Jesus is a different matter.
Whether or not Paul believed Jesus is a different matter.
Even more illogically, how is it not wrongheaded for you to cite Paul in support of your unbelief, given the context?
Also you've taken ""the flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing" out of context.
Matthew 26
Keep watching and praying, that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
In context, it's a reminder to be vigilant.
What's more, even IF no one has never sinned, how does that demonstrate that no one is capable of ceasing to commit sin?"
Kierkegaard was correct in saying, "Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ".
"Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ". - Kierkegaard
I think a discussion about the overall theme of the New Testament would be interesting. Yes, Paul acted as Jesus's "spokesman" who may have acted as if he had gotten the Good News better than Sts. Peter or John did. However what's interesting about St. Paul is that he puts an emphasis on the subjective human experience of what Christlikeness really is. For example:
"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." (Galatians 6:14)
"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?" (Colossians 2:20)
"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." (Galatians 2:20)
The overall theme of the New Testament is in my opinion a rebellion against nihilism and Paul definitely gets into that. This rings true in the gospels; in the gospels Jesus says "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). But I feel some fellow Christians forget what the Christianity of the New Testament really is. In the era of nihilism that we live in it would do people some good to look at Christianity not as a fear mongering religion; believe me I cannot stand some clergy that preach fear from the pulpit. New Testament Christianity is that the individual ultimately stands alone before God searching for answers in an imperfect world that doesn't make much sense. To give a take on most modern "Christians" who either reduce everything to "being a nice person" or fall in love with an organization (i.e. calling oneself a Traditionalist Catholic, being a diehard follower of Benny Hinn or Franklin Graham, etc), Kierkegaard wrote in Attack Upon Christendom the following:
"The greatest danger to Christianity is, I contend, not heresies, heterodoxies, not atheists, not profane secularism no, but the kind of orthodoxy which is cordial drivel, mediocrity with a dash of sugar. In every way it has come to this that what one now calls Christianity is precisely what Christ came to abolish."
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
Me: Most unfortunate.
What made kierkegaard suspicious I wonder? He saw something was not quite right in the accounts of Jesus' deeds & words in scriptures. He's, sadly/not, quite dead.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
:sad:
All fires, no matter how vast or how intense, will go out in due course of time. The Christianity of today maybe the dying embers of a once magnificent flame that lit up the world. A passing fad, that's what everything is - they're all the rage one day and just a has-been the next. Fashion, metaphorically speaking.
[quote=Heraclitus]Panta rhei.[/quote]
Nevertheless, Christianity seems to be going strong, it is the largest religious denomination in the world. Part of the reason why could be that it has adapted to the times and has become "the kind of orthodoxy which is cordial drivel, mediocrity with a dash of sugar." Felix culpa (the fall saves).
[quote=William Cowper]God moves in a mysterious way.[/quote]
What if someone who is righteous stumbles? Is this precluded when you claim?:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
But presumably it is possible if one must remain vigilant because the flesh is weak.
If someone who is righteous does stumble are they then unrighteous? And if they repent are they then once again righteous? Is there something like a three strike rule?
The problem is with your strict dichotomy:
If the righteous NEVER sin then none of us are righteous. It is, according to 1 John, not through us but by forgiveness that we are without sin. John is here closer to Paul than to Matthew or Mark.
Some regard Paul's teachings as a form of nihilism. For example, your quote above:
Quoting Dermot Griffin
As in many other places, Paul is contrasting the natural world, the cosmos, with the spiritual life promised.
The problem is, the promise was not fulfilled, as he had expected, during his lifetime or in the next generation or in any generation since then.
Another example. Paul claimed that man is a slave to sin, powerless and in need of God's grace in order to be saved.
In the spirit of what I quoted from Kierkegaard, seems like it calls for instead is an analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus. How it is the " the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ".
The gospel preached by Jesus can be found in the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Some years ago, I had a series of discussions with a retired pastor regarding the gospel preached by Jesus. As part of those discussions, I noticed that he would often force Jesus' words into the gospel taught by Paul and others influenced by Paul - no matter how awkward the fit. He acknowledged that he did so. So I issued him the following challenge: that he set aside his beliefs and read the words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist. To allow the words spoken by Jesus to speak for themselves. He said that he didn't think himself capable of doing so. Do you think yourself capable? If so, are you willing to work through analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus.
Rather than discuss this here I will create a new discussion thread for the topic. Interested to get into what the real gospel could be (or is).
Looking forward to it. After you've created the new thread, please post a note here.
Quoting Fooloso4
It seems we're always taking some leap of faith whenever we view history. Maybe the source was Jesus but the teaching was misheard or miswritten. Or maybe the source was not Jesus but it was remembered perfectly. I do appreciate how the Church fathers allowed contradictions such as Jesus's last words to make it in. You've certainly studied this area more than me: Do you think there any teachings in other gospels that you think were intentionally barred from canon or teachings that contradict major teachings in the synoptic gospels? Thank you for directing me to gThomas.
First let me know what you found questionable as to it being a part of Jesus' message.
Also, just how familiar are you with the teachings of Paul? For some reason I was thinking that you had a reasonably firm grasp on the teachings of Paul and had ideas about what the Pauline message was about.
1. Certum est quia impossibile.
2. Credo quia absurdum[/quote]
Essentially, I believe it because it is a lie!
Here is a nice brief overview from the perspective of five scholars. At the bottom there is a link to a statement by
Another scholar.
One thing that emerges is that the canon has more to do with the preferences of the Christian communities themselves than with any attempt to establish historical accuracy. This is an important point that is not well understood. The standards and practices of contemporary historians were not the standard practices of gospel writers. The "true" teachings of Jesus did not mean a historical determination of what he actually said and did. It is rather revealing the meaning of his teaching as they understood it, which meant the creation of accounts (logoi) about what he said and did.
New discussion forum is up titled "The Real Meaning of the Gospel."
You indicated that the plan was to discuss the following in the new thread you were creating:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
The OP seems to be about something very different. What happened?
This specific discussion was supposed to be geared at the overall logic of Lewis's trilemma (and I think most of us think that it is flawed including myself). Perhaps I could've titled the new forum something a little more "academic" but the conversations that have been flowing with these past two discussions have been interesting. If you (or anyone else) have ideas about discussion topics for the future please let me know. I have one idea in particular but I don't think I would get much discussion because of the topic.
Lewis omits an obvious alternative: legend. Not necessarily that Jesus is entirely legend but that what has come down to us is mostly legend. Just as even if a man named Clark Kent once existed who was exceptionally strong and worked for a newspaper, Superman would still be a legend. The Romans may have executed someone named Jesus who preached. They may have executed 100 men named Jesus who preached. This alternative says it doesn't matter, the picture of Jesus in the gospels is mostly legend.
P.S. Justin Martyr also wrote: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." Justin lived from 100 to 165, and the quote is from chapter twenty-one of his First Apology.
Jesus = the Roman "son of Jupiter" who became the figurehead of Rome's official religion?
P.P.S. "Jesus" is a Roman name like Marcus, Brutus, etc. Hm.
I had understood the topic of this thread.
You seem to have misunderstood my previous post.
You had indicated that you were going to create a new thread to discuss the following topic. You then indicated that you entitled the new thread "The Real Meaning of the Gospel". However, the OP for "The Real Meaning of the Gospel" was about something very different from the following:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
If JC is a man he is absolutely batshit insane.
I agree with most of it -- the first 4 parts are fine. I get a little skeptical when you tell me that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" about the righteous being "resurrected." I'm not sure where this is in the Gospels. I suppose it isn't a major point if the general theme is righteousness = life and sin = death.
I wouldn't say I'm a Paul expert but I have read the entire NT. There are many components to Jesus' Gospels and many themes so any sort of analysis/commentary of the Gospels will surely add things or amplify certain aspects and Paul certainly does this, the question is whether this counts as "perverting" or "contaminating" the Gospel. IMHO the core of the religion, as I understand it, is Jesus' teaching on the greatest commandment -- love God and then love your neighbor as yourself. Other Jesus themes: Simplicity, acceptance, anti-materialism, hierarchy reversal, greatest leader as greatest servant, and others -- but love trumps all.
The Romans clearly saw Jesus as something else entirely. Rebels were crucified, so were murderers and thieves (Dismas & Gestas) I believe. The tetralemma then is: Was Jesus a murderer, a rebel or a thief or worse? :chin:
As to how the gospel preached by Jesus was corrupted, maybe it will help to highlight the underlying concepts of the main line.
To lend perspective, the underlying concepts of Isaiah 1:11-20 and Ezekiel 18:27-32:
No more substitutionary atonement. God wants loyalty.
Make yourselves righteous. Cease to sin. Make yourselves clean.
Making oneself righteous is the standard for repentance.
There is a direct line to the underlying concepts of the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus as it builds upon the above:
Jesus came to light the way for the unrighteous to make themselves righteous by ceasing to sin. It's about transformation: from a "bad tree" to a "good tree"; from a "slave" to a "son"; from one "born of the flesh" to one "born of the spirit".
The unrighteous who make themselves righteous have made themselves clean. They have been "saved".
Being righteous is required to have eternal life /to live in the Kingdom.
Making oneself righteous is the standard for repentance.
The underlying concepts of the main line of the Pauline gospel:
Everyone has sinned.
No one can make themselves righteous.
Therefore, everyone needs the substitutionary atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to make them clean.
Faith in this substitutionary atonement is required to be made clean / to be "saved" / to have eternal life / to live in the Kingdom.
Making oneself righteous is not the standard for repentance.
Paul abandoned the direct line from the underlying concepts of Isaiah 1:11-20 and Ezekiel 18:27-32 to the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus and went off in a completely different direction. For all intents and purposes the underlying concepts of the main line of the Pauline gospel are antithetical to the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus.
There are many other ways of course, but
What do you have in mind here?
I mean if he is not God/divine some of his teachings are way out of line, such as his teaching in John 6 that he requires his followers to consume him to attain everlasting life.
As so often happened while Jesus preached His gospel, Jesus used metaphor and the listeners (including the disciples) take it literally and don't understand what He is saying.
Jesus first attempted to explain the metaphor as follows:
John 6
32Jesus then said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.
After the disciples still do not understand, Jesus explicitly gives what He means by the "bread of God":
John 6
63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.
The "bread of God" which gives "life to the world" are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel. His words are what give "life to the world". As He so often did, Jesus returned to this theme repeatedly. For example:
John 8
"34Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
" 31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
"36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. "
" 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.
John 12
48He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. 50I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.
Thoughts on the above?
I was also hoping to get your thoughts on my earlier post:
[quote="ThinkOfOne;742026"]