Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Dicky Underpants]

That leaves us no clearer on what is meant to be wrong and stupid about the trilemma and moves us back onto you "asking ze qvestions"..I should Co Co. I think Lewis just makes the comment that parts of the new testament read like reportage indeed, I seem to recall you viewing the NT as some kind of historical fiction.

What is wrong and stupid about the 'trilemma' has been done and dusted on this forum a number of times, and doesn't really need to be revisited.
Certain parts of Paul's authenticated letters do indeed read like reportage, but unfortunately totally contradict the claims made in Acts.
Reportage in Matthew? Reads like a polishing up and over- dramatising of Mark (I wonder why?) Whether Mark is 'reportage' is debatable. John? Now there's a challenge....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is wrong and stupid about the 'trilemma' has been done and dusted on this forum a number of times, and doesn't really need to be revisited.
Certain parts of Paul's authenticated letters do indeed read like reportage, but unfortunately totally contradict the claims made in Acts.
Reportage in Matthew? Reads like a polishing up and over- dramatising of Mark (I wonder why?) Whether Mark is 'reportage' is debatable. John? Now there's a challenge....

Done and dusted. My recollection is that somebody managed to insert a fourth category which rendered the trilemma into a quadrilemma. So instead of Jesus being Mad, bad or right we have Mad, bad, right or wrong. However the principle still holds and that choice exists no matter how many euphemisms for being Mad, bad or right you put in....or you can prove me right on other things by 'dodging' the issue entirely.

On the other hand when one looks at the range of another alternatives they pretty much reduce to being Mad, bad, right or wrong. I think many atheists here think that Jesus was either a bad misleading character or at least a bit cracked by sincerely believing he was who he spoke of himself as.

I would also imagine that if it was wrong of Lewis to miss out the option of taking out the choice of Jesus being wrong. It's also wrong of his detractors to take out the option of Jesus being who he is claimed to be.

If there was anything I've left out here please feel free to include it.

[jeremyp]

Done and dusted. My recollection is that somebody managed to insert a fourth category which rendered the trilemma into a quadrilemma. So instead of Jesus being Mad, bad or right we have Mad, bad, right or wrong. However the principle still holds and that choice exists no matter how many euphemisms for being Mad, bad or right you put in....or you can prove me right on other things by 'dodging' the issue entirely.

On the other hand when one looks at the range of another alternatives they pretty much reduce to being Mad, bad, right or wrong. I think many atheists here think that Jesus was either a bad misleading character or at least a bit cracked by sincerely believing he was who he spoke of himself as.

I would also imagine that if it was wrong of Lewis to miss out the option of taking out the choice of Jesus being wrong. It's also wrong of his detractors to take out the option of Jesus being who he is claimed to be.

If there was anything I've left out here please feel free to include it.

Start a new thread. Please do derail this one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Done and dusted. My recollection is that somebody managed to insert a fourth category which rendered the trilemma into a quadrilemma. So instead of Jesus being Mad, bad or right we have Mad, bad, right or wrong. However the principle still holds and that choice exists no matter how many euphemisms for being Mad, bad or right you put in....or you can prove me right on other things by 'dodging' the issue entirely.

On the other hand when one looks at the range of another alternatives they pretty much reduce to being Mad, bad, right or wrong. I think many atheists here think that Jesus was either a bad misleading character or at least a bit cracked by sincerely believing he was who he spoke of himself as.

I would also imagine that if it was wrong of Lewis to miss out the option of taking out the choice of Jesus being wrong. It's also wrong of his detractors to take out the option of Jesus being who he is claimed to be.

If there was anything I've left out here please feel free to include it.

Nope Vlad - there are many, many other categories even if we accept the basic premise (which is completely unsubstantiated - more of this below. So we can add 'misunderstood', 'misrepresented', 'mistranslated', 'not making claims meant to be taken literally' etc, etc, etc. All are, of course, much more plausible than the dishonest and incomplete list that Lewis wants us to restrict ourselves to.

But, and this is a huge but, the basic premise in the trilemma is based on an assumption that Jesus claimed to be god. We have no evidence whatsoever that he did - all we have are writers writing decades later, who were not there at the time, claiming that he claimed to be god. And even that is disputed. So at best all we are realistically left with is the notion that people other than Jesus claimed he was god. So the trilemma (or multi-lemma as it should be) really only applies to those writers and not to Jesus himself (as we do not know what he actually said or what he actually claimed). So are the late 1stC, through to the 4thC writers correct (in other words that Jesus was god), mad, bad, or mistaken on the basis that the claims didn't happen but arose as traditions and legends over time through mistranslation, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, hyperbole, deliberately made up etc etc.

So not the trilemma is a pile of junk. For Lewis to posit it suggest that he was either thick (unable to understand its limitations), deliberately dishonest (he understood its limitations but dishonestly proposed it anyway) or deluded (so blinkered in his beliefs that he could not get beyond his faith-based presumptions that the claims in the bible are true and accurate).

So there you go - a much more robust trilemma for us to get our teeth into - Lewis - dim, dishonest or deluded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope Vlad - there are many, many other categories even if we accept the basic premise (which is completely unsubstantiated - more of this below. So we can add 'misunderstood', 'misrepresented', 'mistranslated', 'not making claims meant to be taken literally' etc, etc, etc. All are, of course, much more plausible than the dishonest and incomplete list that Lewis wants us to restrict ourselves to.

But, and this is a huge but, the basic premise in the trilemma is based on an assumption that Jesus claimed to be god. We have no evidence whatsoever that he did - all we have are writers writing decades later, who were not there at the time, claiming that he claimed to be god. And even that is disputed. So at best all we are realistically left with is the notion that people other than Jesus claimed he was god. So the trilemma (or multi-lemma as it should be) really only applies to those writers and not to Jesus himself (as we do not know what he actually said or what he actually claimed). So are the late 1stC, through to the 4thC writers correct (in other words that Jesus was god), mad, bad, or mistaken on the basis that the claims didn't happen but arose as traditions and legends over time through mistranslation, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, hyperbole, deliberately made up etc etc.

So not the trilemma is a pile of junk. For Lewis to posit it suggest that he was either thick (unable to understand its limitations), deliberately dishonest (he understood its limitations but dishonestly proposed it anyway) or deluded (so blinkered in his beliefs that he could not get beyond his faith-based presumptions that the claims in the bible are true and accurate).

So there you go - a much more robust trilemma for us to get our teeth into - Lewis - dim, dishonest or deluded.

I think we can take it that recasting the trilemma as a formal standalone piece of logic is more like the work of nerdy early 21st century atheists than Lewis himself for whom it was part of an accessible theology to be read as part of a context by mid 20th century people in the street who thought that Christianity was about cultural attendance at Church. In other words one needs to read it in context. That it may be part of a whole approach.

Your suggestion of finding new categories runs the risk of becoming merely a trawl through a thesaurus. That's why Lewis goes for the reductionist approach encouraging a focus.

Talking of which your post seems just like another exercise in flooding to submerge the possibility of the christian claims about Jesus just being right.

In summary then Lewis writes this knowing the context of scepticism about Christianity being anything more than a cultural relic a nd all your introduced categories reduce to the christian claims being either mad or bad in one way or another.......or right.

I think you might in denial over your view of wanting christianity to be eliminated...or your feeling that Christians are at the least 'slightly tapped'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think we can take it that recasting the trilemma as a formal standalone piece of logic is more like the work of nerdy early 21st century atheists than Lewis himself for whom it was part of an accessible theology to be read as part of a context by mid 20th century people in the street who thought that Christianity was about cultural attendance at Church. In other words one needs to read it in context. That it may be part of a whole approach.

Your suggestion of finding new categories runs the risk of becoming merely a trawl through a thesaurus. That's why Lewis goes for the reductionist approach encouraging a focus.

Talking of which your post seems just like another exercise in flooding to submerge the possibility of the christian claims about Jesus just being right.

In summary then Lewis writes this knowing the context of scepticism about Christianity being anything more than a cultural relic a nd all your introduced categories reduce to the christian claims being either mad or bad in one way or another.......or right.

I think you might in denial over your view of wanting christianity to be eliminated...or your feeling that Christians are at the least 'slightly tapped'.

First lets be clear - this isn't Lewis' argument at all - it had been knocking around for at least a century before Lewis posited it. And also as it had been around for a long time it had also been subject to criticism of the kind I stated for as long, and for long before Lewis' writing. So to suggest that criticism of this sort is a kind of Jonny-come-lately 21stC theme is total non-sense.

And the point about reducing options - well of course that is a reasonable thing to do for simplicity, but that isn't what Lewis does. Nope, he removes the options that don't fit with his prejudged conclusion and in doing so renders the argument logically incoherent, biased and dishonest.

Where I would agree with you is the audience - he understood that his audience were culturally christian and therefore would find it hard to conclude that Jesus was bad or mad, so by dishonestly providing only one other options (when many others are available) he forces people into his conclusion. So yet more dishonesty on his part.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the point about reducing options - well of course that is a reasonable thing to do for simplicity, but that isn't what Lewis does. Nope, he removes the options that don't fit with his prejudged conclusion and in doing so renders the argument logically incoherent, biased and dishonest.

I don't see that since it is a device used by Lewis to get people to focus while making us consider if we think Christianity is wrong that that is because it's proposers are either mentally and intellectually defective or wicked.

He is in effect forcing people on the periphery to consider where they stand rather than flooding and diluting.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see that since it is a device used by Lewis to get people to focus while making us consider if we think Christianity is wrong that that is because it's proposers are either mentally and intellectually defective or wicked.

He is in effect forcing people on the periphery to consider where they stand rather than flooding and diluting.

But he doesn't do that does he - he focusses on Jesus, not the proposers (who are let's face it unknown writers from the late 1stC to the 4thC. And he also doesn't provide the option of:

Wrong
Mistaken
Misrepresented
Mistranslated
Misinterpreted
Exaggerated
etc etc

Nope the only alternative options he provides are mad and bad.

His trilemma is logically incoherent, achingly biased and, frankly, deeply dishonest. And it isn't just me who thinks so, it is also such radical atheists as ... err ... William Lane Craig and the former Bishop of Woolwich, to name just two.

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't see that since it is a device used by Lewis to get people to focus while making us consider if we think Christianity is wrong that that is because it's proposers are either mentally and intellectually defective or wicked.

He is in effect forcing people on the periphery to consider where they stand rather than flooding and diluting.

Since the thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll just add one more brief derailment, which amplifies a point the Prof has already made (and whose arguments I agree with entirely). C.S Lewis stated in effect what was his unequivocal faith position about Jesus, and attempted to fool people into thinking that Jesus himself had made such extraordinary claims. Lewis wrote "'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". Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any claim to being God - even in John's gospel, where all his statements are allusive. In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means), and affirms Peter's perception that he is "God's anointed one" ("the son of the living God", in Matthew's gospel is obviously a later gloss). So I don't see that anyone should immediately concur with the options that Lewis foists on us. "The Christ of God" does not mean God himself. Apart from the gross fallacies of his argument, he obviously didn't know his Bible very well, and apparently nothing at all of the biblical criticism that had been around for over a hundred years, even at the time he was writing.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator note: split this from the Who wrote Matthew topic as it was as jeremyp pointed out a derail.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since the thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll just add one more brief derailment, which amplifies a point the Prof has already made (and whose arguments I agree with entirely). C.S Lewis stated in effect what was his unequivocal faith position about Jesus, and attempted to fool people into thinking that Jesus himself had made such extraordinary claims. Lewis wrote "'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". Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any claim to being God - even in John's gospel, where all his statements are allusive. In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means), and affirms Peter's perception that he is "God's anointed one" ("the son of the living God", in Matthew's gospel is obviously a later gloss). So I don't see that anyone should immediately concur with the options that Lewis foists on us. "The Christ of God" does not mean God himself. Apart from the gross fallacies of his argument, he obviously didn't know his Bible very well, and apparently nothing at all of the biblical criticism that had been around for over a hundred years, even at the time he was writing.

Exactly - so not only do we have no evidence that Jesus actually claimed to be god, we don't really have evidence that those writing much later claimed that he claimed to be god. At best there are highly ambiguous vague claimed quotes.

Which is why Lewis' trilemma is based on a fundamental deception - effectively that Jesus actually claimed to be god. We have no evidence for that at all - these claims came much, much later and few serious biblical scholars think he did claim to be god.

So if Jesus never claimed to be god then we have 1. Mad; 2. Bad, 3. God, 4. Never claimed that - to which 4 is clearly correct. We can then argue until the cows come home at to whether much later apologists who did create the deceit that Jesus claimed to be god are mad, bad or mistaken/misinterpreting/exaggerating etc etc.

So I'd like to bring us back to the more robust trilemma - was Lewis dim, dishonest or deluded?

[Gordon]

I would like to add 'twee' into the mix: I tried to read the 'Narnia' stuff many years ago but found it unbearably twee, and even as fantasy it made me cringe. As for his Christian apologetics, I read 'Man or Rabbit', and after I stopped laughing I decided that he was hugely over-rated.

[Nearly Sane]

I would like to add 'twee' into the mix: I tried to read the 'Narnia' stuff many years ago but found it unbearably twee, and even as fantasy it made me cringe. As for his Christian apologetics, I read 'Man or Rabbit', and after I stopped laughing I decided that he was hugely over-rated.

  'tweemma'?

[Gordon]

  'tweemma'?

Yep - that would cover it!

[ekim]

In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means),

I believe, in Hebrew, that expressions like 'son of'', 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of', 'brother of' are figures of speech e.g. 'father of the sea' is 'seaman', 'daughter of the city' is 'suburb', 'mother of the arm' is 'forearm'. I suspect that 'son of the blessed' means 'cheerful'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I believe, in Hebrew, that expressions like 'son of'', 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of', 'brother of' are figures of speech e.g. 'father of the sea' is 'seaman', 'daughter of the city' is 'suburb', 'mother of the arm' is 'forearm'. I suspect that 'son of the blessed' means 'cheerful'.

Which throws 'mistranslated' firmly into the mix. But again this isn't about Jesus but about those who came much later and attempted to create a narrative around his life to meet a specific agenda.

[Spud]

Since the thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll just add one more brief derailment, which amplifies a point the Prof has already made (and whose arguments I agree with entirely). C.S Lewis stated in effect what was his unequivocal faith position about Jesus, and attempted to fool people into thinking that Jesus himself had made such extraordinary claims. Lewis wrote "'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". Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any claim to being God - even in John's gospel, where all his statements are allusive. In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means), and affirms Peter's perception that he is "God's anointed one" ("the son of the living God", in Matthew's gospel is obviously a later gloss). So I don't see that anyone should immediately concur with the options that Lewis foists on us. "The Christ of God" does not mean God himself. Apart from the gross fallacies of his argument, he obviously didn't know his Bible very well, and apparently nothing at all of the biblical criticism that had been around for over a hundred years, even at the time he was writing.

Does it matter that Jesus didn't claim to be God?

Btw, I would say that Mark's phrase "son of the blessed" is secondary. Luke (22:67-70), who seems to have an independent source, and Matthew (26:63-64) both add "the son of God" to "are you the Christ". They don't copy Mark's "son of the blessed".
Where Mark has for Jesus' reply, "I am", Matthew and Luke both say "you have said so", and "from now on".
These agreements against Mark indicate that Matthew and Luke could not have been dependent on Mark.

There is also the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, which states "this is my son, my (or the) beloved". So while Jesus didn't directly claim to be God, the gospel authors said that God claimed Jesus was His beloved son. We might modify the trilemma to "mad, bad or son of God"?

[Dicky Underpants]

Does it matter that Jesus didn't claim to be God?

Btw, I would say that Mark's phrase "son of the blessed" is secondary. Luke (22:67-70), who seems to have an independent source, and Matthew (26:63-64) both add "the son of God" to "are you the Christ". They don't copy Mark's "son of the blessed".
Where Mark has for Jesus' reply, "I am", Matthew and Luke both say "you have said so", and "from now on".
These agreements against Mark indicate that Matthew and Luke could not have been dependent on Mark.

There is also the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, which states "this is my son, my (or the) beloved". So while Jesus didn't directly claim to be God, the gospel authors said that God claimed Jesus was His beloved son. We might modify the trilemma to "mad, bad or son of God"?

It matters in terms of what C.S.Lewis claimed Jesus said, and the subsequent options he maintains are forced upon us by his 'trilemma'. That is what is being discussed here.

"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."- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[ProfessorDavey]

It matters in terms of what C.S.Lewis claimed Jesus said, and the subsequent options he maintains are forced upon us by his 'trilemma'. That is what is being discussed here.

"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."- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Exactly - this issues isn't the nature of the claim - no the issue is two-fold. First that we have no credible evidence that he did make the claim (whatever that claim may be) only that later writers claimed that he made the claim (whatever that claim may be). The second problem is that Lewis disingenuously narrows explanations to three, rather the far greater number of plausible explanations (including mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood, exaggerated by later writers, made up by later writers etc etc) which are not only plausible but far more likely explanations than mad, bad or god.

[Spud]

It matters in terms of what C.S.Lewis claimed Jesus said,

I meant that even if Jesus didn't directly claim to be God (or, that he shares God's divine nature, if that is an easier way to understand it), one could still conclude that he is, based on other things he said and did, such as walking across a lake, calming a storm, rising from the dead, indirectly affirming that he is God's son etc.

and the subsequent options he maintains are forced upon us by his 'trilemma'. That is what is being discussed here.

"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."- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems to me that Dicky and Davey's objection to Lewis is he does not adequately address "Jesus as Myth" thinking...as if there is in fact anything to address there.

Yet elsewhere Lewis and around the same time, I think Sayers address the Jesus as merely a good teacher.

Setting the trilemma up as some kind of proposed scientific law just to say well actually it's a quadrilemma seems trivial but part of the pilgrimage of retreat of the God avoided.

Given that then. The "Mad"part of the trilemma covers the suspicion that the Christian claim is bonkers and mistranslation etc down to intellectual deficiency and illusion, the "Bad" part is the malpractice, deviousness, evil intent that would be behind christianity if it were bad. And the "true " part is the inevitable third option after all basis are covered.

[Gordon]

Given that then. The "Mad"part of the trilemma covers the suspicion that the Christian claim is bonkers and mistranslation etc down to intellectual deficiency and illusion, the "Bad" part is the malpractice, deviousness, evil intent that would be behind christianity if it were bad. And the "true " part is the inevitable third option after all basis are covered.

Not really: it seems to me that Lewis was using the 'mad or bad' (lunatic or liar) as possible labels to describe the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT, both of which he rejects presumably because he has already fallen for the 'lord' option hook, line and sinker. The problem is though that the texts he bases his assumptions on lack credibility because their provenance is unknown, hence the risks of mistakes or lies cannot be ignored.

Every time someone, say a cleric, says along the lines of 'Jesus taught/tells us whatever' they are merely reciting an anecdote that is not confirmed as being true or accurate: they have no way of checking, so they are at best overreaching or at worst peddling possible untruths as being historical facts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really: it seems to me that Lewis was using the 'mad or bad' (lunatic or liar) as possible labels to describe the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT, both of which he rejects presumably because he has already fallen for the 'lord' option hook, line and sinker. The problem is though that the texts he bases his assumptions on lack credibility because their provenance is unknown, hence the risks of mistakes or lies cannot be ignored.

Every time someone, say a cleric, says along the lines of 'Jesus taught/tells us whatever' they are merely reciting an anecdote that is not confirmed as being true or accurate: they have no way of checking, so they are at best overreaching or at worst peddling possible untruths as being historical facts.

I think Lewis is making the point that public atheists like yourself have fallen for the liar or lunatic scenario. You for instance are of the obvious bollocks and evil school explaining your lack of any impulse to justify yourself.

While then, Someone like yourself might be unashamedly of the liar or lunatic school, Lewis points out that one can't really hold that Jesus and Christians are merely mistaken or that Jesus was a great man deluded in his religious identity.

[Gordon]

I think Lewis is making the point that public atheists like yourself have fallen for the liar or lunatic scenario. You for instance are of the obvious bollocks and evil school explaining your lack of any impulse to justify yourself.

While then, Someone like yourself might be unashamedly of the liar or lunatic school, Lewis points out that one can't really hold that Jesus and Christians are merely mistaken or that Jesus was a great man deluded in his religious identity.

Not really, since I don't don't take Lewis seriously in the first place - I don't care for his fiction, as a matter of personal taste, but I've read some of his Christian stuff and I think on that issue he is the equivalent of a tambourine rattling buffoon on a street corner somewhere.

I understand that there is a bit in the NT where Jesus allegedly does a series of 'Blessed are the' statements (hard not to think Life of Brian here) and I can see no basis to accept that these statements were truly recorded, or actually happened - as in they are not known historical facts, even if the story chimes with some people. 

[Dicky Underpants]

It seems to me that Dicky and Davey's objection to Lewis is he does not adequately address "Jesus as Myth" thinking...as if there is in fact anything to address there.

Nar jesta cottonpickin minute! I can't speak for the Prof, but I think there's a bit of pigeonholing going on here. I don't happen to think that because so much written and thought about Jesus is speculative and unreliable there is no historical figure of Jesus at all on whom the gospels etc. were based (probably more than one, in fact). I take on board all Gordon's and the Prof's comments about mistranslation, miscopying, exaggeration, mass hallucination perhaps, and simply bad reporting. I believe there was a (mistaken) apocalyptic prophet around that time, and that some of his words and beliefs have filtered down to us in the New Testament. The essential figures in this kind of thinking are Albert Schweitzer, Bart Ehrman, E.P.Sanders and Geza Vermes.
My argument with Lewis is that he forces upon us the speculations of the original evangelists and more importantly much later theological exegesis and requires us to accept these as being unequivocal statements coming directly from Jesus himself - "he does not give us that option". Well, thank you very much Mr. Lewis, I will make up my own mind on what I consider Jesus may have required of us. I certainly can't see anything in the scriptures that suggests that calling Jesus "God" was a sine qua non.
In short, I believe Jesus was a failed and mistaken prophet, whose mission was to prepare people to adopt a different way of life, in view of the imminent intervention of God in history, which would bring about the end of the old order of things. That's just one other option, and many others have been proffered.
As for the mythologising, there was a lot of that which came along, and unfortunately it was Paul who was first on the scene to write about Jesus (as far as we know), and his epistles are almost entirely mythological creations, with a bit of social advice thrown in. The writers that followed were required to fill in the gaps