About

303 thoughts on “About”

1. William,

   Based on your last response I see that you are still trying to apply Lewis’ argument in a way that it was never intended. Key to Lewis’ point are the divine claims Jesus made about Himself. If Jesus did not make such claims then the “trilemma” as it’s called does not apply.

   As for your last question, Jesus would never tell anyone to do what you suggest as it would be antithetical to his teaching and to his own life.

   LikeLike

2. ”A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.”

   those were Lewis’ words, correct? are you certain that it is me who is misunderstanding is Lewis.

   and secondly, although a bit off point, if Jesus is the same as God, and God ordered his people to kill villages of women, childrena nd men, then maybe jesus did… but that is really apart from our CS Lewis discussion.

   LikeLike

3. William,

   The “sort of things Jesus said” are the divine claims Jesus made about himself – not just his moral teachings.

   LikeLike

4. Mike,

   I refuse to accept the premise of Lewis’ argument. For it to make any logical sense one must accept the post-fourth century image of Jesus. I don’t and most NT scholars don’t. The theological Jesus of the early church has obscured the historical Jesus. Concerning Jesus, theology and historicity have become so interwoven that it is difficult to separate the two without distorting the basic accepted portrayal of Jesus among scholars and pew-sitters. In actuality, I believe that is exactly what the early Fathers wanted to do: make Jesus arrive and exit in the flesh. Any dissenting opinion became heresy, which rooted out Gnostics and docetists–this may have been the primary motivation of the early Church in the formation of the canon. For the early Fathers, Jesus being human was much more important then Jesus being historical.

   Additionally, the Gospels make no explicit argument for the historicity of Jesus. Even Paul remains remarkably silent on many historical markers, although Paul does seem to just assume Jesus’ historicity and that is in the background, to a certain extent, of his writings. And this background assumption of Jesus’ historicity does seem to be the case throughout the NT, which seems to find its strongest case for Jesus’ historicity among the early Christians in the crucifixion and resurrection. As I previously mentioned, the early Fathers were less concerned with a historical Jesus and more concerned with a fully human Jesus. Indeed, it is precisely this concern and stress on proving Jesus’ humanness without mitigating the miracles that accompanied his humanness that created or fueled the first speculation about whether Jesus existed historically at all. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the Gospels are not the proof of Jesus’ historicity but the theological matrix out of which the first suspicions about it arose.

   Also, merely proving a man named Jesus existed is not sufficient in proving the veracity of Lewis’ argument or Christianity for that matter. We must know which Jesus lived: the peasant farmer or the Galilean bandit; the magician or the preacher of wisdom; the apocalyptic preacher or the Messiah; the Gnostic Jesus or the Jesus of Arius or Marcion? Lewis seems to forget that there are many different versions of Jesus both historically and theologically. For Lewis’ argument to be logical there must only be enough historical and theological room for the Messiah version of Jesus and that is just not historically accurate or reasonable.

   LikeLike

5. that’s right… so are you saying that CS Lewis was basically saying that immoral lies are not moral teachings? if that’s all he was getting at then he only pointed out the obvious.

   And if he were only trying to say that a claim is either true or false (as in Jesus was Lord, Lunatic, or Liar), then there was no reason to make such an obvious remark. Of course the bible was either accurate or inaccurate about what jesus said.

   CS Lewis then goes on to say that because if it were a lie (lies being immoral) that jesus could not be a teacher morality. I agree, it’s a silly claim, nevertheless it’s a claim CS Lewsi made.

   LikeLike

6. Persto,

   Lewis’ argument has nothing to do with post-fourth-century views. It simply reads and reacts to the New Testament documents. If these documents reliably reflect Jesus’ teaching, then Lewis’ logic follows inexorably.

   If you want to say, as Nate does, that the New Testament documents are not reliable and therefore that Jesus did not actually make any divine claims, then you can say Lewis’ argument doesn’t apply. But I think then that you and Nate just face a different dilemma which is justifying which parts of the documents you deem to be true and which you deem to be false.

   I find it much simpler (a la Occam’s Razor) to accept or reject them at face value much as I would a batch of letters recovered from Civil War days between various members of the Confederacy.

   LikeLike

7. William,

   Lewis himself stated the goal of his argument: “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.” Lewis may have been pointing out what should have been obvious, but it wasn’t obvious to everyone – which is why he had to point it out. It was a point I did not see until Lewis pointed it out to me. And it is a point that Nate, by his own admission, did not see until Lewis pointed it out to him. That Nate does not currently share my faith in Jesus is proof that one can see the validity of Lewis’ argument without believing that Jesus is Lord.

   LikeLike

8. Mike,

   If these documents reliably reflect Jesus’ teaching, then Lewis’ logic follows inexorably.

   Yes you are correct, but my point is that there are better arguments for the historicity of Jesus than how he is portrayed in the Gospels. Lewis’ argument only makes sense from one unreliable perspective and I would prefer an argument that makes sense from a variety of perspectives. Now, I know Lewis only intended to discredit the acceptance of the ‘Jesus as a moral teacher and not Lord’ contention. But I am unwilling to grant him that concession because we do not know enough about Jesus one way or the other to make any absolute pronouncement on his disposition. Lewis’ argument does not prove Jesus is Lord, perhaps that was not his intention either, it only highlights the post-fourth century theology that is the framework for the NT. The early Fathers believed Jesus was fully god and fully man or you were a heretic. Lewis believed Jesus was fully god and fully man or Jesus was a lunatic.

   ‘The canon does not arise as a spontaneous development, any more than Christian orthodoxy emerges as a single deposit in a bank account–to use an image from the second century. The canon is the regulation of sources that supported a growing consensus about who Jesus was, or rather, what was to be believed about him. If not a majority, then a significant, well-organized, and powerful minority of voices found his complete and total humanity a non-negotiable criterion for believing the right thing about him. They found their support for this view in a fairly small number of sources that they believed dated from apostolic times.

   Every Christian after the fourth century has held and continues to hold an eerily similar view about Jesus: He was fully human and fully god, he lived, died, and rose again, and belief in the Trinity. That, Mike, is post-fourth century theology.

   Additionally, if belief in Jesus is to be argued historically we have to read the Gospels differently than the way the Gospels are written. Normally, to prove the existence of a historical person you would have records, reports, artifacts, or writings of other people who mention that person in specific occurrences. We do not have that. What we have are the writings of people who had very specific and self-interested reasons for portraying Jesus in a certain way. And this portrayal differs markedly from the writings of histories by the Romans in the second and third century. For this reason, scholars have admitted for a long time the problem of deriving Jesus from the Gospels or Paul or any NT writing for that matter. I am not saying the Gospels are entirely fabricated. Just that the line between the supernatural and reality is not always obvious in ancient writings. Just look at Homer or Herodotus. So, if one is going to prove the historicity of Jesus that individual must read the bible differently than the way the bible was written. That person must attempt to separate fact from myth and attempt to create a plausible framework for the historicity of Jesus, which would be markedly different from the explanations of Jesus in the NT. You see when doing history you cannot assent to the miraculous, so more probable explanations must be offered. And that is not how the Gospels read.

   Mike, you cannot read the NT the way you are proposing because you would not read Herodotus that way, and that is a work of ‘history.’ Even if you accept the basic reliability of the Gospels like N.T Wright early Church theology is still the framework for the NT, and the Jesus the NT portrays is certainly different from the one that actually existed. There is a historical Jesus and a theological Jesus and even they do not align.

   Finally, comparing private Civil War correspondence between members of the Confederacy with the Gospels is the most absurd comparison I have heard yet. If we had private correspondence between the apostles and eyewitness reports the task of deciphering the historical Jesus would be much easier. It would also be easier if the reports we do have were not written for very specific and self-interested reasons that differ greatly from Roman histories of that period. Mike, if NT scholars read the Gospels your way they would be doing theology.

   Regards

   LikeLike

9. In that first paragraph it should not say post-fourth century theology, but early Church theology. Got a little to post-fourth century crazy.

   LikeLike

10. Mike,

    It seems you agree with the fact that it is logically possible that Jesus may have never spoken all of the words attributed to him. I understand you think it unlikely, but that really is another totally huge and separate discussion. But the fact that Lewis left this out as an option is a logically valid critique of Lewis’ reasoning.

    I agree that if Jesus did say “I am God” then he was either delusional, lying, or correct regarding that specific statement. You also seem to agree that it is possible for a person who is wrong about a statement like that to teach about other things that actually are decent. You might not want to follow that person because you think they are nutty regarding the statement about being God, but it is certainly possible that they can teach things that are decent.

    William is correct that Lewis goes on to use his argument to say much more than what you quote him to say. Lewis goes on to say: “This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. 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.” This is the conclusion that I don’t see following from everything you have been writing, and my points above and what I wrote before I believe show why that is the case. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking his argument, I simply see flaws in the reasoning.

    LikeLike

11. Persto,

    I don’t subscribe to the Trinity.

    I don’t believe that Jesus claimed to be God, but I do believe that He is God. (The Second Coming of Christ occurred sometime late in the first century, after all the NT documents were written, and that was when Jesus’ identity as God was revealed. That is, the Second Coming was a spiritual, not a physical, event.)

    Your approach to reading the NT documents sounds unnecessarily complicated to me. These documents were all internal to a first-century, Mediterranean-wide social movement. They have to be read in that context. Though scholars vary widely in their beliefs about who wrote which books of the NT and when, there is a broad consensus that seven letters (Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Th, and Phile) were written by Paul between 50 and 60 A.D. These seven letters include confessions and hymns in wide use which give us visibility into Christianity as it was understood in its earliest period: 30-50 A.D. Thus fourth-century views – or even second-century views for that matter – are superfluous.

    These earliest disciples held certain common beliefs. The letters allude to these beliefs but seldom spell them out because the letters were exchanged between believers – they were not written to convince unbelievers. Therefore, to read them as an unbeliever expecting to find an “FAQ for skeptics” is to invite disappointment.

    These documents demonstrate that there was a significant number of intelligent Jews, and an increasing number of Gentiles, who, within 15-20 years of the life of Christ, believed that he had been raised from the dead according to the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah. The question you have to ask yourself is, “Why did they believe this when so many other people didn’t?”

    LikeLike

12. Howie,

    An argument is valid if it serves its stated purpose. To criticize it because it doesn’t serve every purpose is like criticizing a can opener because it does not also open bottles.

    Lewis’ argument effectively addresses the issue it raises: that is, the inherent contradiction in praising as a great human teacher someone who went around telling people things like “Before Abraham was born, I am.” For other issues, Lewis has other arguments. To find out what those arguments are, and whether or not they are as effective as this one, you’ll either have to engage directly with his writings or find someone more knowledgeable about his body of work than I am.

    As for Lewis’ follow-on point that he decided that Jesus was not a liar or lunatic but rather Lord, I came to the same conclusion. I get that you don’t think this conclusion is required by the preceding argument, and I agree. Although Lewis does’t flesh it out, there is a separate argument required for this choice of the three alternatives his argument spelled out. I have not tried to make that separate argument in this thread. That’s why when Nate said he got Lewis’ point, I simply acknowledged it without pressing him further. Effective dialogue requires that we pause occasionally to digest what agreements we’ve achieved, however modest they might seem to others.

    LikeLike

13. Lewis’ argument effectively addresses the issue it raises: that is, the inherent contradiction in praising as a great human teacher someone who went around telling people things like “Before Abraham was born, I am.”

    This is the only point I don’t really agree with, and it’s what I’ve tried to illustrate with my pope example. So let me try another:

    John Nash (the subject in A Beautiful Mind is a brilliant economist and mathematician, but he’s also a paranoid schizophrenic that sees people who aren’t there. Nevertheless, we’ve still learned some very important things from him: game theory is perhaps the most significant.

    So in my opinion, if Jesus really had been delusional, but also encouraged people to care for those less fortunate, etc, then we can still see the value of his teachings regardless of his delusion. This is the problem that I think the rest of us have been stating with Lewis’s trilemma. It doesn’t allow for distinctions like this; instead it tries to limit the possibilities to only 3 extremes. I do think he still makes a good point that should be considered — but I don’t think it’s an iron-clad argument, because more than 3 possibilities exist.

    As far as the accuracy of the earliest NT writings is concerned, it’s true that we don’t really know when or why the first disciples began believing that Jesus rose from the dead. But to me, this is just like asking why the earliest Mormons believed Joseph Smith or why the first Branch Davidians believed David Koresh.

    LikeLike

14. Nate,

    A student could attend a John Nash lecture on mathematics without necessarily being exposed to his schizophrenia, but Jesus’ teaching about morality, God, and himself were inseparable. For Jesus, morality was based on a right attitude toward God (“only God is good”) and a right attitude toward himself (“No one comes to the Father but through me”). When a man said he’d been so moral that he’d kept all the commandments, Jesus responded, “Go, sell all that you have, give to the poor, and come follow me.” Thus, Jesus’ teaching about morality was, at its core, teaching about Himself and His unique relationship with God. If Nash’s schizophrenia had similarly permeated his mathematics, it’s doubtful his lectures would have even been coherent.

    Lewis is not saying that if Christ were delusional or dishonest (to use your terms) that nothing else he said could possibly be right or have value. He’s saying that we don’t consider delusional or dishonest people to be “great human teachers.”

    As for your statement that “we don’t really know when or why the first disciples began believing that Jesus rose from the dead,” I presume you say that based on your having rejected the New Testament as a set of historically reliable documents…for they themselves tell us the answers to these questions: 1) Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to multiple people in multiple times and places over a period of forty days, and 2) the Old Testament Scriptures which prophesied all that took place through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Only if you reject the NT are you left scratching your head.

    As for Joseph Smith and David Koresh, according to their respective historical records neither lived a virtuous life that is worthy to be compared with the one lived by Jesus of Nazareth. But again, if you reject the historical records, I suppose you could choose to believe almost anything you wanted about each of the three of them. As for me, I take the historical records regarding all three seriously and thus regard two of them as dishonest or delusional and one of them as lord.

    LikeLike

15. I’ve never had one of John Nash’s classes, so I don’t know how much his schizophrenia may have influenced what he taught. The beauty of his teachings, however, is that the truth of them rests independently of him. Once he explained game theory, the truth and logic of it was self-evident. If Jesus taught that we should care for the needy, then that was a true and moral statement — we can identify it based on the truth of the statement itself — who said it is somewhat irrelevant.

    Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me if Jesus was actually a moral person or not, nor does it matter to me whether or not he actually existed. I can say that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels seems to have been moral, regardless of what he believed about himself, just as the character of Obi-wan Kenobi seems to have been noble, regardless of whether or not the Force is real. And at this point, I’m not sure what else can be said about it. Persto, Howie, William, and I seem to see more nuance in how we label people than what Lewis allowed for. You seem to side more with Lewis. Okay; we’re all entitled to our own opinions.

    As far as the origins of Christianity go, I’m well aware the NT makes claims about how it began. Obviously, I don’t agree that it started because people actually witnessed a resurrected Jesus, but that’s not a position I hold out of stubbornness or wishful thinking. My reasons for my position are scattered throughout this blog — most of the important links are referenced above if you’d like to dig into any of the specifics on those threads. But it’s not fair for either of us to criticize how much the other examines or accepts historical or biblical evidence. After all, you hold some doctrinal positions that seem to counter much of what the NT teaches. Rather than accuse you of ignoring the Bible’s teachings, I simply understand that you have a different view of them than most other people.

    Thanks

    LikeLike

16. Nate,

    I’ve read some of your story and know that you’ve recently been through a lot of emotional and social upheaval – and that this was based on your own personal search for truth. My point is that there is a baby that was lost when you threw out all that dirty bathwater. I hope you’ll soon recover Him. I know you don’t agree with me now, but thanks for letting me say it.

    In the meantime, while you continue your search for truth, don’t assume that the affirmations of those around you now are any more reliable, or any greater indications of the presence of truth, than the previous affirmations of those you left behind. A search for truth is only making real progress when it’s pursued in the sight of God and no one else is around to give you a pat on the back.

    Au revoir.

    LikeLike

17. I’ve been following this thread for the past couple of days and am amazed at all the quibbling over the writings of one individual. IMO, you either believe in Jesus or you don’t. Whether he was a lunatic or liar is irrelevant to a believer. For them, Jesus is Lord. Period. Non-believers see him in whatever light fits their personal belief system.

    In my own case, I tend to believe Jesus existed but I do not see him as Lord and Savior. Nor do I see him as a liar or lunatic. I believe his role in history was to share a message with the Jews about their relationship with Yahweh. It was Paul who created the image of him that Christians hold today.

    Also, as Nate has commented, the gospels were written several years after the death of Jesus. By then, Paul’s perspective had infiltrated much of the Mediterranean area.

    One final word — Mike said progress in a search for truth is made only when it’s pursued in the sight of God. I disagree. The search for truth comes from within. It matters not whether “God” is watching or whether anyone agrees. The progress comes when it satisfies the needs of the individual.

    LikeLike

18. Pingback: Dialogue with Nate and Others | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

19. Mike, you said: “Lewis himself stated the goal of his argument: “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.”

    I get what you’re trying to say, and what Lewis was trying say, but i find it lacking. It would be taking one aspect of a person and then making it apply across the board. that isn’t how things work.

    That’s why I kept asking you if you knew a decently moral person, or if you thought that you, yourself, were a decently moral person. I suspect that is also why you did not answer those questions. because if you say that you do know moral people, then all i’d have to do is point out that they’ve sinned (all have sinned and fallen short…), and by Lewis’ position, i could then determine that a sinner could not teach righteousness or be decently moral.

    Someone can tell a lie, which would be immoral, but may very well be very moral in everything else they do. This is possible. This does happen. I just don’
    t see where Lewis’ position factored in all the variables. It was over simplified, and therefore inadequate.

    LikeLike

20. I’m noticing you haven’t posted anything in a while. That’s pretty odd for such a verbose young man. Is everything alright?

    LikeLike

21. Thanks for asking Hayden, but everything’s good. I changed careers in the summer, and I’ve been pretty busy with that (requires a lot of studying right now). So that’s really what’s been eating up my time. But I hope to get back to more regular posts in the next few months. And in a week or two, I hope that have that evolution post finished that I’ve been working on.

    So no worries — things are good. 🙂 Thanks again for checking in!

    LikeLike

22. ooooooooooo. An Atheist writing a post about evolution… I got the shudders. Can’t wait to read it and I’m glad to hear all is good:)

    LikeLike

23. Hi Nate,

    Just wondering, have you read much about British Philosopher Antony Flew? if so what are your thoughts on his conversion?

    Kind regards

    LikeLike

24. Hey Ryan,

    I haven’t read much about or from Antony Flew, but I’m familiar enough to know who you’re talking about. I do hear Christians refer to him from time to time in an effort to debunk atheism. But Flew didn’t convert from atheism to Christianity; he converted to deism. I don’t really blame him. I get why people believe in a god. In a lot of ways, I don’t view deism as all that different from atheism, because while they may believe that a god (or “prime mover”) exists, it doesn’t really affect much about the way they interact with the world . They’re not out trying to convert people, they don’t believe God will punish those who don’t believe in him, etc.

    In other words, if you put the three positions on a spectrum — atheism, deism, and Christianity — I think deism is much closer to atheism than Christianity.

    Anyway, how do you feel about it?

    LikeLike

25. It seems to me that some Christians get really interested when well known atheists change their minds about something, which makes sense I suppose (Luke 15:7).

    In regards to Antony Flew I think many well meaning Christians hoped a leap of faith followed to theism.

    LikeLike