What was wrong with C.S. Lewis's argument that Jesus had to be either Lord, liar, or lunatic?

[TonyChanYT]

Lewis’s argument that Jesus must be either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic—often referred to as the trilemma—appears in Mere Christianity (1952). This kind of breakdown in reasoning often fails because it oversimplifies real-world possibilities to just three. It constitutes a false trichotomy.

Here is a fourth possibility. From a non-believer's perspective, the story could be regarded as a legend. If the divine claims were later additions by followers, Jesus might have been a profound legendary teacher without being God, a liar, or a lunatic. Judaism views him as a rabbi and not God, while Islam regards him as a prophet. Fundamentally, non-Christians do not perceive the gospels as entirely historically reliable.

There are more possibilities. The early manuscripts might have been systematically corrupted.

Furthermore, Lewis oversimplified psychology and mental illness. Again, from an atheist perspective, someone might be delusional about their identity yet coherent in their speech. Jesus could have had a messianic self-conception—common in 1st-century Judea—without exhibiting full-blown insanity or deceit.

Consider Siddhartha Gautama who claimed to have achieved Buddhahood. Was he Lord, liar, or lunatic?

To say that he was a lunatic would only trivialize his case. He wasn't unique. There were plenty of others.

Wiki:

Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian godman.[2][3] … His followers have attributed to him a range of miraculous abilities, including the materialisation of Vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches. He was also believed to have performed spontaneous healings, resurrections, and exhibited clairvoyant abilities. Additionally, claims were made regarding his ability to be in multiple places simultaneously (bilocation), as well as his omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.[9][10]

Sathya Sai Baba may not have been the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic (in the simplistic sense). From the atheists' perspective, he might have been genuinely self-deceived.

Another example, Wiki:

Apollo Carreon Quiboloy is a Filipino pastor and the leader of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC or KJC), a Restorationist church based in the Philippines.[6][7] He founded the KOJC in 1985, proclaiming himself the "Appointed Son of God" and the "Owner of the Universe".

Apollo's followers do not think he is a liar or lunatic, even though non-followers may. Psychological reality is more complex than Lewis' simple delineation.

C.S. Lewis's trilemma is a memorable argument for Christians, but it has limitations for non-Christians, including Judaism and Islam. It works well within a Christian framework and for those who accept the Gospels as historically reliable. However, it does not fully address the complexities of historical criticism, cultural context, or alternative interpretations of Jesus' identity. It made assumptions that atheists would not accept. His argument is more celebrated in Christian circles than among skeptical ones. In the end, logic alone almost never converts anyone because different people use different kinds of subjective reasoning.

 

[JLB]

Lewis’s argument that Jesus must be either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic—often referred to as the trilemma—appears in Mere Christianity (1952). This kind of breakdown in reasoning often fails because it oversimplifies real-world possibilities to just three. It constitutes a false trichotomy.

Here is a fourth possibility. From a non-believer's perspective, the story could be regarded as a legend. If the divine claims were later additions by followers, Jesus might have been a profound legendary teacher without being God, a liar, or a lunatic. Judaism views him as a rabbi and not God, while Islam regards him as a prophet. Fundamentally, non-Christians do not perceive the gospels as entirely historically reliable.

There are more possibilities. The early manuscripts might have been systematically corrupted.

Furthermore, Lewis oversimplified psychology and mental illness. Again, from an atheist perspective, someone might be delusional about their identity yet coherent in their speech. Jesus could have had a messianic self-conception—common in 1st-century Judea—without exhibiting full-blown insanity or deceit.

Consider Siddhartha Gautama who claimed to have achieved Buddhahood. Was he Lord, liar, or lunatic?

To say that he was a lunatic would only trivialize his case. He wasn't unique. There were plenty of others.

Wiki:


Sathya Sai Baba may not have been the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic (in the simplistic sense). From the atheists' perspective, he might have been genuinely self-deceived.

Another example, Wiki:


Apollo's followers do not think he is a liar or lunatic, even though non-followers may. Psychological reality is more complex than Lewis' simple delineation.

C.S. Lewis's trilemma is a memorable argument for Christians, but it has limitations for non-Christians, including Judaism and Islam. It works well within a Christian framework and for those who accept the Gospels as historically reliable. However, it does not fully address the complexities of historical criticism, cultural context, or alternative interpretations of Jesus' identity. It made assumptions that atheists would not accept. His argument is more celebrated in Christian circles than among skeptical ones. In the end, logic alone almost never converts anyone because different people use different kinds of subjective reasoning.

Do you believe Jesus is LORD; YHWH the LORD God?

 

[for_his_glory]

Jesus being the very Spirit of God before the foundation of the world as He and the Father are one was prophesied by the Prophets in the OT and spoken of by John the Baptist in the NT as John being the forerunner of Christ calling all to repent. As foretold Christ did come as the word of God made flesh (skin, bone, blood) to be that light that shines in darkness. He came as redeemer Savior through Gods grace as Christ is our faith that all can repent of their sins and have eternal life with the Father to all who will believe in Him as Lord and Savior. John 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:13-21

After the sacrifice of Christ God raised Him from the grave and as He had to ascend back up to heaven the promise was that He would never leave us or forsake us as when He ascended He sent down the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) to indwell all who will believe in Christ and His finished works on the cross. In the OT Gods Spirit fell on them for a time and purpose under heaven. Now we are indwelled with that power and authority through Gods grace that the Holy Spirit now works in us and through us teaching all things God wants us to learn. All three are Spiritual and Spiritual awaking's in us to know the will of God and walk in His statures. John 16:7-15

Ephesians 4: 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water (word) and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water (word), and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Jesus being the right arm of God. Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus is the word of God. John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Jesus is word, light and life that is God come in the flesh. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Gods Holy Spirit has come to indwell us and teach us. John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

One of the more driving ridiculousnesses of C.S. Lewis' presumption, was the ongoing whitewash of the Crusades, continued in spirit by the false christendomization of this world. For hundreds of years, the pope-required preaching was the military destruction of mission fields in the Middle East. This was dominant, widely believed, and the proclaimed apex of "the Christian life". Were those mission-field killers, hundreds of thousands of them, who wore crosses and were most strongly encouraged by the pope, who certainly spoke of Christ as Lord, "Christian"?

This is not just a fourth possibility. Lewis' trinary proposition was despicable verbiage which denied the Lord's own much-stated presence: false behavior in His name, and its behavior and purposes. And a much later very successful preacher continued the same error, calling his massive stadium-rallies "crusades", flatly denying that there was a problem.

 

[Niblo]

Back in the day, I found the ‘trilema’ both convincing and useful. That was because I paid no heed to the fact that it is predicated on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

For around a hundred and fifty years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.

John Robinson, an English New Testament scholar, and one-time Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, writes:

‘We are often asked to accept Christ as divine because he claimed to be so – and the familiar argument is pressed: “A man who goes around claiming to be God must either be God – or else he is a madman or a charlatan. And, of course, it is not easy to read the Gospel story and to dismiss Jesus as either mad or bad. Therefore, the conclusion runs, he must be God. But I am not happy about this argument.

‘None of the disciples acknowledged Jesus because he claimed to be God, and the Apostles never went out saying, “This man claimed to be God, therefore you must believe in him”. In fact, Jesus himself said in so many words, “If I claim anything for myself, do not believe me”. It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God, let alone God. He may have acknowledged it from the lips of others – but on his own he preferred “the Son of Man”’ (‘Honest to God’).

Here are other quotes to think about:

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – a staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…. (it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest, and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity’).

Professor Bart D. Ehrman – and American New Testament scholar – writes:

‘Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

James Dunn, a New Testament scholar and one-time Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, writes:

‘Scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding... Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself).’ (‘The Evidence for Jesus’; my emphasis).

About sixty years ago, I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian. We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible (KJV) and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and very gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same words as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.

Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:

‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).

Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these in a way that makes the Beloved a Trinity, and Jesus ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other group sees no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regard Jesus as just a man; in no way divine.

According to Professor Ehrman, Biblical texts:

‘Are always interpreted by living, breathing human beings with loves, hates, biases, prejudices, worldviews, fears, hopes, and everything else that makes us human.’

He goes on:

‘All of these factors affect how texts are interpreted, and they explain why intelligent people can have such radically different interpretations of the same text.’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’; my emphasis).

John Hick – English philosopher of religion, and theologian – writes:

‘Until about a hundred years ago (as still very widely today in unlearned circles) belief in Jesus as God incarnate was assumed to rest securely upon his own explicit teaching: 'I and the Father are one', 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', and so on.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Hick reminds us that one response to the realisation that Jesus never claimed to be God:

‘…has been the use of the concept of the 'Christ-event'. This helpfully elastic idea is now widely used to take the weight off the pillar of dominical authority, now found to be hollow, by shifting it to the historically solid fact of the church's teaching. For the 'Christ-event' is supposed to consist not only in the life of Jesus but also in the formation of the church and the growth of its faith in Jesus' deity. It is this larger complex, rather than Jesus' own words and actions, that are now said to authorize the belief that he was God incarnate.’ (Ibid.).

Is it possible for folk to deify an individual – even when that individual has made no claim to deity – and to believe, absolutely and sincerely, in the veracity of their claim?

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Jesus, but Emperor Haile Selassie; as described by the Rastafarians.

 

[for_his_glory]

Back in the day, I found the ‘trilema’ both convincing and useful. That was because I paid no heed to the fact that it is predicated on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

For around a hundred and fifty years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.

John Robinson, an English New Testament scholar, and one-time Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, writes:

‘We are often asked to accept Christ as divine because he claimed to be so – and the familiar argument is pressed: “A man who goes around claiming to be God must either be God – or else he is a madman or a charlatan. And, of course, it is not easy to read the Gospel story and to dismiss Jesus as either mad or bad. Therefore, the conclusion runs, he must be God. But I am not happy about this argument.

‘None of the disciples acknowledged Jesus because he claimed to be God, and the Apostles never went out saying, “This man claimed to be God, therefore you must believe in him”. In fact, Jesus himself said in so many words, “If I claim anything for myself, do not believe me”. It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God, let alone God. He may have acknowledged it from the lips of others – but on his own he preferred “the Son of Man”’ (‘Honest to God’).

Here are other quotes to think about:

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – a staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…. (it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest, and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity’).

Professor Bart D. Ehrman – and American New Testament scholar – writes:

‘Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

James Dunn, a New Testament scholar and one-time Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, writes:

‘Scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding... Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself).’ (‘The Evidence for Jesus’; my emphasis).

About sixty years ago, I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian. We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible (KJV) and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and very gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same words as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.

Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:

‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).

Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these in a way that makes the Beloved a Trinity, and Jesus ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other group sees no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regard Jesus as just a man; in no way divine.

According to Professor Ehrman, Biblical texts:

‘Are always interpreted by living, breathing human beings with loves, hates, biases, prejudices, worldviews, fears, hopes, and everything else that makes us human.’

He goes on:

‘All of these factors affect how texts are interpreted, and they explain why intelligent people can have such radically different interpretations of the same text.’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’; my emphasis).

John Hick – English philosopher of religion, and theologian – writes:

‘Until about a hundred years ago (as still very widely today in unlearned circles) belief in Jesus as God incarnate was assumed to rest securely upon his own explicit teaching: 'I and the Father are one', 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', and so on.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Hick reminds us that one response to the realisation that Jesus never claimed to be God:

‘…has been the use of the concept of the 'Christ-event'. This helpfully elastic idea is now widely used to take the weight off the pillar of dominical authority, now found to be hollow, by shifting it to the historically solid fact of the church's teaching. For the 'Christ-event' is supposed to consist not only in the life of Jesus but also in the formation of the church and the growth of its faith in Jesus' deity. It is this larger complex, rather than Jesus' own words and actions, that are now said to authorize the belief that he was God incarnate.’ (Ibid.).

Is it possible for folk to deify an individual – even when that individual has made no claim to deity – and to believe, absolutely and sincerely, in the veracity of their claim?

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Jesus, but Emperor Haile Selassie; as described by the Rastafarians.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

 

[hawkman]

Back in the day, I found the ‘trilema’ both convincing and useful. That was because I paid no heed to the fact that it is predicated on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

Was it veiled to those that saw Jesus and even the ones who lived with him , that Jesus is God ? IMO Jesus dropped hints as to what was going on when He was on this earth . If Jesus would have proclaimed Himself to be God openly to all people can you imagine the mayhem that would have followed .

For around a hundred and fifty years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.

Wow , I like how "scholars" presume to KNOW what Jesus understood . Mind readers are they .

Jesus told us and Satan something .
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus never once told people to stop worshipping Him when they did worship him .
Well , Jesus was probably not old enough to tell the Magi anything .

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

The disciples worshipped Jesus .
33Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

More worship .
20Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.


16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

There are many more times Jesus was worshipped .

 

[Niblo]

Lewis predicated his 'trilema' on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

There is no doubt that folk referred to Jesus as 'God'; and, of course, still do. That is for them.

But where in the New Testament do we read of Jesus walking around, declaring: 'I am God'? Three simple words. The foundation of Lewis' 'trilema'.

I know of no such verse....and neither do the Biblical scholars I have quoted.

 

[Free]

Back in the day, I found the ‘trilema’ both convincing and useful. That was because I paid no heed to the fact that it is predicated on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

There is no assumption. He truly did claim to be God in human flesh, to be equal to the Father.

For around a hundred and fifty years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.

This is very misleading. There has not at all been "broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not lay claim to deity." There are those who are "liberal" and "progressive" in their theology whose worldview cannot allow for Jesus to be God. That is then read into Scripture. It's all just circular reasoning.

It's the same that happens from scholars of other religions whose beliefs preclude the very idea that Jesus is the Son of God. They then read their beliefs into their understanding of the Bible.

John Robinson, an English New Testament scholar, and one-time Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, writes:

‘We are often asked to accept Christ as divine because he claimed to be so – and the familiar argument is pressed: “A man who goes around claiming to be God must either be God – or else he is a madman or a charlatan. And, of course, it is not easy to read the Gospel story and to dismiss Jesus as either mad or bad. Therefore, the conclusion runs, he must be God. But I am not happy about this argument.

‘None of the disciples acknowledged Jesus because he claimed to be God, and the Apostles never went out saying, “This man claimed to be God, therefore you must believe in him”. In fact, Jesus himself said in so many words, “If I claim anything for myself, do not believe me”. It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God, let alone God. He may have acknowledged it from the lips of others – but on his own he preferred “the Son of Man”’ (‘Honest to God’).

But, Jesus did claim to be God, mostly implicitly, which is why the writers of the NT also claim that Jesus is both truly God and truly man. And, John Robinson is a known liberal scholar.

Here are other quotes to think about:

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

Except that he did, particularly in John 8:58.

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – a staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Incarnation’).

These are odd statements, given what Jesus says about himself.

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…. (it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest, and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity’).

And, what basis is there for abandoning "the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel"?

Professor Bart D. Ehrman – and American New Testament scholar – writes:

‘Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

One of the most well known liberal scholars whose beliefs inform his interpretation of Scripture, rather than the other way around. It's interesting that he at least acknowledges that John's gospel actually does have Jesus indicating "that he is divine," whereas most of the others you have quoted deny Jesus ever made such claim.

James Dunn, a New Testament scholar and one-time Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, writes:

‘Scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding... Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself).’ (‘The Evidence for Jesus’; my emphasis).

This is just fallaciously begging the question. It assumes that Jesus's claims about himself are somehow different than Christian claims about him. But, we have Jesus's claims about himself in the gospels, which is what "Christian claims about Jesus" are based on; there are no other sources.

 

[Free]

About sixty years ago, I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian.

Biblical Unitarian is an oxymoron.

We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible (KJV) and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and very gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same words as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.

Such is the way things are and have always been--people will believe what they want to believe about the Bible regardless of what the Bible says.

Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:

‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).

Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these in a way that makes the Beloved a Trinity, and Jesus ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other group sees no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regard Jesus as just a man; in no way divine.

That's because one group is Christian and one group is not. Unitarians necessarily ignore or reinterpret many texts of the NT in order to make it say other than what it does. For instance, numerous times Jesus claims pre-existence with the Father, to have come down from heaven; he claims to be the I Am, which, even if one wants to deny the link to Ex. 3:14, is a claim to absolute existence; he accepts worship by his followers, including the exclamation by Thomas that Jesus was his Lord and his God; he doesn't correct the Jews' understanding that he claimed equality with the Father by saying he was the Son of God.

That's just based on Jesus's ministry. The rest of the NT adds much further support that Jesus is truly God and truly man, yet not the Father, while maintaining monotheism.

According to Professor Ehrman, Biblical texts:

‘Are always interpreted by living, breathing human beings with loves, hates, biases, prejudices, worldviews, fears, hopes, and everything else that makes us human.’

He goes on:

‘All of these factors affect how texts are interpreted, and they explain why intelligent people can have such radically different interpretations of the same text.’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’; my emphasis).

Of course, which is why one also needs the Holy Spirit, but one cannot have the Holy Spirit if they are not a Christian, like Bart Ehrman.

John Hick – English philosopher of religion, and theologian – writes:

‘Until about a hundred years ago (as still very widely today in unlearned circles) belief in Jesus as God incarnate was assumed to rest securely upon his own explicit teaching: 'I and the Father are one', 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', and so on.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Hick reminds us that one response to the realisation that Jesus never claimed to be God:

‘…has been the use of the concept of the 'Christ-event'. This helpfully elastic idea is now widely used to take the weight off the pillar of dominical authority, now found to be hollow, by shifting it to the historically solid fact of the church's teaching. For the 'Christ-event' is supposed to consist not only in the life of Jesus but also in the formation of the church and the growth of its faith in Jesus' deity. It is this larger complex, rather than Jesus' own words and actions, that are now said to authorize the belief that he was God incarnate.’ (Ibid.).

Hick had several beliefs which were not within orthodox Christian belief, so it is no surprise that he would deny the deity of Jesus.

Is it possible for folk to deify an individual – even when that individual has made no claim to deity – and to believe, absolutely and sincerely, in the veracity of their claim?


Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Jesus, but Emperor Haile Selassie; as described by the Rastafarians.

Of course it is always possible, but it's what the evidence points to. There is no reason to believe Emperor Haile Selassie was deity, and every reason to believe that Jesus was.

 

[Free]

Lewis predicated his 'trilema' on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

There is no doubt that folk referred to Jesus as 'God'; and, of course, still do. That is for them.

But where in the New Testament do we read of Jesus walking around, declaring: 'I am God'? Three simple words. The foundation of Lewis' 'trilema'.

I know of no such verse....and neither do the Biblical scholars I have quoted.

Which isn't the point. The point is, if the Son is God the Son in human flesh, how should we expect God in human flesh to speak of God, the Father, in heaven while maintaining monotheism? Isn't it reasonable to expect that he would make implications without explicitly stating so, so as not to create confusion as to God's omnipresence, or as to whether there was one or two Gods?

It also misses the point that concepts are found in the Bible without explicitly mentioning them. While Jesus didn't say "I am God," he did claim to be the I Am, a claim to absolute existence, if not also to be the I Am of Ex. 3:14. He claimed existence with the Father prior to creation, which is a claim to eternal pre-existence. He accepted worship from his followers, without rebuke, which would have been blasphemous if he wasn't also truly God. He also claimed omnipresence--"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mat 18:20, ESV)

So, we see that Jesus often claims attributes that belong to God, without actually saying "I am God."

 

[Free]

Lewis’s argument that Jesus must be either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic—often referred to as the trilemma—appears in Mere Christianity (1952). This kind of breakdown in reasoning often fails because it oversimplifies real-world possibilities to just three. It constitutes a false trichotomy.

Here is a fourth possibility. From a non-believer's perspective, the story could be regarded as a legend. If the divine claims were later additions by followers, Jesus might have been a profound legendary teacher without being God, a liar, or a lunatic.

But, his argument is predicated on the truthfulness of what Jesus says in the gospel accounts. There is no reason to believe the divine claims were later additions. So, what a non-believer thinks is not relevant.

Judaism views him as a rabbi and not God, while Islam regards him as a prophet. Fundamentally, non-Christians do not perceive the gospels as entirely historically reliable.

The argument works against Judaism, as Jesus was a Jew living in Israel. The argument works against Islam because there simply is no reason whatsoever to believe what Islam teaches about a number of things, including Jesus.

There are more possibilities. The early manuscripts might have been systematically corrupted.

No, that isn't really a possibility, as it ignores the nature of copying and distribution across large geographical areas.

Furthermore, Lewis oversimplified psychology and mental illness. Again, from an atheist perspective, someone might be delusional about their identity yet coherent in their speech. Jesus could have had a messianic self-conception—common in 1st-century Judea—without exhibiting full-blown insanity or deceit.

That seems like unnecessary nit-picking and ignores Lewis's argument based on the recorded words of Jesus.

Consider Siddhartha Gautama who claimed to have achieved Buddhahood. Was he Lord, liar, or lunatic?

To say that he was a lunatic would only trivialize his case. He wasn't unique. There were plenty of others.

Wiki:


Sathya Sai Baba may not have been the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic (in the simplistic sense). From the atheists' perspective, he might have been genuinely self-deceived.

Another example, Wiki:


Apollo's followers do not think he is a liar or lunatic, even though non-followers may. Psychological reality is more complex than Lewis' simple delineation.

These are false analogies.

C.S. Lewis's trilemma is a memorable argument for Christians, but it has limitations for non-Christians, including Judaism and Islam. It works well within a Christian framework and for those who accept the Gospels as historically reliable. However, it does not fully address the complexities of historical criticism, cultural context, or alternative interpretations of Jesus' identity.

There is nothing wrong with Lewis's argument, even against Judaism and Islam. That it is an argument in favour of Christianity goes without saying, as Lewis predicates it on the gospel accounts being truthful accounts of Jesus's life and ministry. The context of his argument is very important:

'Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
...
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 a 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.' (Mere Christianity).

Lewis clearly presumes that the gospel accounts are truthful accounts of what Jesus said and did, because there are good reasons for doing so and no good reasons for believing them to be untruthful.

It made assumptions that atheists would not accept. His argument is more celebrated in Christian circles than among skeptical ones. In the end, logic alone almost never converts anyone because different people use different kinds of subjective reasoning.

Of course. What else should we expect? Isn't pretty much every argument in favour of Christianity rejected by atheists?

To sum, there is no false trichotomy.

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

Yet another problem with Lewis and others is, Lord of what? Lord of this world? Or do we rather consider "Lord" as a placeholder for YHVH, as in YHVH Elohim of Genesis, who is not of this world, who has rejected rule over this world which was offered to Him by both sinful men and the evil one, who sent a Comforter to His people only instead of ruling the whole, while all wait for the already-slated destruction of this world by the Father.

We do know, by His testimony, that He is divine: the Father is in Him, and He is in the Father, and He does only that which His Father has told Him and asked of Him. And there is much more. The trouble comes when sinful human beings, demand that their favorite sinful human verbiage, be equated to different words that the Lord has said. The trouble comes, because sinful human beings refuse to simply present that which Christ the Lord has said, but instead demand equal play to that which their favorite sinful human beings say.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Back in the day, I found the ‘trilema’ both convincing and useful. That was because I paid no heed to the fact that it is predicated on the assumption that Jesus walked around, calling himself God.

For around a hundred and fifty years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.

John Robinson, an English New Testament scholar, and one-time Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, writes:

‘We are often asked to accept Christ as divine because he claimed to be so – and the familiar argument is pressed: “A man who goes around claiming to be God must either be God – or else he is a madman or a charlatan. And, of course, it is not easy to read the Gospel story and to dismiss Jesus as either mad or bad. Therefore, the conclusion runs, he must be God. But I am not happy about this argument.

‘None of the disciples acknowledged Jesus because he claimed to be God, and the Apostles never went out saying, “This man claimed to be God, therefore you must believe in him”. In fact, Jesus himself said in so many words, “If I claim anything for myself, do not believe me”. It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God, let alone God. He may have acknowledged it from the lips of others – but on his own he preferred “the Son of Man”’ (‘Honest to God’).

Here are other quotes to think about:

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – a staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…. (it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest, and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity’).

Professor Bart D. Ehrman – and American New Testament scholar – writes:

‘Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

James Dunn, a New Testament scholar and one-time Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, writes:

‘Scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding... Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself).’ (‘The Evidence for Jesus’; my emphasis).

About sixty years ago, I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian. We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible (KJV) and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and very gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same words as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.

Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:

‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).

Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these in a way that makes the Beloved a Trinity, and Jesus ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other group sees no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regard Jesus as just a man; in no way divine.

According to Professor Ehrman, Biblical texts:

‘Are always interpreted by living, breathing human beings with loves, hates, biases, prejudices, worldviews, fears, hopes, and everything else that makes us human.’

He goes on:

‘All of these factors affect how texts are interpreted, and they explain why intelligent people can have such radically different interpretations of the same text.’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’; my emphasis).

John Hick – English philosopher of religion, and theologian – writes:

‘Until about a hundred years ago (as still very widely today in unlearned circles) belief in Jesus as God incarnate was assumed to rest securely upon his own explicit teaching: 'I and the Father are one', 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', and so on.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Hick reminds us that one response to the realisation that Jesus never claimed to be God:

‘…has been the use of the concept of the 'Christ-event'. This helpfully elastic idea is now widely used to take the weight off the pillar of dominical authority, now found to be hollow, by shifting it to the historically solid fact of the church's teaching. For the 'Christ-event' is supposed to consist not only in the life of Jesus but also in the formation of the church and the growth of its faith in Jesus' deity. It is this larger complex, rather than Jesus' own words and actions, that are now said to authorize the belief that he was God incarnate.’ (Ibid.).

Is it possible for folk to deify an individual – even when that individual has made no claim to deity – and to believe, absolutely and sincerely, in the veracity of their claim?

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Jesus, but Emperor Haile Selassie; as described by the Rastafarians.

Your profile says you're not a Christian, and your reading list provides evidence it is true.

 

[TonyChanYT]

But, his argument is predicated on the truthfulness of what Jesus says in the gospel accounts.

Did he use his argument to challenge non-believers?

 

[evenifigoalone]

The primary issue I see is that the argument presumes that the Bible has an accurate historical record of Jesus. Which... obviously as a Christian, I believe it does. But the argument falls flat when you are trying to prove anything to a world that believes the Bible is inaccurate.

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

The primary issue I see is that the argument presumes that the Bible has an accurate historical record of Jesus. Which... obviously as a Christian, I believe it does. But the argument falls flat when you are trying to prove anything to a world that believes the Bible is inaccurate.

Agreed. Another and very closely related issue, is people who claim that the Bible has an accurate historical record of Jesus, and claim to follow Him via that record, but advocate for all sorts of causes that fly in the face of what is recorded.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

The primary issue I see is that the argument presumes that the Bible has an accurate historical record of Jesus. Which... obviously as a Christian, I believe it does. But the argument falls flat when you are trying to prove anything to a world that believes the Bible is inaccurate.

I agree with this. Reason and logic is not a good way to reach the lost. It is better to present the good news that Jesus died for their sins. This harmonizes with what God is speaking directly into their hearts and sometimes produces fruit.

 

[Free]

Yet another problem with Lewis and others is, Lord of what? Lord of this world? Or do we rather consider "Lord" as a placeholder for YHVH, as in YHVH Elohim of Genesis, who is not of this world, who has rejected rule over this world which was offered to Him by both sinful men and the evil one, who sent a Comforter to His people only instead of ruling the whole, while all wait for the already-slated destruction of this world by the Father.

We do know, by His testimony, that He is divine: the Father is in Him, and He is in the Father, and He does only that which His Father has told Him and asked of Him. And there is much more. The trouble comes when sinful human beings, demand that their favorite sinful human verbiage, be equated to different words that the Lord has said. The trouble comes, because sinful human beings refuse to simply present that which Christ the Lord has said, but instead demand equal play to that which their favorite sinful human beings say.

How is that a problem? How many times is Jesus called Lord in the NT? Is this nit-picking really necessary?

 

[Free]

Did he use his argument to challenge non-believers?

I don't know. Likely he did. Mere Christianity is an apologetic book after all, meant to bring together and defend common beliefs of the faith over the centuries and across divides. So, it could also be used to argue the rationality of Christianity to unbelievers.

His argument belongs in the context of the rest of his book. There are, after all, seven chapters prior to the one in which he makes his argument, and the chapter in question appears in "Book Two," titled "What Christians Believe."