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

[Randy]

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.

I think the premise is that all the miracles and testimony in the NT can't be mistaken. So, it's either truth or fabrication.

33As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)

34While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35A voice came from the cloud, saying, This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him“

 

[RandyK]

I think the premise is that all the miracles and testimony in the NT can't be mistaken. So, it's either truth or fabrication.

33As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)

34While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35A voice came from the cloud, saying, This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him“

Yes, I think Lewis' proposal was conditioned upon acceptance of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of what Jesus said. If what he said was accurate then he would either have to be what he said he was, or he would be crazy or deceitful.

The things he said were not just fine moral truths--they were highly provocative to Jewish leaders who were confronted with a reality greater than themselves. It ran counter to Jewish tradition, and it seemed to border on self-deification, or gross heresy.

But if what Jesus said was true, that he really was divine, then nothing he said was either deceitful or crazy. But you have to begin with the assumption, of course, that Jesus did say these things.

Lewis was just saying that you cannot cut the Bible up into neat little safe packages, where Jesus said nice moral truths, and omit the parts that talk about his Deity. What Jesus said was clearly moral, in the Jewish sense. But what he said was also elevating the discussion to a much higher, controversial level. That in itself is certainly not crazy!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, I think Lewis' proposal was conditioned upon acceptance of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of what Jesus said. If what he said was accurate then he would either have to be what he said he was, or he would be crazy or deceitful.

The things he said were not just fine moral truths--they were highly provocative to Jewish leaders who were confronted with a reality greater than themselves. It ran counter to Jewish tradition, and it seemed to border on self-deification, or gross heresy.

But if what Jesus said was true, that he really was divine, then nothing he said was either deceitful or crazy. But you have to begin with the assumption, of course, that Jesus did say these things.

Lewis was just saying that you cannot cut the Bible up into neat little safe packages, where Jesus said nice moral truths, and omit the parts that talk about his Deity. What Jesus said was clearly moral, in the Jewish sense. But what he said was also elevating the discussion to a much higher, controversial level. That in itself is certainly not crazy!

It's not about His deity, but messiaship. "Christ" is not a name, but a title - annointed one, usually a king. Any Jewish king, even foreign kings, could be a messiah. After the Babylonian captivity, though, the meaning of messiah shifted from a reigning king to a mighty liberator like Moses who'll free the Jewish people from their oppressors. That's the common understanding and expectation of the messiah among all the Jews in first centry Roman occupied holy land, from top to bottom, including Jesus's own disciples. In other words, they were looking for the second coming in Is. 63:1-6 and Rev. 19:11-16, they didn't know there's a first coming. Ironically there used to be such Jewish teachings on these two comings of the messiah, His first coming as the son of Joseph, a suffering servant; his second coming as the son of David, a conquering king, but these teachings were lost and perverted. At the time of Jesus's ministry, the nation of Israel as a whole was personified as the suffering servant, while the messiah must be a conquering king. This might be a far stretch, but most of the violent revolutions in history could be traced back to this kind of mind set, the Jewish zealots were the archtype of revolutionary rebels. Jesus, as a lowly craftsman or stonemason from Nazerath couldn't fit the bill, therefore he was eventually crucified, regardless of what he taught.

 

[RandyK]

It's not about His deity, but messiaship. "Christ" is not a name, but a title - annointed one, usually a king. Any Jewish king, even foreign kings, could be a messiah. After the Babylonian captivity, though, the meaning of messiah shifted from a reigning king to a mighty liberator like Moses who'll free the Jewish people from their oppressors. That's the common understanding and expectation of the messiah among all the Jews in first centry Roman occupied holy land, from top to bottom, including Jesus's own disciples. In other words, they were looking for the second coming in Is. 63:1-6 and Rev. 19:11-16, they didn't know there's a first coming. Ironically there used to be such Jewish teachings on these two comings of the messiah, His first coming as the son of Joseph, a suffering servant; his second coming as the son of David, a conquering king, but these teachings were lost and perverted. At the time of Jesus's ministry, the nation of Israel as a whole was personified as the suffering servant, while the messiah must be a conquering king. This might be a far stretch, but most of the violent revolutions in history could be traced back to this kind of mind set, the Jewish zealots were the archtype of revolutionary rebels. Jesus, as a lowly craftsman or stonemason from Nazerath couldn't fit the bill, therefore he was eventually crucified, regardless of what he taught.

Quite a guess you're making? I spent time on a newsgroup quite a few years ago. A friend who saw himself as a Messianic Jew, claimed that the Jewish People had held to the belief that the "Son of Man" in Dan 7 was a Divine Messiah figure. Of course, the Jews would've turned that around after Jesus came on the scene, calling himself the "Son of Man."

I think there may have been rabbis who thought that Isa 53 also spoke of a suffering Messiah. Again, after Jesus and his cross, that idea had to go among the Jews. That Suffering Servant had to be made, by the Jews, into "Israel."

So, you may not get today what the Jews believed back before Jesus arrived. The idea among the Hebrews that God could appear in the form of a man was not forbidden. Moses claimed to have seen the backsides of God. God was spoken of in anthropomorphic terms. Your notion that the Messiah is not to be viewed as God is purely a guess on your part, I should think?

Messiah may have a generic meaning, but it certainly has a more technical, proper noun meaning too. It could only apply, in context, to the Messiah who would deliver Man from his curse--the curse of sin and the curse of its accompanying judgment, death.

Messiah had to somehow fix this, as well as liberate the Jewish nation from assaults by foreign, pagan nations brought in by God to occasionally bring judgment against them for their sins. The judges did this, as you will recall?

But if you're locked into your belief, that's up to you. I do think you're right, though, that Jesus didn't "fit the bill" in terms of being the Messiah the Jews expected would come and deliver them from the Romans.

But he had no intention of delivering them. He came to judge them, and to save those who repented of their sins. Next time he comes, he will come to judge the whole world.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Quite a guess you're making? I spent time on a newsgroup quite a few years ago. A friend who saw himself as a Messianic Jew, claimed that the Jewish People had held to the belief that the "Son of Man" in Dan 7 was a Divine Messiah figure. Of course, the Jews would've turned that around after Jesus came on the scene, calling himself the "Son of Man."

I think there may have been rabbis who thought that Isa 53 also spoke of a suffering Messiah. Again, after Jesus and his cross, that idea had to go among the Jews. That Suffering Servant had to be made, by the Jews, into "Israel."

So, you may not get today what the Jews believed back before Jesus arrived. The idea among the Hebrews that God could appear in the form of a man was not forbidden. Moses claimed to have seen the backsides of God. God was spoken of in anthropomorphic terms. Your notion that the Messiah is not to be viewed as God is purely a guess on your part, I should think?

That's not a guess, "messiah/christ" is synonymous with "Son of God", which originated from Dan. 7 as you said. You can see this in the charge against Jesus by the Sanhedrin - “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” So of course God could appear in the form of a man, He appeared to Abraham as a traveller and to Jacob as an angel. What I explained is that their version of the messiah must be a liberator described in Is. 61-63, not literally a suffering servant in Is. 53, and that's the problem.

Messiah may have a generic meaning, but it certainly has a more technical, proper noun meaning too. It could only apply, in context, to the Messiah who would deliver Man from his curse--the curse of sin and the curse of its accompanying judgment, death.

Messiah had to somehow fix this, as well as liberate the Jewish nation from assaults by foreign, pagan nations brought in by God to occasionally bring judgment against them for their sins. The judges did this, as you will recall?

But if you're locked into your belief, that's up to you. I do think you're right, though, that Jesus didn't "fit the bill" in terms of being the Messiah the Jews expected would come and deliver them from the Romans.

But he had no intention of delivering them. He came to judge them, and to save those who repented of their sins. Next time he comes, he will come to judge the whole world.

Look, man, we all know Jesus came first to save the world from sin, but that's not what the Jews were thinking about, I was explaining to you the specific, technical meaning of "messiah" in accordance with the political sentiment of the time, and why that led to the betrayal, systemic injustice and his crucifixion, that's the historical context of the gospel account, not my personal belief. The Jews were spiritually blinded, they didn't look inward at their sins, they looked outward at their oppressors. And since they were spiritually blind, they'd been waiting for their own messiah throughout the medieval age; when it came to the French revolution, it inspired them to embrace humanism, that "we are the messiah we've been waiting for." Till this day they're still expecting this messianic liberator, that's where the Antichrist will eventually fit in, and the "inhabitants of the earth will worship him."

 

[RandyK]

That's not a guess, "messiah/christ" is synonymous with "Son of God", which originated from Dan. 7 as you said. You can see this in the charge against Jesus by the Sanhedrin - “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” So of course God could appear in the form of a man, He appeared to Abraham as a traveller and to Jacob as an angel. What I explained is that their version of the messiah must be a liberator described in Is. 61-63, not literally a suffering servant in Is. 53, and that's the problem.

No, what I said is that I heard that before Christianity there was a Jewish belief in some pockets that believed the "Son of Man" in Dan 7 was a kind of "Divine figure." I didn't say "Son of God." That term is not in Dan 7.

But yes, Abraham entertained angels who looked like men. And one of the men appeared to be a theophany, or an angelic representation of God Himself.

Clearly what you're saying is correct. The Jewish leaders questioning Jesus saw in Jesus' a Messianic claim to be the "Son of God," which I believe was this "Divine figure" coming from Dan 7.

Jesus called himself the "Son of Man," similar to how the Prophet Ezekiel was called the "Son of Man." But Jesus appeared in every way superior to all of the Prophets. He claimed his forerunner, John the Baptist, was the greatest of the Prophets, but only served as an inferior herald to himself.

John the Baptist himself acknowledged that at best he was an unworthy herald of this kind of Messiah--a spotless, or sinless, Lamb of sacrifice. Even if the Jewish leaders did not accept this definition of a Messiah, they certainly recognized that Jesus was portraying himself as such.

They may have been spiritually blind, but they certainly recognized his Divine claim, even if they didn't see that was the promise of Messiah in biblical prophecy. They may not have recognized that Jesus was a Divine Messiah or even that biblical prophecy required a Divine Messiah. But they knew that's what he was claiming.

Look, man, we all know Jesus came first to save the world from sin, but that's not what the Jews were thinking about, I was explaining to you the specific, technical meaning of "messiah" in accordance with the political sentiment of the time, and why that led to the betrayal, systemic injustice and his crucifixion, that's the historical context of the gospel account, not my personal belief.

That's certainly part of it, and this part of your message I agree with.

The Jews were spiritually blinded, they didn't look inward at their sins, they looked outward at their oppressors. And since they were spiritually blind, they'd been waiting for their own messiah throughout the medieval age; when it came to the French revolution, it inspired them to embrace humanism, that "we are the messiah we've been waiting for." Till this day they're still expecting this messianic liberator, that's where the Antichrist will eventually fit in, and the "inhabitants of the earth will worship him."

I can't find fault in that view. Where I was critical of you is where you negatively reflected on how I viewed Lewis' statement that Jesus' messianic claims were "Divine claims."

You appeared to deflect away from these "Divine claims" to point out that they were non-Divine Messianic claims because Messiah did not suggest anything necessarily Divine. But correct me if I'm wrong?

I think the Jewish interrogators of Jesus clearly understood Jesus was making *Divine claims* to be Messiah of the Jews. But you are right that they didn't accept this as proper Messianic fulfillment.

Was Jesus crazy for making such claims? I don't think so. The Jewish leaders just rejected the evidence that existed for this. They thought he was a pretender, or a liar.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, what I said is that I heard that before Christianity there was a Jewish belief in some pockets that believed the "Son of Man" in Dan 7 was a kind of "Divine figure." I didn't say "Son of God." That term is not in Dan 7.

But yes, Abraham entertained angels who looked like men. And one of the men appeared to be a theophany, or an angelic representation of God Himself.

Clearly what you're saying is correct. The Jewish leaders questioning Jesus saw in Jesus' a Messianic claim to be the "Son of God," which I believe was this "Divine figure" coming from Dan 7.

"Son of Man" IS in Dan 7. 7:13. The same title, "one like the son of man", is used in the Revelation of Jesus in Rev. 1:13-14. I don't know what "divine figure" you're talking about, the only other one is God the Father, "Ancient of Days".

“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,"

"Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. "

I can't find fault in that view. Where I was critical of you is where you negatively reflected on how I viewed Lewis' statement that Jesus' messianic claims were "Divine claims."

You appeared to deflect away from these "Divine claims" to point out that they were non-Divine Messianic claims because Messiah did not suggest anything necessarily Divine. But correct me if I'm wrong?

I think the Jewish interrogators of Jesus clearly understood Jesus was making *Divine claims* to be Messiah of the Jews. But you are right that they didn't accept this as proper Messianic fulfillment.

Was Jesus crazy for making such claims? I don't think so. The Jewish leaders just rejected the evidence that existed for this. They thought he was a pretender, or a liar.

I'm telling you, as a historical fact, there was no separation of church and state in those days, God in Jewish prayers is "KING of the universe", messiah by definition must be a king, the royal authority and legitimacy came from not democratic elections, but divine appointment. Kings and lords were appointed by God to rule the people, as Rom. 13:1-5 stated. What you think as a "divine claim" was a political claim. Pilate questioned Him, "are you the king of the Jews?" (Jn. 18:33), and Jesus gave a positive answer (Jn. 18:37), and that's the accusation against Jesus - "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt. 27:37). The real charge was not blasphemy but sedition, calling himself a king was blasphemy against Caesar.

 

[RandyK]

"Son of Man" IS in Dan 7. 7:13. The same title, "one like the son of man", is used in the Revelation of Jesus in Rev. 1:13-14. I don't know what "divine figure" you're talking about, the only other one is God the Father, "Ancient of Days".

You said "Son of God" was in Dan 7. I said "Son of Man" was in Dan 7.

“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,"

"Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. "

I'm telling you, as a historical fact, there was no separation of church and state in those days, God in Jewish prayers is "KING of the universe", messiah by definition must be a king, the royal authority and legitimacy came from not democratic elections, but divine appointment. Kings and lords were appointed by God to rule the people, as Rom. 13:1-5 stated. What you think as a "divine claim" was a political claim. Pilate questioned Him, "are you the king of the Jews?" (Jn. 18:33), and Jesus gave a positive answer (Jn. 18:37), and that's the accusation against Jesus - "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt. 27:37). The real charge was not blasphemy but sedition, calling himself a king was blasphemy against Caesar.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You said "Son of God" was in Dan 7. I said "Son of Man" was in Dan 7.

Nonetheless these were perceived as synonyms. Jesus referenced Dan. 7 in his answer.