Talk:Lewis's trilemma/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neo-Orthodox Alternative

I think we also need to keep into account the premise that led Lewis to Christianity: the truth of myth. Tolkien and (I forget the other gentleman's name) discussed at length with (then atheist) Lewis about the subjective truth of stories (myths), and how they reveal the true soul of man -- which is why they resonate. Think "Jung / Campbell / Neumann" here. Once Lewis accepted the idea that the New Testament was a "myth" (in the sense of a profound metaphorical truth) then he was able to get at the heart of that truth and embrace it as a reflection of his own soul as a human being.

In a Jungian sense (or even a Neo-Orthodox one), a person can say "Jesus is God" with absolute conviction and not necessarily mean the same thing that a fundamentalist believes. Did Lewis believe that Jesus was literally God? I'm sure he did. But he also seems to have gotten to that point through a Neo-Orthodox or Jungian window.

Although on a surface level a Christian is a Christian, the path one takes to get there will be reflected in the flexibility one can use once there. And I think this is why Lewis was so resonant in the 20th century. He spoke of Christianity with the same zest that Joseph Campbell did for myths -- with the added benefit of ultimately believing Christianity on MORE than the subjective level that Campbell had to stay in. At the same time, Lewis could speak of Christianity with the same zeal as Jerry Falwell -- with the added benefit of ultimately believing Christianity on MORE than the objective level Falwell seemed to stay in. Lewis had both, and he truly bridged the gap by finding the "Mere" heart of Christianity that was penned by apostles who believed on both objective and subjective levels.

In other words, it's one thing to say "Jesus is God" -- but what does that MEAN. I think this is what Lewis was really driving at. The liberals of his day would insist that the New Testament was mere metaphor, but never answer the question: "metaphor of WHAT?" The conservatives would insist on the literal facts but again never answer the question: "WHAT do those facts mean?" So, Lewis would posit his liar, lunatic, or lord idea. But he wouldn't stop there. Lewis would present it as a means to take both disparities to the "Mere"ness that they needed to share -- the meaning at the heart of their beliefs.

Was Lewis meaning this in order to objectively prove Jesus is God? No. He was simply trying to dismiss the pleasant dismissals of Jesus as a nice guy, but irrelevant.

Okay, for the sake of the article I'd suggest that Lewis' background be kept in mind. Lewis' Jesus is not merely "lord" on an objective level, but he is also the archetypal expression of what "lord" means to human beings, in the same way that "Aslan" is not merely a talking lion.Tim (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He was simply trying to dismiss the pleasant dismissals of Jesus as a nice guy, but irrelevant.

— Tim :)

Yes, that's exactly it. It's not just English people of the early mid 20th C that can be like this, but the English made something of an art of it. As you say, they spoiled the "myth" by pretending to appreciate it. Lewis loved it so much he pushed through to the reality on the other side of the wardrobe. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A small point - Lewis takes care not to patronise his audience by suggesting that they just think Jesus is 'a nice guy' or that they are just 'pretending' to take him seriously. He is aware that many people who saw Jesus as a man, but a great moral teacher, regarded what they understood his teachings to be as both challenging and inspiring. He is telling them only that, in doing so, they are missing an important point of what he is saying. --Rbreen (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely with you on that. Lewis takes those he's challenging absolutely seriously, which is why he bothers to present an argument they should be able to get on board with. It's not patronising to explain to someone how you think they are wrong, quite the opposite, especially if you are only clarify precisely where you disagree. Mind you, I know a lot of people who'd admit that they don't know much, but just guess Jesus must have been a nice guy. I understand "conflict avoidance" mentality, I think it's healthy and normal. In fact, I think that's the main weakness of Lewis' argument, it addresses many people who don't want to get caught up in something they can see from a distance can lead to animosity. Lewis' suggests such people need to consider themselves opposed to Jesus. That's just not going to "feel" right to them. "I told you I'm not taking sides", they can say, "you have not given me a good reason to suggest that I have to get involved". Although I loath it, that's where Pascal's wager is usually introduced. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism

I have removed the following section:

"Lewis' use of the argument was made in the context of English Anglicanism of the early 20th century. Historically, this was a time of energetic debate between liberal and conservative elements within this particular denomination. Lewis' statement represents but one challenge made by conservatives against the progressive views of a strong liberal movement that was open to questioning many traditional doctrines (see Anglicanism)."

This seems to imply that this is only an issue within Anglicanism, which is certainly untrue. None of the sources I have seen would confine this to Anglicanism and the issue is clearly of concern well beyond the bounds of Anglicanism. If anything, the Anglicans came to this later in the day than, say, their German counterparts. Even a passing familiarity with Bultmann or Schweitzer would make that clear. --Rbreen (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting this on the talk page.

I think you phrase it very nicely to say the Anglicans came later to things than the Germans, though I'm not so sure it's that simple. There were distinctly different issues in the two traditions, Anglicans had the Oxford Movement in the mid 19th century, and Lewis' clearly had some sympathy towards broadly ecumenising Anglicanism. I'm sure we could find sources, is it so far-fetched to imagine Lewis influenced by Oxford, explicitly Anglican Christian traditions?

Liberalism is indeed normally associated with 19th century German scholars and their heirs, but it was not them alone, many argue it was a "spirit" of the 19th century. Returning to England, Charles Darwin was a theology graduate and early member of the South American Missionary Society. The 19th century was a very interesting time.

Rudolf Bultmann and Albert Schweizer were relative latecomers to the German scene, not publishing until the 20th century. Adolf von Harnack is normally consider the "Father of liberal Protestantism". In fact, I think I recollect Bultmann, Schweizer and others being at their most influential after WWII, when English language liberalism was picking up their ideas ... and Lewis was opposing some (not all) of them. Lewis was actually refreshingly distinct from Christian orthodoxy.

Yes, you could be right, Lewis, in confronting liberal Anglicanism, was actually confronting a movement with roots in earlier German writers, but that would need more text and sources, and may drift off topic. That Lewis was addressing English speaking liberals (and unbelievers) in England is evident from the radio interview alone—the language, the medium and the message. He spoke on BBC radio about "those who think Jesus a great moral teacher, but deny his divinity".

Not only that, this very article quotes Anglican liberal views against Lewis' trilemma. What do A. N. Wilson, John A. T. Robinson, John Hick, Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule, James Dunn, Brian Hebblethwaite and David Brown have in common?

By all means remove the Anglican context, and I'll be happy to remove all the Anglican names on the other side of this Anglican debate. ;)

Sure, the fact that historically Lewis and liberal Anglicans have debated the trilemma doesn't mean it's not relevant to others. But please show me exactly where the disputed text makes such a ridiculous and unsupportable claim. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the text gave the impression that this debate took place solely in an Anglican context, ie that other denominations held to the traditional view - which is not true; granted, most of Lewis' audience would have been Anglicans, but he is making his point in a more general Christian context - one of his sources for the trilemma concept appears to have been Chesterton, a Catholic, and he makes it clear that he is not upholding a specific doctrinal position. I seem to remember he said that he had asked a Catholic priest, among others, to approve the text beforehand.

I am unaware of any evidence that Lewis was 'confronting liberal Anglicanism' (which I take to mean serious scholary views) but rather public opinion. He is speaking to a popular audience about views which were increasingly popular, and based on best selling writers such as H G Wells. Were there bestselling books of liberal Anglicanism in his day? I don't think so. Honest to God (and Robinson is not exactly a liberal) was three decades later. Many of his audience were Anglicans, many were not.

I have tried as far as possible to restrict the sources I have quoted only to those who specifically referred to Lewis' argument, and they naturally tend to be British and Anglican, such as Robinson and Hick. But Hick, although he only quotes Anglican scholars (including those he describes as conservative), makes no claim that this view is restricted only to Anglicans; his phrasing makes it clear that he believes this to be universal.--Rbreen (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your grounds for removing the text are that you think it gives "the impression that this debate took place solely in an Anglican context". You admit that you yourself have cited British and Anglican sources because it is precisely these that "naturally" "specifically referred to Lewis' argument". In other words, you recognize a context of Anglican debate. So, your objection is not to the historical fact of there being an Anglican debate, it is to an "impression" you have that the disputed text claims Lewis' argument is "solely" relevant in this context. Again I ask, where precisely does the text indicate this, let's remove the offending word or words, and return the rest which simply state what you yourself acknowledge and the rest of the article demonstrates. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

some confusion here

"Dyophysitism is the position that Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. This position led to the Nestorian Schism in 431, and came to be adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and has been position embraced by mainstream Christianity since that time. From this point of view, Jesus could truthfully say that he was God and that he wasn't, depending on which nature he was speaking for at the time."

This rather telescopes the history of the twp Ephesian and Chalcedonian Councils and would imply to someone not versed in the matter that reading the article that the Nestorians oppose Dyophytism, when in fact they were extremist advocates of it. I propose the following emendation.

"Dyophysitism is the position that Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. Debate over this position led to both the Nestorian Schism in 431 and the Eutychian controversy; it was conclusively adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and has been position embraced by mainstream Christianity since that time. From this point of view, Jesus could truthfully say that he was God and that he wasn't, depending on which nature he was speaking for at the time."

I also question the whole format of this section. Which would, again, seem to imply that Lewis was amonopysite, which obiously he wasn't. The Lewis trilemma refers only to the debate between Unitarianism (and perhaps adoptionism) and all other forms of Christology. 90.210.226.23 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very clear and good point. Both the Trinity and Christology bear on what Jesus would mean by claiming divinity. In fact, it is precisely the claims of Jesus that form an important basis for the theological discussions that resulted in the orthodox positions on both doctrines. Both doctrines are consequences of Jesus' claims (with due weight to what he didn't claim) and both include divinity. Interestingly, both doctrines also include the explict denial that divinity alone, simple and unique is to be attributed to Jesus—which would either be docetism or modalism. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thou hast said" and actions of Pharisees as proof that Jesus claimed to be God?

I'm a little murky on what could be added and what would be off topic, becasue this article isn't about Jesus' claims to be Lord in total, but only about the Lewis trilemma.

However, I will post it here for reference - should the list of arguments that Jesus claims to be God include the term "thou hast said"? It would require a quote by a commentary of some note, but I know that this was a saying that meant what we mean today when we say, "You said it!" Thus, He did claim in answer to questions that He was the Christ.

My second one is like the first, and may need some backup by a source, but the actions of the Pharisees in trying to stone Jesus when He spoke could be, too. This, however, is more off-topic because they did so for His using the "I AM" statement a few times.

Edit: After looking again, I suppose these could just be Part of Kreeft and Tacelli's points; after all, only a few of the 21 could be listed. So, maybe neitherof what I mention deserves an individual mention. 209.244.187.155 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of Christology

I have removed the following large section from the article:

There has been some criticism of Jesus calling himself the "Son of Man," Lee Strobel writes in his book The Case for Christ. In his book, he also interviews Craig Blomberg, Ph.D., concerning the term "Son of Man" applied to Jesus. Dr. Blomberg argues that Jesus calling himself the "Son of Man" is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

— Daniel 7:13-14 (King James Version)

As The Wycliffe Bible Commentary reads concerning this passage, the scene in Daniel 7:9-14 is "fully elaborated in Revelation, chapters 4-20. . ." This reference to the Revelation is key, as Jesus is to be taking a key role in the events in that book. Thus, by Jesus calling himself the "Son of man," he was directly implying that he was going to be a key player in the final judgment. Also, it should be noted that in at least one instance where Jesus was told he was the Son of God, he did not deny it:

He [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

— Matthew 16:15-17 (King James Version)

Mark claims that when Jesus met the man possessed with demons, he called Jesus, "thou Son of the most high God." (Mark 5:10) The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-15), Jesus says "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Luke 4:12) This could be construed as a claim to divinity, as only God would have power over the devil.

The divine status of Christ was a topic of centuries of dispute between various schools of Christology.

• Justin Martyr accepted "Christ the Logos" as a "second god" subordinate to God the Father, identifying God the Son and the Holy Spirit as a single nature, yet different from God the Father. In this view, it would be true to say that Jesus was "divine", but it wouldn't be correct to identify him as "God" without qualification.
• Monophysitism is the position that Christ had a divine nature only, in the sense of a Hindu Avatar being literally God incarnated, clearly opting for the "Lord" option. This doctrine survives among some churches of the West Syrian Rite. Docetism in particular teaches that Christ was not in fact incarnated, but that his body was an illusion while in reality he remained an incorporeal spirit.
• Miaphysitism posits that Jesus had a single nature which was both human and divine at the same time. Miaphysitism would also take the "Lord" option, but unlike Monophysitism would answer the question "was Jesus human" with "yes" at the same time.
• Dyophysitism is the position that Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. This position led to the Nestorian Schism in 431, and came to be adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and has been position embraced by mainstream Christianity since that time. From this point of view, Jesus could truthfully say that he was God and that he wasn't, depending on which nature he was speaking for at the time.
• Unitarianism adopts the position that Jesus had only one nature, and that this nature was human, not divine. Unitarianists subscribe neither to the "Liar", nor to the "Lunatic" nor to the "Lord" option of Lewis' trilemma, but reject the proposition that Jesus ever did claim divinity.
• Adoptionism postulates that Jesus was born fully human and adopted divine nature at some point during his biography. In this view, the truth of a claim to divinity by Jesus would depend on at what time in his life the claim was made.

Although this is very detailed and informative, it is more relevant to a discussion of Christology rather than the trilemma. A key assumption of the trilemma is that Jesus claimed to be God, and therefore the issue of the claims of Jesus is relevant here; but detailed analysis is not. The question is whether Lewis is correct in asserting that this was the import of Jesus' claims, and that can be dealt with by representing the views of those who believe that it was, and those who believe that it was not. A detailed discussion of the claims does not belong here. Actually, the Christology article could do with more on this subject. And the big reduction I have made here is probably a little severe; but most of this is clearly excessive in the context of the subject. --Rbreen (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For those that have the time and interest, here is a less dogmatic take on the question:

== http://books.google.com/books?id=hice2guxStoC&pg=PA98&dq=Jesus+claimed+to+be+divine&ei=7RkySfm1IYjcygTm57S3AQ&client=firefox-a#PPA98,M1 == Starting with Lewis's argument and addressing the two dogmatic camps around the "problem" of Jesus claiming to be God.Hardyplants (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Liked this bit:

"The problem is that the word god or God simply does not mean the same thing to all people who use it; and, what is more, most people in Western culture today, when they use the word, do not have in mind what mainstream, well-thought-out Christianity has meant by it." — N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, (InterVarsity Press, 1999), 96.

Alastair Haines (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The first section does not address divinity claims directly.

The second section is standard presentation of historical Christology.

I agree that Christology is only relevant to this article with regard to divinity claims attributable to Jesus himself.

Thanks for keeping it here in Talk, as it could prove to be helpful to editors at Christology, as you note.

The current article does still need attention in this area, since it is doesn't have any treatment from the many sources of New Testament commentary and contemporary theology available. But, in my case, it's a bit unfair to complain about that rather than address it by prodiving it. ;) There are so many people who could do this, though, I'm surprised I haven't see them around. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Logical soundness

This article has some serious problems. I hardly know where to start. First, let me say that the quote from Blomberg's book The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (footnote 20) is taken far out of context and does not express the actual views of Blomberg. I could not find this actual quote in my copy of the book (why didn't the footnote include a page number?), but I did find pages 256-258, where Blomberg discusses Lewis' trilemma, and uses it as basis for drawing a scholarly conclusion from the material covered in the book.

This bothers me on several levels: First, why did someone take that quote so far out of context, almost to the point of trying to make it say the opposite of what that scholar believes? This makes me think that the person who put that there just skimmed through Blomberg's book and just took a quote out of it without actually reading the book or understanding what the author was actually saying.

Second, if Blomberg is a serious enough scholar to quote, how can you say that scholars don't take Lewis's trilemma seriously? As already noted, Blomberg uses it to sum up his entire book on the reliability of the NT documents! You can't have it both ways. Read pp. 256-558 of the book.

I feel that whoever is putting these quotes from experts here in this article does not understand the subject matter at hand (NT textual criticism, systematic theology, Greek, Biblical studies) but instead just "cherry picked" the finished thoughts of others to try to disprove a view that they don't agree with. I think Wikipedia deserves better than a bunch of quotes cobbled together. It deserves something that reflects actual understanding of the subject matter.

I do not plan to make these changes myself, but I would invite others to please consider these arguments, and consider removing this inferior material from the article. Ignurant (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that that reference was put in by me, and on searching back through the archives I see that it was. Let me explain why it is there.

One of the big problems with this article is that it tends to attract a lot of enthusiasm and opinion, and very little solid scholarly backing. It keeps drifting into a forum for skepticism and apologetics when it really needs to be based on evidence from verifiable, notable sources, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Another problem is to do with the nature of Wikipedia as a sort of digital palimpsest in which continuous rewriting often tends to obscure what was once clear.

Because of the nature of the discussion it is often difficult to find good sources to support it. Anyone who reads about the trilemma knows that this particular criticism - that the biblical sources were embroidered by the early church - is common; but how to provide a citation that shows that? The quote from Blomberg was originally included (and the absence of a page number was entirely an oversight on my part, which I have corrected) to show that this view existed and was widely held. Blomberg was not mentioned in the text, only in the reference to show where it came from. This information was not given (and I do not think it was presented) as his view of the biblical sources - only as support from a notable scholar for the existence of this opinion.

From what I can see, at some point an editor rewrote this line, giving the impression that Blomberg supported this view. It is a particular problem in Wikipedia editing that a perfectly valid citation can be edited like this, in good faith, and end up distorting the facts. I have rewritten this, in a way which hopefully clarifies the point. --Rbreen (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are logical errors in the Wiki text about the logic of the Trilemma.

• Stephen Davis addresses the heart of the logic, although not cited in the section—the Trilemma does not establish the grounds for belief in the divinity of Jesus, but rather its rationality.
• Joel D. Beversluis does not actually address logic in the quotations offered—"straw man" arguments are irrelevant, not unsound.
• Lane Craig notes the argument is unsound as an argument for Christianity—of course it is, it is not an argument for Christianity but for the divinity of Jesus (a manifestation of Vishnu or Krishna in a very few Hindu writers).

So, the logical errors in the current presentation is that the criticisms (as presented) are criticism of misuse or misunderstanding of the Trilemma, rather than of the Trilemma itself. Those who use the argument outside Lewis' intendend use claim more for it than it claims for itself, they commit a range of logical errors in the various ways they do this.

This is clearly important and closely connected to other parts of the article. Indeed it is well that the Trilemma is generally considered to be sound (in itself), because this is precisely the basis of the major criticism. If a sound argument has a false premise, its conclusion must be false. If an argument is unsound, then it may produce true conclusions from false premises and so whether Jesus claimed to be God or not would be neither here nor there.

Overall, the literature currently gathered points to people, especially evangelists, claiming more for the argument than is rigorously permissible, and to critics who recognise the way to overturn the conclusion is to demonstrate a premise is false. Those cover pretty much what I've encountered in my own reading, and the sources here are excellent to establish the points.

The glaring omission remains that standard commentaries on the Gospels and systematic theologies establish Jesus' divinity on the basis of his own claims, not on the basis of church tradition. This is especially true of Protestant commentaries, but exists in ancient writers common to all traditional branches of Christendom.

Various non-mainstream writers are cited who claim themselves to represent the majority of biblical scholars, but they can only do so because their implicit definition of "biblical scholar" excludes all scholars others would consider mainstream. The reader of the article should note that the scope of the sense of "biblical scholar" is not specified, only a few are mentioned, and these are outside mainstream biblical scholarship.

The main place to fix this, and add some sources, is at another page. There is just an overwhelming amount of material regarding Jesus' own claims to divinity. That is tangential to this article, though it must ultimately be summarised here, since the minority, opposing view has also be cited against the conclusion of the Trilemma. It does need to be understood that those who take the "Jesus made no claims" line have a very long tradition indeed, including Arius and extending to Jehovah's Witnesses, however their claims to be a majority are no more credible than the similar claims of their more numerous mainstream opponents. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS Beversluis on C.S. Lewis needs to be handled carefully. Although we can't cite his blog, Victor Reppert has published on C.S. Lewis and clearly represents a reliable source of an alternative POV. He is cited in a few places at Wiki already. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Did Jesus claim to be God?

The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." (John 19:7)

Since there seems to be a bone of contention here, and since it is fundamental to the subject of the article, it is probably worth mentioning why I think the two POVs the article must document are actually talking at wikt:cross purposes, i.e. there is disagreement, but it is inevitably endless, because the two sides are actually talking about different things. This is not my own idea, it is one I've learned from others, and it is helpful, because grasping it allows editors to "rise above" the debate and document it without taking sides, whether they are editors who personally believe Jesus is God or not.

The last phrase of the paragraph above is the key one. In an important sense, conservative traditional Christian theology does not believe Jesus is God (don't quote me on that though). More precisely, the statement must be understood more attributively than predicatively. What theology understands from the New Testament is that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, i.e. God the Son. That is what Jesus claimed, that is why the Jewish religious leaders rightly considered him a blasphemer worthy of death, and that is what the apostles taught and that is what the early church, the councils and mainstream believers have accepted for two thousand years. It took a few centuries to settle on language for the Trinity and it is still a doctrine that causes believers, let alone unbelievers to scratch their heads.

The Trinity is famously depicted in Matthew 3:16–17.

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

It is apparent in many other places, but profoundly in Hebrews 9:14, describing the crucifixion.

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, clense our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

The problem with the "trilemma debate" is that the word God is not sufficiently clearly defined. In Christianity, God can refer to any of the three persons of the Trinity, but only as a concession for simplicity of expression. The main point of the concept of Trinity is to simultaneously assert belief in only one God, while asserting the full divinity of three persons, namely Father, Son and Spirit.

Jesus asserted an equality with God (the Father) that was rightly objectionable to the Jewish leaders staunchly protecting the monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures. John's gospel goes to great length attributing words to Jesus that describe the Father-Son relationship, without explicitly articulating a trinitarian doctrine, chapters 14 and 16 additionally introduce the person of the Holy Spirit. The Jesus of John's gospel describes (rather than defines) a Trinity, and the guardians of monotheistic orthodoxy begged the Roman authorities for permission to enact the death sentence for this blasphemy.

So, are the critics of Lewis who object that Jesus never claimed to be God correct? Well, in a meaningful way, yes they are, he claimed to be God the Son, not the one and only God. He didn't say "I am the 2nd person of the Trinity", because the word Trinity hadn't been invented yet! :) But is Lewis correct? Actually, he is correct also, because the simplification to "Jesus is God" does indeed have New Testament precedent.

Finally, the number of sources that interpret the New Testament as described in the overview here is legion, covering works from the 2nd century through to the 21st. The only problem with sourcing the points is selecting which of the hundreds of thousands of relevant reliable sources would be most appropriate.

But the more important thing about this article is that Lewis' trilemma has nothing to do with proving Jesus is God, it doesn't try to. Rightly understood, atheists could use precisely the same trilemma to point out how ridiculous Christianity is. Look at the conclusion—if he's not God (and the only evidence we have to decide the matter is the words of people who deliberately spread their story about him), Jesus was bad.

That's what this article needs, more reliable sources of atheists using the trilemma, because it works just as well as an argument against Christianity as for it. It's an excluded middle argument—you can't have your cake and eat it too. Jesus was either God or bad. Why was he crucified?

Either the Jews were right, or the Christians. Most normal people are like Pontius Pilate, they don't want to make a decision. The trilemma is uncomfortable for normal people, not for atheists or Christians. Strangely, this is an article that atheists and Christians alike could work on with a lot of agreement. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair, a very interesting lecture on Haines' view of the trilemma. Now can you cite from any modern New Testament scholars who argue that Jesus claimed to be God? You have hundreds of thousands, just pick a couple.--Rbreen (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is my view, but not by virtue of originating it, merely by agreeing with what is uncontroversial mainstream opinion.

It's too easy to provide references, almost any commentary on any of the gospels will confirm it, and list extensive bibliographies to the same effect. Modern New Testament scholarship is essentially unanimous that Jesus claimed divinity, not only in the words and actions recorded in the gospels, but also via what can be concluded from secondary evidence like the epistles and even early critics of Christianity. This is not something on which contemporary Christians have come to disagree with earlier Christian writers.

But to give you a few classic references:

Brown, Raymond E. Jesus: God and Man. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1967.

Craig, William Lane. Apologetics: An Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

Miller, Glenn M. Christian Distinctives: The Trinity.

O'Collins, Gerald. Christology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

It is well-known, however, that a small minority of liberal scholars (particularly, but not exclusively, English Anglicans) have worked hard to make a case that Jesus did not claim divinity, it's just that they have not been particularly successful in pursuading the wider community of their new reading.

His 1st century Jewish contemporaries heard Jesus clearly more clearly than we in the 21st century can, and Jesus' Jewish contemporaries responded precisely as one would expect them to respond to his claims.

Alastair Haines (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair, can you provide page numbers please for Brown and O'Collins? Not Miller, I don't think he counts as notable. Craig is not a New Testament scholar, but if quoted in support for the view that this is the mainstream view, he could count. --Rbreen (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Brown, pp. 33–34 will interest you, but there is much more that also bears on the topic.

O'Collins pp. 24–25 will interest you; but, likewise, there is much germaine to this subject elsewhere.

These are not the only, or even the best, or even representative sources.

Theologians are probably even more relevant to the Trilemma than NT scholars (though the two overlap immensely), mainly because the claim that Jesus is divine is a complex theological claim. Church historians are also very relevant, since the early church's discussions regarding these issues is very much a non-trivial subject.

I'm happy to work with your definitions of which scholars count and which don't. If I had time, I could list literally thousands of recently published commentaries. Even were many of these discounted for one reason or another, it would become apparent that more mainstream Christians become professional scholars of the New Testament than people of other conviction, and that mainstream Christian reading of the NT on this topic has not changed, despite some vocal individuals and minorities like the Anglicans you've cited, but (I conceed) not strictly limited to just those writers.

So, on the one hand, I'm happy to have the most stringent criteria for reliability applied to mainstream sources, while on the other hand, I'm willing to be extremely generous regarding the reliability of non-mainstream writers like Hick. But the bottom line is that Hick does not represent the mainstream in the way he claims he does. His POV should be heard, of course, but it should not be classed as mainstream in any way, when his claim to that is a "self-published" claim. In the sense that English Anglicanism is often viewed by other Anglicans as somewhat "liberal", Hick is indeed representative of many English Anglicans, but not of world-wide Anglican or mainstream Christianity.

Just a quick point, no time right now to go into bigger questions. I see two issues to be referenced, and therefore two different kinds of source; the first is whether Jesus claimed to be God, and the appropriate source here is NT scholars (I am sure we could agree on criteria for these); the second is whether the majority of NT scholars believe that he did, and here I believe we can accept a wider range of sources - eg Hick, who is at least as informed on the subject as Lewis (and appears to have read more on it, besides having 60 years of additional scholarship to draw on)--Rbreen (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Lewis was not a New Testament scholar (though he knew dozens of classical Greek writers off by heart in Greek), any NT "outranks" him, sure, though he'd "outrank" them in Greek, curiously enough. I think the issue here is dealing with the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God in a Wiki way. There are two notable POVs--yes and no--and both have substantial reasoned arguments and reliable scholars supporting them. I think the onus is on me and others to provide sources for the argument in favour. Additionally, some verifiable statement of "mainstream-ness" in the sense of "majority view" would be helpful. In fact, there might even be two published opinions. Hick claims the debate was recently resolved against Jesus having made the claim; however, from the authors he cites, it would appear that English Anglicanism may have been or be persuaded of that, but it doesn't mesh with a world-wide inclusive view of NT scholarship. Sure, people outside Anglicanism share the view that Jesus didn't claim to be God. But unlike Hick, I doubt those others would make a similar claim. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of our different perspectives (yours RBreen and mine) here is that I'm soaked in years of reading mainly mainstream Christian writers, modern and ancient, but also several notable "alternative" writers. What is obscure to me, though, is how an interested and educated "outsider" (I mean this very positively) approaches literature on "apologetic" topics. I've had access to theological libraries for too long to imagine how to approach these topics from a position responsibly sceptical of what such libraries may contain and what biases the authors of their works may share.

So, your perspective, if I've guessed it correctly, is extremely valuable to me. You are more representative of a reader likely to visit this page. Since the reader is, imo, the ultimate "customer who is always right", satisfying your demands for rigour is where the "burden of proof" lies in our discussion.

It is my aim to seek to serve the reader, via our interaction, by providing a fair and neutral documentation of scholastic literature of the topic of the article. It would help a little if you could see that I'd be a complete "dumb-ass" to attempt to bludgeon a page with a particular POV, when all POVs are actually required to achieve NPOV. In other words, as a self-confessed conservative Christian, I'm at least helpful in ensuring that that particular POV is being reliably and fairly documented at the page, however, I'm personally willing to go a long way beyond that. On this topic, the conflict is not between Christians and atheists, but between conservative and liberal Christians. It probably does include conflict between Christians and non-Christians who are positive about Jesus, without wanting to buy into the question of divinity; but that is a conflict of a much less intense kind.

I haven't checked the article history, and that was negligent of me. If the bulk of this (rather good) article is thanks to your contributions, Rbreen, you are to be very much congratulated. The writers named are all notable and arguments bang on topic, as you well know. I do feel, however, that there are inadvertant imbalances in the overall conclusion, because important subtleties have not been accounted for, probably because they are not manifestly obvious in the literature, and one side desires to obscure them.

Absolutely - this is an issue with some highly nuanced differences of opinion, not some plain black versus white argument. But I find it intriguing that you seem to imply that I am the one obscuring the subtleties. From my point of view, the problem with Lewis' argument is precisely that he overlooks or is unaware of the nuances of what he is writing about here. --Rbreen (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. This is the point of our disagreement. I think Lewis was making a broad "arm-waving" argument, that's fine as far as it goes, especially speaking as an educated laymen to a those interested in Christian apologetics.

So my reservations are regarding those who are either pro-Lewis and push his simplistic argument too far, or anti-Lewis and expecting too much from a very simple point.

From a Wiki perspective, it doesn't really matter who's right or wrong, they all need writing up, and without editorial reflection on whether people do Lewis an injustice by pressing him too far.

My bet is that if we "write flat", covering all POVs from the NPOV, a reader will be able to judge something like that for himself.

The reason I'm hanging around at the page is because it feels too dominated by criticism of the trilemma, and suggestive that such criticism is valid, and now established consensus.

Perhaps you'd share that impression of the article with me, perhaps not. Ultimately, it's not really you or me that settles it as you know, it's what's already in print somewhere. I bet there'll be something at Touchstone Magazine, it's precisely the sort of thing they'd cover in detail.

When I get time ... ") Alastair Haines (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to hear what I post as "new evidence" rather than "refutation". There is an element of (unsolicited) "peer review" and "constructive criticism" in what I'm offering, but mainly I'm wanting to accept responsibility to upgrade the voice of reliable sources from the mainstream Christian perspective, hence adjusting the "balance" of the overall drift of the entry. I'm also seeking to find a neutral point of ground from which the whole article can be evaluated. I've proposed that equivocation on the meaning of Jesus is God is one such perspective, it allows any and all comers to make sense of both sides, rather than having to "fall in line" behind one of them.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to fret - I certainly do not regard your new evidence as refutation ... and it's not especially new to me either! Cheers. --Rbreen (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something like the "it depends on what the meaning of is is"... First, what is Jesus taken to be? The figure in the New Testament or a historical reconstruction (a la the Jesus seminar)? Second, what constitutes a claim? Can it be an allusion, a play on words (why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone), a generic quotation (I said you are gods), a claim to answer prayer (If you ask me anything in my name I will do it), a statement of unity (I and the Father are one)...??? And what do we mean by God? Is he limited to the transcendent? Is he limited to spirit? Is he limited to invisible? Is he limited from finite revelation? Is this literal or metaphoric? Do we take it as we take the special revelation of scripture (i.e. to hear the scripture is to hear God... the word of scripture is the word of God), or do we take it as something further -- instead of a slavish revelation, a fully interactive one (if it be your will, let this cup pass). There are a host of categories here. I think the only thing we can document is who claims Jesus claimed to be God and why -- and who claims Jesus didn't claim to be God and why.Tim (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of good questions Tim, and, I think, the right conclusion. The appropriate encyclopedic approach is to document those who read Jesus' words as claims to divinity and those who don't. We have representatives of the latter, but not representatives of the first.

The problem I have at the moment is that those who read Jesus' words as claims to divinity are mainstream, but this is being challenged. It's a fair challenge, of course, but the problem with addressing it is being "spoiled for choice". There are just so many references. I think the best summary references would be theologies and commentaries. Commentaries have the advantage of providing specific proof-texts for a reader to consider, theologies have the advantage of co-ordinating a range of references.

Actually, there's so much material that an article on Jesus' claims to divinity would make sense; including, of course, the notable scholars who've challenged mainstream reading of the Gospels on this matter. Your excellent questions above point to why the issue is a real one. It's not a surprise that there's more than one POV, there are a range of possible readings and many have had advocates at one time or another. That doesn't change the historical fact that mainstream reading has understood Jesus to have claimed divinity, and still does. The mainstream reading could be wrong, but it's not very surprising it's mainstream, given that the mainstream view Jesus as God anyway.

In short, mainstream Christianity has not come to a consensus that "we believe Jesus is God, although we recognise he never claimed this himself." What makes things tricky is that Hick has claimed precisely that. Not only does Hick read Jesus differently to the mainstream, he cites Anglicans of his school of thought as evidence that the mainstream Christian view has changed. Ideally we need a reliable mainstream Christian source expressing a different POV to Hick. In lieu of that, the NPOV requires RS demonstrating that Hick's is not the only POV on the matter. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, the problem is here that you clearly believe that the mainstream Christian position is that Jesus claimed to be God, and I firmly believe that the mainstream position is that Jesus did not claim to be God. Either we are talking completely at cross purposes, or we are both looking at very different sources. Indeed, from what I have read, your suggestion of, "we believe Jesus is God, although we recognise he never claimed this himself" is a fair, if very simplified, assessment of modern mainstream NT scholarship.

We could sidestep the issue, and simply reflect the fact that there are different opinions on the subject - but the problem here is that Hick bases an important criticism of the trilemma specifically on this point - that NT scholarship no longer makes this claim. If he is wrong, it matters; therefore we have to establish whether he is wrong or not. It is a point that can be discussed at the appropriate point in the body of the article, but you keep insisting on a statement of what you believe to be the mainstream view much earlier, when I have attempted on a number of occasions to make this, instead, a neutral statement that this is a premise of the argument, or that it is a view without making claims as to whether it is mainstream or not. You insist that this view should be presented, despite the fact that we have a notable source that says the exact opposite, while you still have not managed to come up with a clear citation from a notable source that says specifically that Hick is wrong, or specifically that Jesus claimed to be God.

Obviously the question of whether Jesus did claim to be God is a complex one, and there are more subtle issues, as Tim suggested, of what in fact this means. An article on the divinity of Jesus would certainly be useful - unfortunately Divinity of Jesus currently redirects to Christology, and the issue of the self-understanding of Jesus is not really addressed there. But if we are to cover it in this article, it ought to be addressed at the appropriate point - where Hick raises it as a criticism - and not by placing an unsupported assertion at the beginning of the article.

Let's look at where we are here. Your view is that mainstream Christian opinion is that Jesus claimed to be God. I am unclear as to what you mean by that - are we talking about popular Christian opinion, or scholarly opinion? I would not be surprised to find that the majority of ordinary Christians do, in fact, believe that - but it would be difficult to show, I suspect. Assuming that you mean scholarly opinion, then we are on better ground. I think we can both agree that, for most of the history of Christendom, the view of the overwhelming majority of Christian scholars was that Jesus understood himself to be God - the second person of the Holy Trinity - and made this clear to his followers. The point on which we appear to differ is whether that view has changed. Hick says that it has; and what I have read leads me to the view that he is substantially correct in this.

There are two factors affecting our different conclusions on this matter: one a point of opinion, and one of fact. I have the impression from your many comments and edits that you consider the entire body of Christian writing, from the earliest days, to have equal bearing on this - by 'mainstream' you evidently include everyone from Origen and Calvin to modern writers. From a theological point of view, that might make sense - I dare say Origen has just as useful things to say (albeit somewhat unorthodox) as anyone writing today about the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. But from the historical point of view - and it will really help you here, to understand my position on this whole issue, to remember that I am an archivist - the story is very different. We both, I am sure, have at least a fair grounding in the history of New Testament scholarship over the last couple of centuries, and I am sure I can take it as read that you are familiar with the huge shifts in understanding of the early history of the Christian movement that have come about through the discovery of new documents (Qumran, Nag Hammadi), better understanding of Second Temple Judaism, and especially the development of new critical methods of analysing the texts. What was the mainstream view a century ago is no longer mainstream today, and we cannot quote earlier authors as if nothing had happened; this seems obvious to me, and it is surprising to find you seem to adopt a different opinion. Even Lewis acknowledged this, in stating, in God in the Dock, that he believed the claims of Jesus to divinity could be established on the basis of the Synoptics alone (acknowledging presumably the widespread view that the Christological claims in GJohn were a product of that era, rather than undeniably authentic). It is therefore a point of opinion on your part that we can use older sources to support claims about modern mainstream belief. (If you are willing to distinguish between historical belief and modern belief, that would be different of course, but I think we crossed that particular bridge a long time back).

The question of fact, therefore, is whether, as Hick claims, NT scholars no longer believe that Jesus claimed to be God. I believe he is right in stating that; you evidently believe he is wrong, although you have cited no sources that clearly say he is wrong, none that clearly say that many, most, or a majority of Christian scholars believe that Jesus claimed to be God, and none from the modern era that say (as far as I can tell) explicitly that Jesus claimed to be God. You could argue that his claim is not wrong so much as an oversimplification, and there is certainly a case to be made for that; but that case would need to be made at the point in the article where Hick's claim is mentioned. Instead, you want the traditional simple view stated as the mainstream view - and then imply that I am the one who wants to 'obscure the subtleties'. Surely you must see why I find that odd.

If we are seriously to address this, we need to unpack this question of what it means to say that Jesus claimed to be God; unfortunately I do not have time right now to go much further than a brief comment here. You admitted earlier that the claims Jesus actually made were to be the Son of God. In fact, there is a much better scholarly consensus for the point that the most authentic detail is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, and there exists a diversity of opinion as to what that means: possibly a claim to be the Messianic figure in the book of Daniel; possibly not. There is no clear consensus, rather a wide range of interpretations. Certainly, at the conservative end of that spectrum, scholars would argue that Jesus had a unique sense of divine mission, doing what he believed God could only do through him; and his followers went on to conclude that God was not just working through Jesus, but being Jesus. But that falls clearly short of the 'claim to be God' that Lewis implies - that Jesus clearly and intentionally implied to his followers that he was God; and in that sense Hick is right - that position has largely been abandoned by scholarship. --Rbreen (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with an earlier comment that the trilemma argument is predicated on the fact that Jesus did indeed claim to be God. Take, for instance, this passage from Matthew chapter 9:

Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over {the sea} and came to His own city. And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This {fellow} blasphemes." And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He *said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home." And he got up and went home.

In this passage, Jesus is clearly referring to himself as the Son of Man. He forgives sin, does a visible miracle in order to show that the forgiveness issued was genuine, and he refers to himself as the Son of Man. This passage seems to me to indicate that Jesus claimed to be God, not only because of the claim of forgiveness and the miracle, but specifically because of the reference to the Son of Man from Daniel chapter 7. In that chapter, the Son of Man is described as one to whom will be given the following things:

-Glory

-Kingship

-Everyone's Service

Also, it is mentioned that the kingdom given to the Son of Man will last forever, and not pass away.

One common mistake that is made with regard to interpreting passages like this is the use of the word kingdom. In chapter one of George Eldon Ladd's book The Gospel of the Kindgom, Ladd explains that the word kingdom, as is is used in bible translation, is used to mean a more archaic meaning--that of kingship (i.e. the right and authority to rule) not necessarily a geographic place that one rules over.

So biblically, the Son of Man is described as someone who will have the authority to rule forever. And when analyzing Jesus' claims about himself, we would do well to remember this fact, and not try to reinvent the wheel, and turn Jesus' statements around to mean something else. Reject Jesus as myth if you want, but don't try to make the text say something it does not say. That's just not being objective.

When Jesus called himself by the Son of Man epithet, he was claiming to have the right to rule over all for all eternity. Only God has the right to rule over all, and only God is eternal.

Those editing this article need to understand all this, and not just copy and paste in quotes that say, "today's scholars think this" or "most scholars think that." Instead of just pasting in quotes that make sweeping generalizations, try to actually handle the subject matter in a responsible way. That will improve the quality and objectivity of the article.

Let's not have Wikipedia articles that consist simply of quotes cobbled together. Ignurant (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about most of what you say. An encyclopedia article should source and document the specific arguments of various scholars. I think this article isn't too bad at collecting the arguments made by opponents of Lewis and of Jesus' divinity. Because there aren't all that many that do this, that part of the article takes some hard work, and thankfully it is largely done.

The only difficulty is that the impression is given that these are the majority voice, and that their opponents' arguments are coherent. In actuality, Lewis' argument is far more solid than any of the criticisms, and this is recognised by the vast majority of people who discuss the subject.

Documenting hundreds or thousands of scholars who argue for Jesus claiming divinity in the NT is a very long task indeed, it also goes somewhat beyond the scope of this article. I think we need a small section summarising the facts. Please try working on this yourself, that's what the [edit] button is for. ;)

The only place I disagreed with your comments, was the mild issue that Jesus claim to divinity is in some ways "central" to Lewis trilemma as it was stated; however, in formal logic, Jesus claiming divinity is not actually logically key. Even were Jesus not to have claimed divinity (though the records show that he did), Lewis' main point still stands.

Lewis was saying: One cannot argue, on the basis of the NT record that Jesus was a great moral teacher but not divine. The way Jesus speaks and acts in that record are simply not adequately explained by such a suggestion. The miracles alone are fraudulent and deceptive, let alone the teachings which arrogantly focus on how Jesus claimed people should respond to his own person. If Jesus was not divine, a good deal of his words and deeds were either personal delusions or calculated to delude others.

This is why a number of the criticisms are quite poor, logically speaking. Either the critics can't follow the logic, or they chose not to. They overlook that the reliability of the NT, or whether Jesus actually claimed to be God or not, are deliberately being bypassed by Lewis. He's taking a "common sense" approach, he's trying to make things simple for an ordinary person. He's saying, don't be like people who pretend to be half-half, "Jesus good not God", you have to take sides, if you look at the NT, Jesus is either dangerous or pathetic, unless he is God. That's the heart of Lewis' point, and that needs to be the heart of this article. I'm still convinced the reliability of the NT and whether Jesus actually claimed divinity or not (true as both things are imo) are actually not the main substance of Lewis' point, nor of what the article should end up dealing with.

I'd be interested in your feedback brother Ignurant. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Alistair, thanks for your comments. I see that we agree on much. I see your point about how the argument does not necessarily stand or fall on Jesus' claim to be God, because if he were not God, his miracles would be fake, etc.

I did not edit the article because I just wanted to swim in the waters for a minute before making a change, because I figured that the change might be quickly reversed.

I know that the article cannot summarize everything, but I just have this gut feeling that people are taking conclusive statements formed by others and then pasting them into the article without themselves understanding the issue. I would covet your feedback on what I wrote below under the "Logical Soundness" heading.

Ignurant (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Rbreen has given some good responses to your comments below. There are still serious infelicities about the overall content and structure of this article, imo, which I've repeated below. It sounds very harsh to say it that way, and I don't mean it harshly. The article also shows excellent commitment to sourcing, and engagement with the arguments of scholars, not merely their "votes". All material is also directly relevant. The "serious" problem, imo, is what is lacking ... the majority "common sense" view—Lewis makes a point, but so what? He's not talking about me or anyone I know. (The "I" here is not me, of course.) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I am finding this discussion page far more interesting than the article itself LOL. Ignurant (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

<v. big smile> Yup! I love that about Wiki. It's the interactive encyclopedia—it talks back to you if you poke it. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Words, words, words...

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli have expanded the argument into a 'quadrilemma' (Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Myth) — or a 'quintilemma',

"Dilemma" comes from the Greek prefix "di-" and a Greek word. Let's leave the Latin numerical prefixes out of this. 91.107.165.116 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Article title/nomenclature

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the article title be "Lewis' trilemma" rather than "Lewis's trilemma" with the extra S following the apostrophe? --IanWatson (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what MOS says on this, but in some manuals of style, the ending in s only gets an apoostrophe rule only applies if the word is a pluralization. So Lewis's and Thomas's would be correct although one would the schools' district. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus presented himself as God

My "bottom line" is described above: if Jesus claims divinity in the NT, and the report is reliable, it establishes the applicability of Lewis' trilemma; however, even were these absent from the NT, or misreported where they occur, Lewis' trilemma is established on the grounds of other words and actions documented in the NT, without which we would only be able to speculate, not apply serious scrutiny. That is how Lewis presented the trilemma—"the sort of things Jesus said". [Emphasis added.]

So, trivially, opposition to the trilemma on the grounds of no claim to divinity, or an unreliable NT, is logically inadequate or mere solipsism. If scholars have shamed themselves to publish such blunders in all seriousness, so be it, report them here, I enjoy a good giggle, and I expect I'll find writers who point out what I've just said more kindly so we can document that also and allow readers to share the entertainment.

No, it's basic logic. Documents can be inaccurate. Lewis' argument rests on the assumption that every thing Jesus is alleged to have said is accurate, and further, that everything is interpreted in a certain way. This assumption has no basis. Probably true isn't good enough - such an argument commits the falacy of the false dilemma.--RLent (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But to go one step further, I'll choose just one verse that underlines why the most famous (uncontroversial, and important) thing we know about Jesus actually happened—his crucifixion. He was crucified because he was (imo correctly) perceived by his contemporaries, the devoted and monotheistic Jews, as a blasphemer. They thought he made himself out to be God.

Oh, the claim that the Jews had Jesus killed is quite controversial. It was the Romans that killed Jesus after all. --RLent (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It took the Christian community at large years to get themselves organized to work out what they believed. If we can believe the reports, documented prior to Christians reaching "consensus", the Jews understood what Jesus was claiming far faster. This is no surprise, in more ways than one, Jesus was very pointedly "speaking their language".

I'll dump the verse here, now. Later I'll add commentaries from reliable, 21st century scholastic sources. The verse is profound because it implies words and actions above and beyond those explicitly documented elsewhere in the Gospel, but which are certainly in line with what has been documented.

John 10:33

ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν

ἀπεκρίθησαν

αὐτῷ

οἱ

Ἰουδαῖοι,

Περὶ

καλοῦ

ἔργου

οὐ

λιθάζομέν

σε

ἀλλὰ

περὶ

βλασφημίας,

καὶ

ὅτι

σὺ

ἄνθρωπος

ὢν

ποιεῖς

σεαυτὸν

θεόν

apekrithesan

autō

hoi

Judaioi,

Peri

kalou

ergou

ou

lithazomen

se

alla

peri

blasphēmias,

kai

hoti

su

anthrōpos

ōn

poieis

seauton

theon

They answered

him

the

Jews,

"Concerning

good

works

not

we are stoning

you

but

concerning

blasphemy,

and

because

you

a man

being

are making

yourself

God."

The Jews answered him, "We aren't stoning you for good works but for blasphemy. Because you, being a mortal, make yourself God."

[my translation, plenty better available online]

Papyrus 75 is a second century manuscript of John's gospel, a picture of this verse and context is available online.

The trilemma provides a logical framework for an extremely strong case against Jesus. One so strong it led directly to his death. The contemporary authorities chose option (A)—criminally insane. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms need fixing?

In the criticism section it says this:

One point of criticism has been Lewis's use of logic. Philosopher John Beversluis[20] describes Lewis as "textually careless and theologically unreliable" and criticises his use of logic in arguments: "He habitually confronts his readers with the alleged necessity of choosing between two alternatives when there are in fact other options to be considered. One horn of the dilemma typically sets forth Lewis's view in all its apparent forcefulness, while the other horn is a ridiculous straw man."[21]

It does not sound like these address the trilemma in particular, but are just general criticisms of C.S. Lewis. If this is incorrect, could somebody please rewrite this? Citrus538 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like to add my agreement with Citrus538's comment: there's no evidence presented in this section that Beversluis believed Lewis's logic to be flawed in this particular case. For that reason, I'm removing this subsection, and have folded the remaining sentence about William Lane Craig into an appropriate place in the paragraph above, as a stop-gap.

I'd like to suggest a complete re-write of the criticism section irregardless, simply because it's actually quite poor.

1) "severely criticised" / "often" ? Really? There's no evidence presented here to support that, so why not remove the hyperbole and just say, "criticised?" That's what I've done.

2) The reference to Steven Davis has no relevance in this section—a topic or view not being discussed widely by "professionals" does not count against it, necessarily (I think this would count as a "hearsay" argument, no?). Rather, there are several reasons why this might be the case. This whole sentence should be removed.

3) In the subsection, "Accuracy of the gospel account," the line

A. N. Wilson, who wrote a popular biography of Lewis, claimed that Lewis had read almost no works of biblical scholarship and the previous hundred years of form criticism and redaction criticism of the New Testament appeared to have passed him by

is ambiguous, and not having read this apparently "popular" (When? With whom?) tome I can't say whether A.N.Wilson's claim is intended as compliment or criticism. Either way, the claim has no bearing on the value of Lewis' Trilemma: there's plenty of evidence that not being privy to the arguments of a long-standing debate can be both beneficial and detrimental to one's ability to comment upon it oneself. So, it should be removed.

(Actually, I'd recommend the removal of this subsection entirely. Instead, expand the line in the section, "Lewis's Formulation" to read instead, "Lewis's trilemma is based on the view that the New Testament Gospels are accurate, and that in his words and deeds, Jesus was asserting a claim to be God." This makes the whole article less prone to polemic.)

4) The section, "Claims of divinity attributed to Jesus" is entirely irrelevant also. It's already been conceded in the main body of the article that, "Lewis's trilemma is based on the view that, in his words and deeds, Jesus was asserting a claim to be God." This section does not criticise the Trilemma, but rather one of the pillars on which it rests, and therefore does not belong in this article. Furthermore, the dichotomy of "New Testament scholars" and "conservative scholars" is clearly indicative of bias, and terms such as "some," "many" or "a number of" should be used instead. I've gone ahead and made this change now, to diminish the appearance of bias at the very least.

All-in-all, I think the Criticism section should be entirely deleted, until a genuine criticism can be presented. At the moment, there's nothing here that merits the title.

SiR GadaBout (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sir GadaBout is correct. There is nothing in the two subsections of criticism section which refutes the trilemma directly. I have removed these two subsections. Kleinbell (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not about whether the criticism section refutes the trilemma or not - it simply records the various criticisms that have been made of it. They are an important aspect of the discussion. --Rbreen (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rbreen, Do the sources of these criticisms mention the term trilemma or the concept of trilemma? Historyprofrd (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Wilson reference, since it does not refer specifically to the trilemma. I have also substituted a reference from Beversluis specifically to the trilemma, although the earlier cited comment about straw men is surely relevant here. All the other references are directly to Lewis' argument except for the more detailed comments re the claims of Jesus which always seems to generate extra discussion. --Rbreen (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)