This topic came up in another thread, and I was asked to re-post it, so here goes.

This stems from C. S. Lewis’ claim that Jesus was either God, or a Lunatic and a Liar. I hold that there is a second possibility that Mr. Lewis overlooked.

First let’s consider Mr. Lewis’ view.

1. Jesus was not God, but the words of the Bible are infallible truth.

This seems to be C. S. Lewis’ stance. In other words, Mr. Lewis assumes that Jesus wasn’t God, yet he retains the idea that everything that the Bible claims that Jesus actually said is true. From this, Mr. Lewis’ conclusion is that Jesus would have had to have been a lunatic and a liar then (if he wasn’t God).

The only problem with Mr. Lewis’ treatment here is that he is only thinking ‘half-way’ out of the box. In other words, he’s willing to consider that Jesus might not have been God, but he’s not willing to go the extra step of considering that the Bible is also not the infallible truth. Because of this, he is judging Jesus based on precisely what the Bible claims that Jesus said verbatim.

But this is an unrealistic evaluation to consider that Jesus might not have been God.

This move us to scenario # 2.

2. Jesus was not God, and the words of the Bible are not the word of God.

Now we are in a better position to recognize that the things that were written about Jesus weren’t necessarily true. It is quite possible (and my sincere belief), that the man named Jesus did in fact live and preach brotherly love. He stood up against Roman oppression and he was in fact crucified (maybe not even with nails – more likely it was a standard crucifixion).

Then the people made a martyr out of him. His close friends and followers wrote stories about his life, embellishing the details and raising him to the status of a God.

Many scholars believe that Jesus was indeed preaching the philosophy of Eastern Mysticism. The philosophy of Jesus differs quite significantly from the Old Testament, yet it falls perfectly in line with the philosophy of Eastern Religions. Many claim that the sermon on the mount is an almost verbatim repeat of sermons given centuries earlier by Buddha. Moreover, it is tradition for the Eastern Mystics to believe that they are one with the universe, so it would have been natural for Jesus to have preached that he and “the father” are the same. He would also preach “Ye are also gods”. These are perfectly normal ideas of Eastern Mysticism. Jesus would not have been either a lunatic, nor a liar, to have preached these principles, and to have claimed to be God in this sense.

Ok, so now Jesus is dead, and decades have passed before his followers finally get up the courage to write about him. In the meantime they had ample opportunity to communication with each other. They would have expanded and embellished his memory taking what he had preached and putting it into the context of their own religious views. In other words, they would have naturally taken his claims to be “one with the father” to mean that he was an incarnation of the God of Abraham rather than having understood him in the more mystical sense of the Eastern religions of which they were not familiar.

So these human writers who wrote about Jesus decades after he had died would quite naturally put their spin on what he had said.

In short, if a person is going to honestly consider the possibility that Jesus wasn’t God, then they must also come to the realization that all of the stories that were written about him were also not divinely inspired nor protected by any divine intervention or inspiration to be ‘perfect verbatim truth’. Many words, (especially regarding his claims to be God) could have easily been put into his mouth that he had never spoken or intended to be as they appear in the gospels.

So C. S. Lewis’ approach to considering that Jesus wasn’t God is an invalid approach because he failed to recognize that if Jesus isn’t God then neither can the Bible be trusted to be the verbatim truth of what Jesus actual said. He’s only considering that Jesus wasn’t God, but then he still considers the gospels to be verbatim truth. In other words, C. S. Lewis’ never really stepped outside of the box of believing that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

It makes no sense to only consider things half-way. Therefore C. S. Lewis never really considered the possibility in an honest and un-biased way. He just assumed that any man who actually said the things that are written in the Bible would have to be a lunatic if he wasn’t God. But that’s not an honest evaluation. If Jesus wasn’t God then the gospels aren’t the verbatim truth either!

In other words, C. S. Lewis is wrong.

Jesus could have been a man, and still have been highly respectable and not the least bit delusional nor a liar.

I even take it a step farther, I think he may have started out as a con man, or a type of evangelist for money,(some type of show man) and that over time he started to buy into the message. So by the end of his life he was willing to die for these beliefs which had started out as a way to make money.

JESUS IS God!!! Amen. He is the alpha, omega, beginning and end, prince of peace, king of kings. He IS the GREAT I AM!!!

jesus is the son of god, yet is god, the same but not.....

kinda reminds me of that song by ray stevens, i'm my own grandpa.

I don't see anything in any of the history that would warrant those kind of conclusions. I see no reason to believe that the man was anything other than sincere. But was he God? Did he even claim to be God in the sense of the God of Abraham?

That's a whole other question.

Why would he go around and do all the miracals? The healings and such. It just looks so much like the magicians or TV evil-angalists that you see today. I think it was part of a show to bring people in.


( I know you want to go a different way with this thread so just let me know to stop if you want)

I think people are getting the wrong idea here.

Nothing is being claimed in this thread about whether or not Jesus was God.

I'm simply showing that the thinking of C. S. Lewis is flawed and incomplete.

That is that C. S. Lewis is claiming that IF Jesus wasn't God then he was necessarily a lunatic and liar.

I'm merely showing that C. S. Lewis' conclusions are not valid. I'm saying that IF Jesus wasn't God he could have still been a highly respectable, decent, and honorable man.

People are so anxious to defend the idea that Jesus was God that they don’t even bother to read posts.

Ok, I see the merit for your conclusions now.




No, not at all. Whatever's on your mind is fine with me.

It's never my intent to try to control a thread.

reguarding c.s. lewis, everybody has an opinion. look at all these posts. he had an idea, he ran with it same as anybody else in the religious forums. nobody is really right and nobody is really wrong....


unless of course you were alive back then and seen it with your own eyes.

Again, let me point out that I'm not making any claims. I'm simply pointing out that C. S. Lewis failed to truly consider the question because he failed to recognize that if Jesus wasn't God then neither can the gospels be trusted to be infallible.

That's really my major point here.

He considered the idea that Jesus wasn't God, but then assumed that Jesus said everything that the gospels claimed he said. That's hardly a valid consideration. That’s all I’m saying.

yeah but that was his point of view, and you have yours. both are valid and both are not.

Yeah this is what I thought about my religion (christianity)for a long time. Jesus was a good man maybe like Gandi. That the book over time was messed up and didn't give a real view. So it is easy for me to buy into that logic.

i would disagree with the assertion that there is a substantial difference between Jesus teaching and that of the OT. I am not an expert or even well read on the subject but it seems that as a rabbi or teacher that he was exactly preaching the concepts of the OT - the golden rule etc. can be found in the OT so I don't see that necessarily....

Jesus was Gods only begotten son, therfore would that make jesus a god? Not necessarily 'GOD' but a 'god'?

i don't think you could respect anyone who made the claim to be god if he wasn't, thus misleading people, nor could you call him decent and honorable. he may have taught a lot of great things, but then to inherently do the OPPOSITE of many things he taught, he would be a liar and a hypocrite.

i think CS Lewis' argument works. jesus either was who he said he is (god), or he THOUGHT he was who said he was (lunatic), or he lied about it (liar). what other option is there?

based on this argument i believe he was god.

a lunatic could not speak so eloquently and teach and do the kind of things jesus did.

a liar would not teach to do such virtuous things, nor would a liar die for something they knew to be a lie. heck, many bible believing christians might renounce christ if they had a gun to their head, and we believe it to be true. for someone to be in the same situation and die for something they knew was a lie, seems kinda unbelievable to me, moreso than anything i DO believe. there's no gain in dying so why would people believing what u taught after your death matter, especially if they were good things opposite of what a liar would do?

i think the character of christ and the things he said and did are enough proof. one should not say they respect christ's teachings and think we was a wise man, yet not believe he was god, because he said he was god.

now, this is all based on IF the bible and the things it said about what jesus said are true.

i like this discussion. as a CS Lewis fan (mere christianity being one of my favorite books) it's a good analysis of his argument. there are 3 options he gives. what are the other options you claim exist?

good topic abra :)

I think I gave the thread a bad title but it's too late now.

I should have entitled it, "Considerations of C. S. Lewis' Conclusions"

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh teaching us how to interact with him while we are in our flesh bodies. Without him loving us we would all be very lost. Remember the story of Jerusalem about how the Jews rejected God so much that he eventually let the free will of the people take over and they were basically ruled by Satan? It is a heart breaking story about the chosen ones who rejected God so they could live in constant sin. A lot of people are still rejecting him. All it does is open the door to pure evil. It can be confusing if you don't know the word or are not taught to understand it by a qualified person. Try checking out www.shepherdschapel.com This Pastor Arnold Murray knows his stuff. He is not a fake nor does he have an ulterior motive. He is a former marine and a great theologist and historian. He also knows Arabic, Latin etc. He teaches the bible verse by verse and can open up your eyes to things that you may have been confused about while trying to understand on your own or through someone ignorant to the bible. If you are confused which you obviously are. God is the Trinity. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. He has many names Jehovah, I am, Alpha, Omega etc. He is very real...

Jesus is the word made flesh

Well, I would disagree with you there. If Jesus was making this claim in the sense of Eastern Mysticism he would have been perfectly honorable and correct.

The Eastern Mystic God is not an egotistical Godhead like in Christianity. Therefore it is not the same as claiming to be the godhead of the universe.

Jesus often spoke in terms of "The father and I are one". This can easily be seen as an attempt to convey to people that we are go. He ever said, "Ye are also Gods". Now why would he say that, if he was thinking of himself as the only one who is God? He said that if we only had the faith of a mustard seed we could move mountains. Often when he healed people he would tell them, "Your faith has healed you".

These are all along the lines of Eastern mysticism.

So I disagree that you should automatically lose respect for someone who claims to be one with God. I think you need to understand what they mean by that first.

In Christianity this would be seen as a highly egoistical statement because they think of God as being a single egotistical godhead. Therefore to claim to be God you would be claiming to be this single egotistical king of the universe. But in Eastern Religions it’s not like that at all. It’s simply an acknowledgement that we are one with the universe. That there is no separation between us and God, that we are one with our creator.

This is how I naturally view my relationship with God so this is a perfectly natural concept for me.

I see that everyone is just responding to the title of the thread and not really considering the topic at hand.

So this is a dead thread.

Makes me wonder if they read their doctrines as attentively.