4 ms·

That's not strictly true, RE: Lewis. His opinion was even cooler. Basically, Jesus was either: - A liar - A lunatic - The Lord And any three of those is in

by bgroat 5y ago

That's not strictly true, RE: Lewis. His opinion was even cooler. Basically, Jesus was either: - A liar - A lunatic - The Lord And any three of those is incredible and worth learning about. He's either a crazy person who founded the most powerful organization in the history of human civilization. A con artist who did the same thing. Or literally god, and people are so cynical that ~75% don't believe it

krapp 5y ago
>He's either a crazy person who founded the most powerful organization in the history of human civilization. I'd argue Rome had a lot more to do with that than Jesus. If Emperor Constantine hadn't found Christians to be expedient to his own political ends, the religion would probably have remained a strictly local Jewish cult, or been stamped out by Rome altogether.
- bgroat 5y ago
  I don't have skin in this game, you're probably right. All I know is what Lewis thought on the matter.
- zamfi 5y ago
  That’s only true if the Christianity itself is fungible — would Constantine have found any other set of teachings followed by the same group equally useful?
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Only if you assume that everything written about him is accurate. If his biographers were mistaken or made things up, then he could have been just a regular religious reformer. Lewis seems like a smart guy, so I’m not sure how he missed that possibility.
- krapp 5y ago
  Bear in mind that Christianity was an oral tradition and there were dozens or more gospels and various traditions like Gnosticism which would later become heresy, and none of the canonical gospels are believed to have been written sooner than a century after Jesus' lifetime, and not by their attested authors. It would literally be impossible for everything written about him to be accurate. CS Lewis' Jesus is the result of judicious editing by the Council of Nicaea leaving a lot on the cutting room floor. >Lewis seems like a smart guy, so I’m not sure how he missed that possibility. He was a Christian. By definition he believed in the correctness of scripture. He wasn't actually trying to consider rational alternatives to Jesus' divinity, but to convince the listener that simply accepting Jesus as a moral teacher was absurd with a classic false dichotomy - that one must either accept Jesus as the Son of God or dismiss him as a lunatic. Of course, those aren't really the only possibilities, as the criticism page on Lewis' trilemma shows[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
  - mbg721 5y ago
    For better or worse, Christianity's explanation of that is that the eyewitnesses didn't expect to have to write about it for future generations; Jesus said he'd be right back.
afarviral 5y ago
Others have said it, but the 4th option; Jesus is fictional (not necessarily that he didnt exist, just the majority of writing about him is made up or embellished). Still somewhat interesting.

by bgroat 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

>He's either a crazy person who founded the most powerful organization in the history of human civilization. I'd argue Rome had a lot more to do with that than Jesus. If Emperor Constantine hadn't found Christians to be expedient to his own political ends, the religion would probably have remained a strictly local Jewish cult, or been stamped out by Rome altogether.

bgroat 5y ago
I don't have skin in this game, you're probably right. All I know is what Lewis thought on the matter.
zamfi 5y ago
That’s only true if the Christianity itself is fungible — would Constantine have found any other set of teachings followed by the same group equally useful?

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

Only if you assume that everything written about him is accurate. If his biographers were mistaken or made things up, then he could have been just a regular religious reformer. Lewis seems like a smart guy, so I’m not sure how he missed that possibility.

krapp 5y ago
Bear in mind that Christianity was an oral tradition and there were dozens or more gospels and various traditions like Gnosticism which would later become heresy, and none of the canonical gospels are believed to have been written sooner than a century after Jesus' lifetime, and not by their attested authors. It would literally be impossible for everything written about him to be accurate. CS Lewis' Jesus is the result of judicious editing by the Council of Nicaea leaving a lot on the cutting room floor. >Lewis seems like a smart guy, so I’m not sure how he missed that possibility. He was a Christian. By definition he believed in the correctness of scripture. He wasn't actually trying to consider rational alternatives to Jesus' divinity, but to convince the listener that simply accepting Jesus as a moral teacher was absurd with a classic false dichotomy - that one must either accept Jesus as the Son of God or dismiss him as a lunatic. Of course, those aren't really the only possibilities, as the criticism page on Lewis' trilemma shows[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
- mbg721 5y ago
  For better or worse, Christianity's explanation of that is that the eyewitnesses didn't expect to have to write about it for future generations; Jesus said he'd be right back.

afarviral 5y ago

Others have said it, but the 4th option; Jesus is fictional (not necessarily that he didnt exist, just the majority of writing about him is made up or embellished). Still somewhat interesting.