Critique of a C. S. Lewis quote

C. S. Lewis is famous not only for his literary output (Chronicles of Narnia, Screwtape Letters, etc.), but also for his conversion from stout atheist to even more stout Christian. He is held up by many followers of Yeshua as the perfect archetype of the Lost Sheep, and his religious works (Mere Christianity) are nearly as famous as his fiction. So imagine my reaction when I find this gem...

Originally Posted by C. S. Lewis

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who is merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on the level with a man who says He is a poached egg, or else He would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

I read this and though "this is either a load of inflammatory rubbish or a truly brilliant bit of argument-framing", and I lean heavily towards the latter. By casting the discussion into such stark either/or terms, and couching it in such crystalline imagery, Lewis skillfully sidesteps a third possibility, one that Christians try like mad to avoid because it undermines the bedrock their faith is built upon.

The third possibility is that the Bible could be inaccurate.

Now I could spend a good deal of time pulling out the talking points many nonbelievers use to point out the inconsistencies of the Bible: the incredible differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels, the scientific inaccuracies in Genesis, the literary analyses that Paul only wrote about half of the Epistles credited to him, but let's set all that aside and look at one, undeniable fact, one that comes straight from the Bible itself: the Apostles were a bunch of dopes. How many times in the Gospels does Yeshua practically slap himself in the forehead in frustration at having to break down every one of his parables to explain the point? How many times does he tell them that he is going to be executed and then return, and they still didn't get it until he did so? Heck, they didn't even recognize him the first few times! He even nicknamed Simon something that, best translated into English, comes across as Rocky. Not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, pun definitely intended.

So here he is, this divine being, beating his ideas into his followers heads for three years and they keep missing the point. Do you really think that they would somehow do a better job once he left? Isn't it just ever so slightly possible that the might have screwed up the gist of things, especially considering the different ideas each of the four Gospels seem to espouse? And doubly considering that the Gospels weren't even written until some 40 years or more after Yeshua's death, in a time and place where the life expectancy was about that long, chances of any of the Apostles being alive to see written Gospels is slim. It's the equivalent of someone today trying to write about the Battle of the Somme using only first-hand accounts.

Lewis' black and white proposition only makes sense in the context of Biblical inerrancy. If we consider the possibility that the Gospels do not depict the teachings of Yeshua with perfect accuracy, the idea the He was "a great human teacher" not only can, but does hold water.

CS

"Remarkably, C.S. Lewis was a committed atheist before his conversion to Christ in 1929. Lewis maintained that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, undercutting popular notion that Jesus was something like a good teacher. Either He was who He claimed, or else He was a liar or lunatic. But the life of Jesus does not betray the character of a liar or the mentality of a lunatic. Lewis contended that the most reasonable understanding of Jesus is that He is the Lord."--Examiner.com

In addition, Lewis was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the twentieth century.

[Gem]

I think Moses claimed to be God too didn't he?

I have heard the fundamental basis of Christianity ['only through me (the son) can one access the father (heaven)' that's not the quote itself but it is the gist of it I think] interpreted as 'only through 'the I' can one experience heaven.'

The Word is not an exact science and it is and has been interpreted in several different ways, which is inevitable.

I personally don't believe in God so don't believe Jesus is God, and I just think it's a simple matter of 'know thyself' or believe something else, and Lewis made some interpretation, or more likely, adopted some secular interpretation, but words have more than one meaning.

I have often wondered if Jesus were alive today and claimed to be God, what a background check would say about who he was? I think today he would be under a more stringent analysis to verify his identity. What proof or background would you accept today? I would hope your decision would not be based on more than just word of mouth and stories written long after the fact. Think about it...Could Jesus still claim to be God today and be able to prove his credentials? Anyway just my thoughts, not looking to argue...

Originally Posted by Gem

I think Moses claimed to be God too didn't he?

There are people in this forum who claim to be God.

Originally Posted by nightowl

I have often wondered if Jesus were alive today and claimed to be God, what a background check would say about who he was? I think today he would be under a more stringent analysis to verify his identity. What proof or background would you accept today? I would hope your decision would not be based on more than just word of mouth and stories written long after the fact. Think about it...Could Jesus still claim to be God today and be able to prove his credentials? Anyway just my thoughts, not looking to argue...

Harvard Professor Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on the law of evidence in the nineteenth century, wrote, "All that Christianity asks of men on this subject is [that the testimony of the Gospels] be sifted as if it were given in a court of justice... The probability of the veracity of the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration."-- Could The Gospel Writers Withstand The Scrutiny of a Lawyer

My point was if Jesus were alive today...historical documents would not be the only evidence required. I understand your faith and I am not looking for you to prove to me why you believe what you believe and why I should believe it too. Been there done that, not going back. Peace my friend.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by pre-dawn

There are people in this forum who claim to be God.

It's quite a popular notion. Nietzsche claimed God is dead, acknowledging such an existence but removing animate properties... and Nietzsche is now dead too.

Nietzsche lies buried in a churchyard, in the little village of Röcken, south of Leipzig.

[God-Like]

Hi C.S.

I read a few quotes by him and I feel that he comes from the heart . I would say he Is very much In tune - In touch so to speak .


I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

He could of been a guru In disguise he hehe

x daz x