by Stanley Anderson » July 27th, 2004, 4:15 pm
[from Larry]:
>Lunatic, by the way, is a spin-word. It conjures up a frizz-haired
>whackazoid proclaiming that he is Napoleon, which the Christ of
>the gospels obviously was not.
That statement of yours is a perfect example of using Lewis' LLL argument to talk about Jesus, whether to a believer or, as in this case, to an unbeliever -- ie, if someone has gotten the frizz-haired whackazoid image from reading the Gospels, they must have read the wrong version, regardless of whether Jesus really existed or what kind of hair he actually had.
I don't think Lewis' primary purpose in using the LLL was to prove that Jesus existed. That is an assumption that could be debated and discussed in another way and another time, but I think LLL pretty much starts with the assumption that Jesus existed and that the Gospels at least attempt to describe what he said.
The primary purpose of LLL is to suggest, given the Gospel accounts, that the image of Jesus as simply a wise teacher (whether held by "professing" Christians or unbelievers) who had "divinity" thrust upon him by adoring followers, does not square with the accounts of his actions and words recorded in the Gospels. Of course if one thinks the accounts were only made up by good story tellers, then you haven't even reached the gates to the LLL estate, let alone come to the doorstep of the manor's logic and influence.
Lewis was addressing those who, saying they accept the Gospel accounts as at least basically true, have somehow arrived at a picture of a man that conflicts with they have actually read about him. He is trying to correct their mistaken impressions and conclusions (either derived from their own reading of the Gospels or infiltrated into their minds from popular modern cultural indoctrinations).
It is probably not unlike someone asking Peter Jackson, who claims to love Tolkien's work, how he derived the "dark" feeling of Lothlorien when the movie first came out when the text describes it as such a peaceful and pleasant place (I realize the extended version added a few "lighter" scenes -- I'm just using this as an example of something many people felt "jarred" with the way it was portrayed in the book). It hardly matters whether Lothlorien "really" exists or not. The point is whether the impression agrees with what is actually written.
--Stanley