Liar Lord or Lunatic

[Stanley Anderson]

[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

[Guest]

[Stanley Anderson]

[from Karl]:
>I have seen, and walked in the midst of, a part of Lothlórien; it is
>a birch forest near St Petersburg.

Was it dark and foreboding?:-) (would love to see it -- I don't suppose you have any pictures?)

--Stanley

[Guest]

No, it wasn't :-)

And no, we don't, alas! ... closest we have to a picture is, we have a DVD of a beautiful Russian film about Tchaikovsky, and one sequence looks like it was shot in this forest. I had never before been in a wood which was completely birch, as far as eye could reach, and the trees so tall and graceful. You walk there, and you wonder whether you still walk this earth.

Cheers,
~Karl

[larry gilman]

Karl, you write well.

The portrait is a classic. I wish I could wear a bow-tie, or even a T-shirt, with anything like this much style. But is it theologically OK for an admirer of C S Lewis, notorious lump of rumpled tweed, to dress well?

Yrs,

Larry Gilman

[Guest]

Thank you indeed for your kindness, Larry.

Pace e bene,
~Karl

[larry gilman]

Stanley,

As usual, I am glad to see, we are basically in agreement, only from different angles. In particular, I do admit that Lewis himself did not present the LLL argument as a logical slam-dunk. I have heard people present it that way, and was reacting to that, and sowas replying to something that probably just isn't present on this forum at all. I've also heard people talk about the Resurrection accounts as if one could prove from them, that is, from the words on paper alone, to court-of-law or scientific standards, that Christ lives! But there, there----sh, have an ice chip, Larry---relax----nobody is saying that here. All nice and safe and sane.

The LLL argument is a good way in past the guardian cliches about Jesus into what is actually there in the documents. It makes one think about, look at, what is said and what that might mean. Or at least what its opacities are. All the best religious writers that I know profess themselves honestly baffled by some things that Christ says, and that helps me to trust them . . .

Best wishes,

Larry

[jo]

I've just noticed this thread again .. apologies all :) I don't have time to peruse fully now but I will do so tomorrow. In the meantime, thanks for replying!

[Micah]

[jo]

Okay I will bite ... even assuming the choices WERE- and I don't think they are - Liar, Lord, Lunatic or 'the devil of hell,' well, um, how come you all assume that 'Lord' is the right choice? I know we've been here before but what I tend to get in reply to this is 'I know He was the Son of God because *insert flimsy reason that relies to a large extent on wishful thinking and leaps of faith here*. I still maintain that if you put Christianity before an alien being who knew nothing at all of it and took the evidence at face value, they'd laugh.

It sometimes feels weird being the only person on this forum who's actually RIGHT. Every now and then that idea grabs me, out of the blue. It's not a satisfying feeling; it's simply a strange one.

[Guest]

I wish I could remember the name of the story by Arthur C. Clarke where he tells of missonaries to new worlds telling aliens of Christianity, or you could read the recent SCI-FI novel "The Sparrow" and get a view on what happens when extra-terrestrial evangalism goes awry. Of course I could argue that Christianity was taken to aliens and many accepted it, often at the point of a knife, but, they accepted it.

The belief of Jesus as Lord and Savior, alpha and omega, lord and master, bacon and eggs, persists because it gives comfort and time of from work. Primarily comfort, I think. My Mom draws comfort from the idea that my Dad plays baseball in heaven with the disciples. I like to think there is someone who has forgiven me for the indiscretions of my youth, even when the girls I was indiscreet with have not. Many on the point of death cling to the idea that someone has made a better place to be than this one. So, I don't think it's too hard to see why people want to believe. I have a much harder time understanding why anyone would eat a kidney.

We believe because we want there to be something MORE than this.

[loeee]

Jo, all I can suggest is that you go back to the source of the quote. I think Lewis actually used that argument more than once, but check what he says in Mere Christianity.

First of all, he is trying to refute people who say, "I will accept that Jesus was a great moral teacher and a good man, but not that he was God himself." His argument was, if you read the Gospels, the picture of Christ you get is certainly not that of a good, moral teacher. No mere teacher says the types of things Christ said. (Yes, the assumption is that you believe he said the things recorded in the book. Have you any reason not to believe that he said them, other than a desire not to believe them?)

Anyone who said such things, according to Lewis, would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either completely nuts (on a par with the man who says he is a boiled egg); or he would be a totally evil liar; or he would be who he said he was. Lewis concluded that the picture formed in the Gospels was obviously not of a lunatic or a liar, that left only one choice.

Read the Gospel of John, then see what you think just based on that.

[jo]

I have read the Gospel of John lots of times, thank you :)

I don't see why Jesus would be considered a lunatic to say the things He said if He were not the Son of God. Much of what He said makes simple sense .. if indeed He said it. I don't actually recall Jesus EVER saying that He was the Son of God.

Do I think that Jesus said the things attributed to Him? I dunno. Any celebrity will tell you that they're misquoted all the time. How do you know that He did say them?

I ought to warn you, as you're a newbie, that I have been down this route many times before and will prolly do so again ;). I don't do it to bait people but because it's constantly amazing to me that people will believe what they do.

[loeee]

What about, "I and the Father are one"? Or, "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"?

He said, "your sins are forgiven," and the religious establishment of his day said, "no one can forgive sins except God Himself." Don't you know that's why they wanted Him dead, because He made Himself equal with God?

Don't worry about warning me, I already figured that out. But you won't ever understand it, no matter how many questions you ask. Some things just can't be understood from the outside, it's like explaining color to a blind man.

[jo]

Yes I guess that's the trouble .. it CAN'T be understood from the outside, and that's why I get the periodic bouts of frustration that I don't 'get' thing that all of you get. Which then manifests either in hostility or disinterest in Christianity for a while. I usually come back to interest though, like a dog worrying a bone ;).

I had a conversation with a former LDS friend once who challenged me to find conclusive proof in the NT that Jesus had claimed to be God and I wasn't able to. Saying 'the Father and I are one' is not the same, really, as saying 'hey I am God.' Many people say that they are 'one' with their partners, but it doesn't make them the same person :)