Into the Wardrobe

Hi, Jo,
The best explanation I've read of Lewis' trilemma is the book "Between Heaven and Hell" by Peter Kreeft. If you can find a copy of it, while it may not convince you, it will answer your questions.

Selah,
Sven

Yes, Mary's sinlessness is definately another thread. In fact, it is probably another forum altogether as Lewis did not really discuss the issue.

As you indicate, Mary could have made up the story of her virgin birth. Why? As a lie to hide adultery? Self delusion? If I remember rightly, a rumour was spread in the early days of the Church that she was raped by a Roman soldier. Any of these possibilities are very possible, with Mary giving a cock and bull story about God 'overshadowing' her in order to save her humiliation or lie.

So why believe it? Well, why not? There are prophecies in the OT that it would happen. The apostles and early church testified to it. The Church has held to the same belief ever since. There seems to be good reason to believe that it happened.

Answer to question: Ultimately, the story of Jesus' conception could only have come from Mary herself. I suppose it surfaced, if not during His earthly ministry, then in the first days of the early church. It could not have been much later because (as I understand it) the Gospels are final versions of earlier texts, which themselves came from the oral testimony of the first Christians.

Malcolm

In defense of Christianity, Lee Strobel has written a book, "The Case For Christ" retracing his own spiritual journey. He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. (I am looking at the book right now, otherwise I would be hard-pressed to remember all that!) Anyway, its worth a read.

Anyone else read it? There is soo much material there!

Elaine

In reply to the original question...

I think Lewis' main argument was against people who said "'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'" That is the "really foolish" view, moreso than calling him the Devil, or a lunatic. That was what Lewis was trying to say. Basically, we can either accept Him as our Lord, or we can reject Him completely, but there can be no middle ground with Jesus Christ.

I agree that the L-cubed dilemma falls fall short of a proof. All arguments about the existence of God or the divinity of Christ do. And you have put your finger on one of its basic flaws: it assumes that all the words which create the dilemma are nonfictional. But there is no way to prove this: the only documents that attest to these statements being made at all, the intensely agenda-driven documents of the New Testament, are not subject to any independent confirmation. Of course, I speak according to the coldest possible skeptical standards---but isn’t that the point? If the L-cubed argumed isn’t intellectually binding on someone who does not pre-assume the validity of Christianity and its founding documents, then whatever the good of it may be, it can’t be to convince unbelievers. So even granting that Christ existed, it does not follow that the alleged dilemma exists.

Further, the argument is noncoercive because it is an argument from psychology. And if there is anywhere where we cannot lay down absolute laws about what _must_ and _cannot_ occur, it is the human mind. So even if we grant that the Gospel accounts of Christ’s sayings are (a) absolutely accurate and (b) have omitted nothing that would clarify the picture---and why should any unbeliever grant these points?---it does not follow that Christ’s psychology can prove his divinity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: and for the uniquely extraordinary claim that a man was God, no probabalistic argument about what a "lunatic" was liable to say or not say is sufficiently extraordinary proof. 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. But our real-life psychological ills and distortions are infinitely more various and subtle than this cartoon notion.

Christianity does not, thank Goodness, hang by such threads. The value of the L-cubed dilemma is not as a proof for unbelievers, but as a lens through which people who are already Chrisitan can meditate on one aspect of the Incarnation.

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman