Happy Wonderer

Hi. I usually don't get into the religious discussions but this is an area that interests me. For my own understanding, perhaps you could explain why the passages that you quote leave us little choice but to accept his various means of claiming that he was equal with God.

Remember, the claim is that he is equal with God. Merely claiming special powers is not enough; he could be a magician or simply somebody who is so righteous that God has granted him special powers.

Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of the father which is in heaven"

The plain meaning of this (to me) is simply "you can't just worship me, you have to follow my teachings and the will of the Father to get to heaven." This is the opposite of claiming that he is equal to God. The Father is in heaven, Jesus is here on earth. Two different entities. (If you want to call "Trinity", please show Jesus using that term.)

What is really strange to me is that Christianity as practiced seems to be following the exact opposite of Jesus' advice. Where did "faith, not works" come from?

Matthew 7:22-23 - " Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Not suprisingly, this verse means the same thing as it follows directly from 7:21. Look at the next verse: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. This is the opposite of "I'm God, worship me and good things happen;" it is "live your life the way that God wants you to and good things happen."

Matthew 9:1-6, Jesus forgives the sins of a man with palsy. Then he proves that he has divine power to forgive sins by healing the man of the palsy.

The "sin of palsy?" I don't see that one in my list of seven deadlies. Anyway, look at what Jesus claims: But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. So Jesus claims that he has been granted powers. Not the same as claiming that he is equal to God.

Matthew 9:18 - "While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live." (Would Jesus have accepted WORSHIP if he didn't think he was God?)
See Matthew 7:21, which you quoted. Perhaps lots of people thought that when they worshipped Jesus they were worshipping God, but he explicitly says otherwise.

Now, what did Jesus actually say about the healing? But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. Is that "worship me and I will cure you?"

Matthew 10:37 - "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Let's go back two verses: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. . Is the speaker claiming to be the same as God?

All that 10:37 says to me is that you must love God's messenger more than your relatives; certainly doesn't say to me that the messenger is the same as God.

Anyway, just my thoughts. If you could explain where I am wrong to you that would help me to understand your thinking.

Thanks!

hw

GakuseiDon

And Lewis makes that assumption. Read the quotes from Vork. Lewis said:

In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man.

It is his OPINION, Clutch. It forms part of the premise, not the logical proof.

OK. Lewis's reasoning: Assuming the Gospels accurately reflect the words of Jesus with regards to His divinity, and assuming that someone who says that they are divine is either God or a complete lunatic, then you need to decide whether Jesus is divine or a lunatic.

As I've always said, it isn't a particular strong argument. It's barely an argument at all - it's a piece of rhetoric, with a very specific purpose. Lewis never intended it to be a logical proof of anything. Trying to take it beyond its context is to build a strawman.

Clutch

?????

This, of course, was my point, back when I wrote:

To which you replied:

Now you're saying: Yes, of course it matters -- just read what Lewis wrote.

I mean, you seriously have to figure out what you're trying to say before going any further. You're just flailing around, changing the story from "The argument is valid" to "It's mostly opinion" -- but the whole time charging that it's your interlocutors who aren't reading or thinking carefully enough.


1. You have to learn what these words mean. And you have to think about the critique that's been offered. In particular:
-- "Part of the premise" is ipso facto part of the proof. Like, by definition.
-- The critique is precisely that Lewis incorporates a false n-chotomy into the premises, as I've explained more than once. Remember that rather careful explanation of the fallacy of false dilemma? I'm not writing this stuff for my edification; I already know what the terms mean.

2. What you say above is obviously false.

Now, you go on, take your advice, and read that. And you tell me just how it's qualified as a mere opinion -- that Lewis' interlocutor is only "really foolish", saying things "we must not say", uttering "patronizing nonsense" about a belief option that is "not left open to us"... but, oh, that's only my opinion; didn't mean to suggest that I'm giving an argument for it here...

I mean, you're doing real violence to Lewis' own words and tone here, and to what end? Not to defend the "argument", as you're now asymptotically close to granting every point I've made, but to make out that critiquing it as if it were an argument is inappropriate. Well, that really is nonsense.


Exactly right as far as it goes. Notice the highlighted premise. Refer back to the demonstrations that this is a false dichotomy. QED. I wish you had read the critique more carefully from the outset.

But notice that's only "as far as it goes". What you call "Lewis' reasoning" is still just a non-sequitur, since you haven't shown how it relates to his conclusion, that it's foolish nonsense to call Jesus a great moral teacher. For that, you need the other false contrast between lunatic and moral teacher.


"The trilemma rocks!" was your way of saying it's not a particularly strong argument? Well, whatever. (You actually said it was not important.)


Huh?

You: The trilemma is a valid argument when you understand it properly.

Me: It's a nest of fallacious premises; validity is not the issue. It's just rhetoric.

You: Yes, it has those premises. But it's hardly an argument; it's just rhetoric. What's with all your strawmen?


Backpedalling is understandable, but I'm not inclined to allow you a withdrawal under the smokescreen of yet another unwarranted charge of strawman -- you now seem to issue these automatically, without even acknowledging the need to provide support for such charges.

The LLL remarks are indeed comprehensively demolished, though; that much is clear.

GakuseiDon

OK, I understand what you are saying now. If the premise is unsound, then it isn't correct to say that the logic is sound, so I'm wrong to say that.

Sorry about that! You've actually addressed what Lewis said, rather than assuming he was claiming something he wasn't. I was assuming you were making another variation of the "Lewis left out 'legend', therefore his argument is invalid" argument. You're right, I should have read your post more carefully.

OK. I agree with you now.

Vorkosigan

We also discussed Lewis' Trilemma in a couple of old threads here. J Curry made pretty much the same arguments that DG did.

To which I replied.

Lewis' is working another one of his fallacious "If A, then B, we have B, so A must be true" arguments. He loves this argument form, because it seems deep, even though it is stupid.

It runs:

1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.
2. Jesus is a great moral teacher.
CON: Therefore he is Divine.

All of Lewis' premises here contain deep flaws -- Jesus could be divine but incompetent (he's certainly not a great moral teacher, and liars could easily be great moral teachers). Indeed, since all great moral teachers were humans, I assume that, like other humans, they told lies. So the simple fact that great moral leaders were humans destroys Lewis' thesis even if you accept his premises.

Even if you assume that the gospels (which gospels, Lewis does not say) accurately record his life and deeds, there is no reason to accept the Trilemma. Lewis remains a pompous lightweight, Josh McDowell with better diction.

Curry then challenged me:

Curry: I defy you to show me from Lewis' statements that he makes this
argument you attribute to him. So I replied:

• Lewis: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm 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 was 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 a level with the 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

So the question arises: how is


A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

different from:


1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.

I realize that the statement is in the negative form and thus, harder to spot. What Lewis says is: if he wasn't god, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher.

Lewis' argument that Jesus is a great moral teacher is made implicitly several times in that paragraph. With rhetorical exaggeration:

-- or else he would be the Devil of Hell

and implied in the first sentence where Lewis says it is foolish to consider Jesus only a great moral teacher, which of course means that Lewis thinks he is a great moral teacher.

The conclusion is obvious from the premises Lewis thusly establishes.

Further, as if any more proof were needed, Lewis uses this same argument in the Problem of Pain. It is originally from GK Chesterton, I believe, another sly apologist, though one much wiser and wittier than Lewis. See The Everlasting Man.

Sven

That was my point (implicitely). Lewis argument doesn't make sense - either you accept the gospels and don't need it or you don't accept the gospels and thus also don't accept the argument.

Sven

Doesn't make any sense to me. If one believes that the disciples really added things, why even believe that the moral teachings originated with Jesus? Only because the teachings agree with what one already believes to be "right", or what?

Looks equally inconsistent to me.

Jet Black

why is lunatic always treated as pretty much synonymous with "mad axe murderer" - I see no problem with the idea of someone being clinically insane and actually being nice to people.

Vorkosigan

One thinks of Emperor Norton of San Francisco....another lunatic labeled King and heavily mythologized.

Clutch

Thanks very much; I appreciate your saying so.