Was Jesus just a moral Teacher, and nothing more?

[BigChrisfilm]

"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: "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 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 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 up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.” - C.S. Lewis

[McCulloch]

Lewis' trilema has been debated at some length in Lord,Liar or Lunatic.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to BigChrisfilm in post #1]
You are absolutely right and deserve my full support here. Because why say such sentences about someone who with a probability of two out of three never existed.

Same goes for Mohammed who with a probability of 50% never existed. Therefore people who call him things like Pedophilian I find just silly.

Except if they want to talk about a fictional Mohammed. But fans could easily create a way out of this for the prophet by "researching" that he secretly fought Pedophilianism and solely took Aisha in to protect her from sexual advances.

That would be the fanfiction I would love to read.

[TRANSPONDER]

Lewis' apologetics fallacy has been debated here already. While one can argue about whether Jesus claimed for himself or said anything that would show him to be either Lord or Lunatic, or in fact b(as I argue) a Liar, since the miracles work better as fake miracles than real ones, Lewis, either through lack of thought or crafty thought leaves out the other option - Jesus never said any of the things attributed to him in the gospels written by Greek Christians, putting their views into Jesus' mouth. Which is why he says different and apparently irreconcilable things.

I know of course that Bible apologists will dismiss that as just my opinion. Ok but it is an opinion, and may be the optional opinion of others. It at least means that the three options given by Lewis are not the only ones, and even his case 'well, it can only be Lord' is - again - either lack of thought or being doiwnright crafty. My money (since Lewis was a crafty apologist) is on deliberate cunning.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
"My money (since Lewis was a crafty apologist) is on deliberate cunning."

-----
I'm with you TRANSPONDER, if he was in fact an apologist. Just fishing! .... so much ado about nothing. Why run with this elaborate ultimatum like it is a winning Lottery ticket?

I'm looking at the 40 days in the desert option at the moment, except it will be my back yard. See you then, that is the plan (13th March). Let me R.I.P.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

I have my own ideas about whether CSL thought it a valid argument or was just doing 'lying for Jesus is ok - if it persuades people into faith', ow known as "Hey - what do a few untruths matter is some souls are saved?" Whatever the intent or motivation was, it must be debunked before any are fooled into thinking it is a valid argument.

[Tcg]

[Replying to BigChrisfilm in post #1]

The problem of course is that Jesus wasn't a great moral teacher. He taught that those who disagree with him deserve a torturous death through fire. If he actually had any power to achieve this outcome, which is doubtful, he should be viewed as a despot.

C.S. Lewis' nonsense is obviously flawed and an utter failure except to be used to comfort those who know they have no evidence for God but want a reason to believe anyway. In that case absolutely anything will serve that purpose even this mess.


Tcg

[Wootah]

What moral thing did Jesus teach?

[The Nice Centurion]

Lewis' apologetics fallacy has been debated here already. While one can argue about whether Jesus claimed for himself or said anything that would show him to be either Lord or Lunatic, or in fact b(as I argue) a Liar, since the miracles work better as fake miracles than real ones, Lewis, either through lack of thought or crafty thought leaves out the other option - Jesus never said any of the things attributed to him in the gospels written by Greek Christians, putting their views into Jesus' mouth. Which is why he says different and apparently irreconcilable things.

I know of course that Bible apologists will dismiss that as just my opinion. Ok but it is an opinion, and may be the optional opinion of others.

Bible apologists just have to defend with hands and feets the accuracy of the bible and especially of the gospels.
For on what else would they base their apologetics on?

It at least means that the three options given by Lewis are not the only ones, and even his case 'well, it can only be Lord' is - again - either lack of thought or being doiwnright crafty. My money (since Lewis was a crafty apologist) is on deliberate cunning.

Deliberate cunning from whom?

1) Jesus (would make him Liar) ?

2) Lewis (would mahe HIM Liar) ?

3) Both (would make both Liars) ?

Still, in Lewis time the british empyre was barely out of the delusion of taking the bible word for word as an 100% correct history book.
That means young earth creationism and Jesus said every word and did every miracle attributed to him in the gospels.

Critics of christianity were seen as tools of the devil.

Lewis was as a good fiction writer, as he was a bad one when it comes to books about history and religion.

But in light of all this it seems a good probability to me that his religious upbringing and the world he had to live in made him honestly believing in his own theological creations like his famous false Trichotomy

[TRANSPONDER]

Well yes. Look I was quite a fan of CS Lewis in my teens. First the Perelandra trilogy and then the Narnia series. Of course, I detected the Christian preachery as I also did in Tolkien. It doesn't matter. I also enjoyed Dennis Wheatley, though I disapproved of his Rightwing elitism (1). I also read Screwtape and I saw the logical fallacy right away. There is not a shred of decent evidence for demons, so his Explanations of how it works is sheer fairy tale - entertaining but without any empirical value.

I thought of him as 'God's propagandist' A sort of UK William Lane Craig but far less boring. But all of his arguments were either invalid because he didn't realise they were based on the Faith they were trying to validate, or he knew they were crab arguments but it didn't matter as....(Axiom) 'evidence and logic are only of value if they support the Faith'. Truth (what is real) does not matter; Truth (Faith) is all that matters. I may wonder whether Lewis realised his apologetics were garbage, but I find myself wondering this all the time, whether they deny the sun made after the earth, the cetan sequence, the Resurrection contradictions or that slavery (of non - Hebrews) in the OT is absolutely chattel slavery, either they know they are just in denial or don't know. They must know, but Faith means...and I know this is what they do though I cannot get my head round it...they will deny what they know is fact because Faith tells them it's all true no matter what the facts, science and even the Bible says. It is personal self - worth elevated to cosmic level, and you may put all your chips on that one.

P.s I know Lewis was originally atheist (so was Muggeridge) and Converted and I don't know why. Maybe I'll look later but I'm hardly bothered as it won't be for valid reasons. I've seen some and never has it been for a good reason. Usually personal fear or dislike of a relative or some politics; so often fear of communism..which is dead and has been since the 2000's, whatever they tell you or the labels they still use even in Woke Hollywood (that is just gofundme hippydom which Communism would straightways sent to the Gulag), but never have I heard a conversion story worth a damn even if it was true. P.p.s David Woods and Lee Strobel rotted out the 'I used to be an atheist..like you, until..." story. But in Every Case, they had no memory of what they as an atheist thought which scuppered the reasons they supposedly converted. I know this this not a true reason and we do not get to hear the actual reason they converted.

(1) his first novels (e.g Black August) were Fascist in tone and only the war swung him against the Nazis. But then many in West were pro fascist because they hated Communism.