That is fairly standard fundamentalist fare. We can thank C.S. Lewis for that wave of illogic. In his book, Mere Christianity, Lewis writes:Mr Thurman,
What do you do with “ I Am the way,the truth and the life and No one comes to the FATHER except thru me”. Either JESUS is who he claimed to be (GOD) or he is and has been the worlds greatest liar.
"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 the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or 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." (p. 56 Macmillan, 1960)Is he right? Are the only choices available to us Lord, Lunatic, or Liar as the apologist website that posted this quote claims? No, of course not. There are other options, including the most plausible:
He was framed.
He was framed by his fan base. He was framed by those who wanted his mojo for their projects. Words were put on his lips that he never said and deeds were ascribed to him that he never did.
Christian apocrypha presents stories about Jesus from his infancy to post-resurrection. The literature is filled with crazy things this guy said about himself.
The four gospels that made it into the New Testament are hardly more reliable than the others in regards to actual quotes or observations of the historical Jesus.
There appears to be no reliable way to document if anything is historical about him. He was framed from the very beginning assuming he even existed. Virtually everything we know about him is fiction.
Lord, Lunatic, or Liar?
None of the above.
The plausible answer is Legend.
Thank you for putting this so succinctly. It has been a great comfort to me lately to discover that I don't have to have myself lobotomized to remain interested in Christian spirituality. And I can still love my homeboy JC, whether he literally existed or not.
ReplyDeleteI read Lewis in my own evangelical phase ages ago but very little since. Given his own literary background, his unquestioning acceptance of the Jesus of the gospels (including that they give a single coherent picture of him) seems a bit surprising. He certainly knew about the origins and function of legends in ancient cultures. Do you know if Lewis ever dealt with any higher critical approaches to the Bible?
ReplyDeleteI suspect the Inklings spent some time discussing Lewis' new-found piety during their weekly literary gatherings. How deeply and critically you can delve into anything with a pint in your hand is yet to be determined, though.
ReplyDeleteThanks MMN and I like your statement of faith a lot!
ReplyDeleteAnd I can still love my homeboy JC, whether he literally existed or not.
@Doug I have puzzled over this myself. My guess is that he must have. But it may not have mattered. There many evangelical apologists like Lewis who have had training in Higher Criticism, yet see Jesus in a similar way. I guess it is a matter of "true believing" when you get down to it. If people want to believe stuff, they will.
Coming to God through Jesus....
ReplyDeleteBeing at one with the greatest spirit by embracing the teachings of Jesus. He taught us how to be zen with the great one (no, not Wayne Gretzsky)
Jesus never said to worship Him. He said to listen to Him.
As for Jesus existing, it always a valid question, but only the most shallow of us would conclude He didn't.
There's no proof of Moses either. Luckily for Absalom his pillar still stands or we'd think he also didn't exist. Fortunately Joseph's tomb was desecrated or he'd be a myth too.
Much like Isaiah. Damn those annoying old scrolls.
We have no proof captainkona exists. So I guess I'm not here.
What proof would there be other than the writings we have now? Is it impossible that proof exists and is intentionally hidden? Shall we look for his MySpace page? What about his SS number?
Oh, that's right, they didn't have very good social networking back then. Birth certificate? LOL. Obama has one and people still don't believe he exists.
Jesus existed. Go to Israel and ask someone.
They'll likely tell you how proud they are of having killed Him and destroyed all trace of his existence. All they could find anyway.
;)
I think Moses is even a less likely historical figure than Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jesus existing, it always a valid question, but only the most shallow of us would conclude He didn't.
Perhaps, or the "most skeptical."
What about Krishna? Did he exist?
We are reading the Bhagavad Gita. For me I see no reason that I must believe in an historical Krishna in order to appreciate the poem. I think it is a work of fiction.
I think something similar could be said for the gospels.
It's definitely good to discuss these topics.
ReplyDeleteThe Krishna story is interesting, but even Hindus see this as spiritual folklore. "After offering glorious prayers and penance for his behavior, Brahma circumambulated Krishna three times and returned to his planet."
If you catch me claiming Jesus was from Mars, you've got me. :)
But the important things are the lessons taught. Jesus taught love and kindness. If Jesus did not teach these things at the sermon on the mountain, then who did? Because the lessons exist. Of that there can be no question.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Biblical Archeologist James Hoffmeier
Hope your new year is going well, John. Peace.
Good post. I agree. I can't read Lewis because of this one quote. He may have said some better things later, but this quote is used so often and it is just so horribly illogical.
ReplyDeleteActually, Jesus IS Lord of all. At least, that is what all Presbyterian ministers take a vow saying.
ReplyDeleteBut the important things are the lessons taught. Jesus taught love and kindness. If Jesus did not teach these things at the sermon on the mountain, then who did? Because the lessons exist. Of that there can be no question.
ReplyDeleteI am with you 100% Captain.
You have a great 2010 my friend!
C.S. Lewis was an evangelical apologist? I'm afraid you're off on that one, John. A Christian apologist? Sure. But describing him as an evangelical (as we understand it today) seems a wee bit of an overstatement. Given that his writings leave room for the salvation of those who don't profess faith in Jesus Christ, he's hardly the spokesman evangelicals seem to think he is.
ReplyDeleteHe has been "framed" as well to serve current evangelical interests.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that this quote of his certainly doesn't represent (or apologize for) my understanding of Christianity.
ReplyDeletecaptain
ReplyDeleteThere is a fairly complete agreement among scholars that the sermon on the mount is a carefully edited collection of sayings, serving the purpose of the author/editor of Matthew. The bigger debate is over which of the separate units in the sermon on the mount go back to Jesus if any.
I tend toward the opinion that these sayings and others (and the various miracle stories etc.) go back to Jesus. I freely admit this is not a provable statement but rather a faith/theological statement. However I don't think that any of the various searches for the historical Jesus were/are effective in deciding which statements go back to Jesus. I don't think we can go back much further than the final editor. Maybe we can get back to any earlier stage of the gospels but no further.
As for Lewis I think his best writings are fiction. His criticism of some of the philosophical schools of his time in "That Hideous Strength" is devastating.
"Given his own literary background, his unquestioning acceptance of the Jesus of the gospels (including that they give a single coherent picture of him) seems a bit surprising. He certainly knew about the origins and function of legends in ancient cultures."
ReplyDeleteThat has puzzled me as well. There is a quote of Lewis' somewhere (also used by evangelical apologists), where Lewis actually notes that it his familiarity with reading ancient literature that enables him to see the bible as unique and something different (cannot find it right now).
I think Lewis saw elements of the divine in the other myths, just not as perfectly or completely revealed as in the myths of the bible. I do not know what he used to draw the line between myth and historicity of the gospel accounts though.