de-conversion

55 Comments Add your own

• 1. roopster  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:19 am

  I read this argument for the first time in Josh McDowell’s Evidence Demands a Verdict book and my original reaction was:

  Huh?

  Paul

• 2. Thinking Ape  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:27 am

  I read this argument for the first time in Josh McDowell’s Evidence Demands a Verdict book and my original reaction was:

  Are you serious?

  TA

• 3. Tiffany  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:34 am

  Your “fourth option” is, in fact, what Islam teaches; Jesus is believed to be an important prophet but not the son of God, and the Islamic teaching is that he never actually made such a claim during his lifetime and the lies or lunacy are the work of other men who came after him.

  I think, though, that you’ve blended two of Lewis’s arguments in a way that blurs the lines of both. The “son of God, liar or lunatic” proposition was intended to illustrate that there really is no viable middle ground–we can’t “wimp out” by saying Jesus was a wise man and a great teacher but not divine, because if he was, in fact, a liar or a lunatic, then all of his other teachings must necessarily be suspect as well. I would submit that the same applies to your “fourth option”, in that if one accepts the proposition that the gospels are inaccurate on such a point as Christ claiming to be the son of God, it’s difficult to have confidence that he actually said all of the other things recorded.

• 4. Lyndon Marcotte  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:39 am

  I’m glad you brought this up. I was thinking just yesterday how weak this argument is for the three options only. It is totally dependent on the 100% accuracy and “infalliablity” of scripture which is a very human product. It doesn’t allow for the fact the New Testament is not an historical record but a narrative with a purpose to convert.

• 5. Thinking Ape  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:58 am

  Tiffany, most Buddhists do not believe that the many characters, from Buddha Gautama to Vimalakirti to Santideva, did many of the miracles and supernatural feats that their literature says they did. Even the XIVth Dalai Lama expresses that these things are not of any real concern. What matters to Buddhists is whether the teachings hold true when practiced.

  My question, however, is whether Christians should consider the Buddha Gautama as Buddha, betrayer, or bozo?

• 6. Stephen P  |  July 19, 2007 at 4:23 am

  I’ve had people try to ram this one down my throat a couple of times in e-mails. My answer is that the real trilemma is:

  1. The gospels are an accurate account of the life of Jesus, or
  2. The gospels are an inaccurate account of the life of Jesus, or
  3. The gospels are fiction, and Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

  Only if they can conclusively demonstrate that (1) is correct is C.S. Lewis’ trilemma even an issue.

  Incidentally I used to assume that (2) was the correct choice, but having recently spent quite a bit of time reading the work of people like Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier, I’m now leaning towards (3).

• 7. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 7:05 am

  My reaction would mirror Paul’s and TA’s reaction: it only works based on certain assumptions.

  Besides, one can be a lunatic and still make moral statements, or even live a moral life. It depends on the type of lunantic.

• 8. Simen  |  July 19, 2007 at 7:38 am

  Tiffany,

  I think, though, that you’ve blended two of Lewis’s arguments in a way that blurs the lines of both. The “son of God, liar or lunatic” proposition was intended to illustrate that there really is no viable middle ground–we can’t “wimp out” by saying Jesus was a wise man and a great teacher but not divine, because if he was, in fact, a liar or a lunatic, then all of his other teachings must necessarily be suspect as well.

  But this doesn’t follow at all! Even if Jesus was a lunatic psychopathic mass-murdering rapist and always lied, his teachings would still have to be evaluated on their own merits. It is possible to be what Lewis calls a lunatic and still have some valuable ideas. And it is possible to be a liar yet still occasionally speak truth. This is looking more and more like an ad hominem fallacy. The merits of the New Testament moral teachings must be evaluated on equal ground with other moral teachings, and not based on who supposedly said them.

  This way of thinking is dead wrong. If Jesus was deluded enough to think himself God, he could still be clear-headed enough to teach a progressive moral for his time. It’s a fine line between madness and genius. Further, even if he did lie about being son of God, he could still teach good morals; that would make him a hypocrite, but it wouldn’t invalidate his teachings.

• 9. superhappyjen  |  July 19, 2007 at 8:17 am

  This way of thinking is dead wrong. If Jesus was deluded enough to think himself God, he could still be clear-headed enough to teach a progressive moral for his time. It’s a fine line between madness and genius. Further, even if he did lie about being son of God, he could still teach good morals; that would make him a hypocrite, but it wouldn’t invalidate his teachings

  It’s almost as if Jesus were a human being who was wrong on some points, right on others. If he believed in grandious unlikely things that would make him similar to modern day Christians would it not? In my interpretation Christians believe grandious things that (to an outsider) would be obviously untrue or exageratted. And yet, their belief does not say anything about their intelligence or the validity of their opinions in other areas.

• 10. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 9:06 am

  I did a double take when I saw the title of this post, as I was thinking just last night of doing the exact same topic. I think I may just to give a contrast :-).

  I feel like this needs a little further clarification… Completely barring scripture for now, let’s add in the claims of the disciples and early Christians to the argument:

  1.) Liar - OK, so Jesus was a liar, he got caught, crucified, and his plan to profit (in some way, what other reason could there be?) from his lies never succeeded. But every apostle except John was martyred also for their supposed “lies.” I can see one person dieing for their lies, but dozens? Hundreds?

  2.) Lunatic - I could use the same argument here, but the point that C.S. Lewis makes with this is that Jesus would not have so many people following him if he were a lunatic. Again, several may, maybe even a hundred or so. But why would so many thousands follow him immediately, and then CONTINUE to follow him after his death and resurrection (through his disciples)? Assuming his disciples were crazy too (which, you would almost have to), there would HAVE to be some inconsistency pointed out.

  3.) Lord - This is pretty self-explanatory.

  And here are two more points on historical reliability that (thank you Da Vinci Code) are so often overlooked.

  1.) The Church Fathers (1st generation of Christians after the Apostles; Polycarp, Tertullian, etc.) quoted heavily from the scriptures. Many of their writings predate our earliest manuscripts of the gospels, yet we could (with the exception of only 6 verses) peice together the ENTIRE NT from their quotations alone. The “40 years” figure is just not accurate. Paul’s writings alone could NOT have been more than 35 years old (as Jesus was crucified in 35, and Paul was martyred in 70).

  2.) In Re: to changing and adapting and adding in that Jesus was son of God… Give me a break. I hear this argument so often, and it saddens me. Let’s say that, in 35 years someone writes an account of 9/11 and you get to read it. Let’s say that it has Rudy Giulliani rushing all the way up to the top floor of WTC 1, rescuing an old woman, and carrying her back down the stairs. You can’t prove it didn’t happen, but based on your recollection of the day, it sure as hell is unlikely. If someone added Jesus’ claims of divinity, don’t you think that someone who was around to hear/not hear them would speak up if it were wrong?

  Also, it was over 400 YEARS before Constantine legalized Christianity, during which Christianity flourished under the most ruthless persecution in the history of the world. I think it takes a HELL of a lot more “luck” for any religion/philosophy/whatever to not only survive, but become so influential that the government doesn’t have a choice but to recognize it. Empiricism can tell you that much…

• 11. Simen  |  July 19, 2007 at 9:18 am

  Um, no, it was not over 400 years. The Edict of Milan is from 313, less than 300 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified.

  1.) Liar - OK, so Jesus was a liar, he got caught, crucified, and his plan to profit (in some way, what other reason could there be?) from his lies never succeeded. But every apostle except John was martyred also for their supposed “lies.” I can see one person dieing for their lies, but dozens? Hundreds?

  They could have believed the lies. Anyway, I consider it much more likely that if Jesus indeed claimed to be son of God, he did so because he believed it, and any martyrs (where do you get your figures from?) would have been believers too. The example of the Heaven’s Gate cult shows how easily people are deceived today. Imagine 2000 years ago, without modern science or even science at all, at a time when myths were considered real.

  1.) The Church Fathers (1st generation of Christians after the Apostles; Polycarp, Tertullian, etc.) quoted heavily from the scriptures. Many of their writings predate our earliest manuscripts of the gospels, yet we could (with the exception of only 6 verses) peice together the ENTIRE NT from their quotations alone. The “40 years” figure is just not accurate. Paul’s writings alone could NOT have been more than 35 years old (as Jesus was crucified in 35, and Paul was martyred in 70).

  Fair enough, Paul could have been writing a bit earlier. I don’t suppose you have a good source on the other part?

  2.) In Re: to changing and adapting and adding in that Jesus was son of God… Give me a break. I hear this argument so often, and it saddens me. Let’s say that, in 35 years someone writes an account of 9/11 and you get to read it. Let’s say that it has Rudy Giulliani rushing all the way up to the top floor of WTC 1, rescuing an old woman, and carrying her back down the stairs. You can’t prove it didn’t happen, but based on your recollection of the day, it sure as hell is unlikely. If someone added Jesus’ claims of divinity, don’t you think that someone who was around to hear/not hear them would speak up if it were wrong?

  You talk as if the world 2000 years ago was like the world today.

  Why did so many people follow Buddha, Mohammad, and all the other prophets that according to Christianity were false? The answer is that people were more superstitious and less informed than we are today. The answer is also that things were a lot less well-documented back in the day.

  Empiricism can tell you that much…

  …more than Christianity, yes.

• 12. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 10:24 am

  Sources? Here are a few, although I don’t remember which one has the information about the 2nd generation apsotles.

  “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels,” by Craig Bloomberg
  “The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus,” William Lane Craig
  “The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,” by Gary R. Habermas

  Simen said:
  “Anyway, I consider it much more likely that if Jesus indeed claimed to be son of God, he did so because he believed it, and any martyrs (where do you get your figures from?) would have been believers too.”
  Exactly. Either we assume he believed it or he didn’t. If he is not the son of God and still believed it, that would make him a lunatic. So in essence, you are ruling out option #1 and are going with #2?

  Simen said:
  “You talk as if the world 2000 years ago was like the world today.”
  In many ways, it can be. I was drawing an illustration. Yet you also assume a broad generalization that there were no skeptics (or at least very few) because they did not have “science.” Some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in the history of the world were convinced by the evidence Paul presented in Athens, Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece. You are making a great cultural assumption that one could not discern for themselves the reality of truth before the advent of science.

  Simen says:
  “Why did so many people follow Buddha, Mohammad, and all the other prophets that according to Christianity were false? The answer is that people were more superstitious and less informed than we are today.”

  Comparing Christianity carte blanc to other world religions based on popularity completely ignores unique cultural context. You simply didn’t answer my question: If someone added Jesus’ claims of divinity, don’t you think that someone who was around to hear/not hear them would speak up if it were wrong?

  Simen says:
  “The answer is also that things were a lot less well-documented back in the day.”

  “Less” does not mean “none at all,” or even “insufficient.” No, they could not rival the technology we have at our disposal, and ease of communicating and storing information. But the only reason we know what happened more than a few hundred years ago was because they valued history to such a degree that meticulous care was taken in preserving it. This is yet another sweeping generalization that just does not make sense. The records kept by the emporors, Josephus’ Antiquities and account of the fall of Jerusalem, Herod’s records of his own accomplishments, and so many more independent sources were more than adequate at keeping track of history.

  I’m amazed at the cultural arrogance that so many of us (myself included! I mean no personal disrespect!) assume because we are “so much smarter than they were.” The only reason why we can even claim that is because of the foundations our ancestors have built. The “Enlightenment” has sometimes done far more to destroy our respect for history and past cultures than it has “enlightened” us.

  “…more than Christianity, yes.”
  - Truly, I am not convinced.

• 13. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 10:49 am

  Brad,

  I think you and many of the others here are going to disagree in terms of sources — I believe the authors you listed fall into the conservative camp. Myself, I tend to go with the mainline/liberal camp, and I think many others do as well? From the sources I read, Paul’s letters were written around 55 AD, with Mark written around 70 AD, Matthew/Luke following and John in 90 AD.

  Either we assume he believed it or he didn’t. If he is not the son of God and still believed it, that would make him a lunatic.

  This assumption only works if all Gospels are historically valid, and not everyone agrees on that.

  Again, several may, maybe even a hundred or so. But why would so many thousands follow him immediately, and then CONTINUE to follow him after his death and resurrection (through his disciples)?

  What thousands following him immediatly are you referring to, though? If this is just from the Gospels themselves, lunatics can be compelling, especially given that Jesus was going against the religious elites and welcoming everyone.

  Some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in the history of the world were convinced by the evidence Paul presented in Athens, Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece.

  And the thinkers and philosphers are? I think part of the unable to discern truth before science does hold validity, such as the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth, the gods control the weather and so on were not rescinded until science itself. Superstitions in cultures tend to fade in correlation to scientific advancements.

  But the only reason we know what happened more than a few hundred years ago was because they valued history to such a degree that meticulous care was taken in preserving it.

  This doesn’t seem to be taking into account the fact that history is written by the victors.

• 14. Will Vaus  |  July 19, 2007 at 10:52 am

  Brad has given many of the responses to Simen’s critique of C. S. Lewis’s trilemma that I would have given. Just two more points:

  1. It is important to read Lewis’s argument in context. To do that one would need to take into consideration Lewis’s entire argument in the first book of “Mere Christianity”. It is, of course, quite easy to lift part of an argument out of context and take pot shots at it, though I would agree that Lewis’s argument is not above critique. I will be doing just that at a conference this autumn at Wake Forest–presenting N. T. Wright’s critique of Lewis’s trilemma. Wright is much more nuanced in his argument for the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

  2. As far as Scripture is concerned, one doesn’t have to believe that the Gospels are completely infallible records of what Jesus said and did in order to come up with Lewis’s conclusion. Lewis himself did not believe in the infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture. My book, “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”, presents Lewis’s four-pronged defense of Christian belief as well as Lewis’s view of Scripture (which supports Lewis’s trilemma) in the first two chapters.

• 15. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 10:54 am

  Brad,

  Many of their writings predate our earliest manuscripts of the gospels, yet we could (with the exception of only 6 verses) peice together the ENTIRE NT from their quotations alone.

  I’m also curious about this statement: is it in one of the books you listed as sources? If not, what’s the support for this? I ask because it’s the first time I’ve heard it.

• 16. Stephen P  |  July 19, 2007 at 11:08 am

  Brad:

  The Church Fathers (1st generation of Christians after the Apostles; Polycarp, Tertullian, etc.) quoted heavily from the scriptures. Many of their writings predate our earliest manuscripts of the gospels, yet we could (with the exception of only 6 verses) peice together the ENTIRE NT from their quotations alone. The “40 years” figure is just not accurate. Paul’s writings alone could NOT have been more than 35 years old (as Jesus was crucified in 35, and Paul was martyred in 70).

  Yes, Paul was writing earlier - but surely you are aware that Paul provides no description whatever of Jesus’ earthly life? That is confined to the four gospels (plus a little bit in Acts). That the gospels were written after 70 AD seems to be very widely accepted by scholars, so if you are going to argue against it, you will need some good evidence.

  Polycarp isn’t going to help you. He wasn’t even born until about 70 AD. AIUI only a single letter of his is preserved. On a quick reading I could see no unambiguous gospel quotations at all, only a few sayings which could as easily be gospel precursors.

  Tertullian will help you even less, as he was a century later still.

• 17. Simen  |  July 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

  Will Vaus, this is how I have heard it presented (by proponents of Lewis’s argument). If there is any relevant context, I’d be happy to review it.

  My position is that Jesus either (1) didn’t claim divinity or (2) did and was mistaken. I don’t think he lied, but it is a possibility. And since religious leaders to this day manage to get people to sacrifice themselves for their cause, often for causes that contradict Christianity, I consider the argument from martyrdom to fall into the class of arguments that prove too much: just as Pascal’s Wager can be used with any god, so can the argument from martyrdom. Further, it isn’t an argument for the existence of God but for the existence of heartfelt belief in God, and that isn’t under dispute anyway.

• 18. Stephen P  |  July 19, 2007 at 11:34 am

  Just done a bit more digging in books and web: as far as I can find the earliest reference to a gospel is that of Papias somewhere between 130 and 140, and the earliest quotations are later still - hardly the “first generation after the apostles”.

  So unless someone can point to something important I’ve overlooked, Brad’s claim is simply false.

• 19. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 11:44 am

  Heather,
  “What thousands following him immediatly are you referring to, though??
  - Records from Rome show that Emporer Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome because of a following of someone named “Christus.” Emperor Nero finally let them back in a few years before he went psychotic. Just a few decades after his death and resurrection, there were enough people following him to cause an uproar among the Jews in Rome big enough for the Emprorer himself to take notice and kick out an entire demographic of people.

  In Re: to history being written by the victors.. yes, this is often the case. Yet even the victors (Rome) independently verify various accounts of scripture (written by the losers). Yet this is also not always the case. The Jews themselves have been losers for centuries, yet they have a very accurate and verified history of their people.

  And yes, one of these books did contain it. I am not near them and will try to verify the source once I get a chance (I’m house sitting currently).

  Will,
  I am not aware of Wright’s critique of Lewis’ Trilemma. What exactly is it that he nuances better about Jesus’ divinity? Also, it is important to keep in mind that Lewis was a creative writer. A genius, to be sure, but like Jesus, his greatest strength was in story-telling. He was a master at giving parables and illustrations to hit home a point. He was not a systematic theologian and should not be compared to N.T. Wright (who, in his own rights is a freak of nature…).

  Also, where did you get that Lewis did not believe in inerrancy of scripture?

  Stephen P.,
  “Yes, Paul was writing earlier - but surely you are aware that Paul provides no description whatever of Jesus’ earthly life?”
  - I’m aware. I cited Paul’s writings in defense of the dating of scripture, not Jesus’ life. Although Paul does very clearly write about Jesus’ divinity.

  The books I cited are a great start for evidence of these claims. Also, one of the absolute best out there would be:
  “The Canon of Scripture,” By: F.F. Bruce, Inter-varsity Press, 1988.

  And I understand that many of my references are “conservative,” but please do not insult me by insinuating that because they are not “liberal,” they are inherently bias (or at least any more bias than those that can be classified as liberal). I greatly tire of being told that because I am a (Theologically Conservative) Christian, I cannot engage in reason or logical discussion. I would hope that our debate up to this point were proof enough against that. Besides, it beats the hell out of wikipedia…

• 20. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 11:53 am

  Stephen,
  If one uses archaeological evidence alone, you are correct in your assumption. But noone should allow one part of the full picture to inform them about its entirety.

  For example:
  None of the gospels refer to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, yet do point to it’s downfall (wich happened in 70 AD) at some point in the near future. Yes, I understand that the authors could have “pretended ” to write it predating the destruction when they have already witnessed it, but there would have been FAR more emphasis on it if this were true (see Bruce for more). Thus we have literary evidence as well.

  Also, we have government records attesting to the events (if not necessarily the details of them) happening. We have literary clues in the text. And we have a widespread, consistent belief across the Roman empire by the time those Papiri were dated to. How could this have even remotely happened without a consistent record? Oral spreading of the gospel is too unreliable among so many sources (particularly for the long term).

  And I know it is a popular book that you have no doubt read or or are aware of, but The Case for Christ details interviews from leading scholars and professors who talk about the extra-archaeological evidence that supports the historical reliabiity of scripture.

• 21. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:16 pm

  Brad,

  Records from Rome show that Emporer Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome because of a following of someone named “Christus.” Emperor Nero finally let them back in a few years before he went psychotic.

  I randomly typed this on google, and the only reference I seem to come across is listed in Wikipedia (not the most reliable, I know), and some references on Christian sites. But Wikipedia mentions that there’s debate on what happened here, in terms of what actually happened. And weren’t the religions seen as seperate by that point? Plus, if Claudius also against proselytizing, that would go a long way towards explaining his attitude.

  <but please do not insult me by insinuating that because they are not “liberal,” they are inherently bias (or at least any more bias than those that can be classified as liberal).

  Both viewpoints are biased, there’s no getting around that. The reason why I mentioned it is because — and I’m only speaking for myself here — this is why at least you and I are going to clash in terms of scholarship, and you’re probably going to clash with the other contributors here. We don’t approach it the same way, and we’ve drawn different conclusions. For my part, I find the mainstream/liberal approach works better. You see differently.

  The reason, overall, why I have a hard time with conservative scholarship is how it’s approached. I read a book that dealt with a debate between John Dominic Cross and i want to say Bloomberg — I remember walking away from the debate not really convinced by either side, but realizing that Bloomberg did not come across as staying on topic, and almost patronizing Cross, and using the opportunity to ’save’ those who might be reading/listening the debate. The little I’ve read of William Lane Craig strikes me in the same way. Could this due to where I stand on the spectrum? Of course. But the thing with the conservative position, as seen by those two scholars, is they are convinced they are following the absolute truth, and everyone else is wrong. That is the impression I walked away with, especially after Craig basically insinuted in one line that all who don’t think like he does hate God. The mainstream/liberal scholars struck me more of ‘This is how we see the truth, and where it leads us, and if more information is presented, we could change our view.’

• 22. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:30 pm

  Brad,

  To clarify, I’m not saying that those who hold a conservative position can’t reason or debate logically, or that we can’t have a conversation about matters such as these, or that you are even behaving as the scholars come across. I’m simply providing my reasons as to why I go the scholarship route that I do. It belatedly occured to me that I phrased the earlier statement as an insult, and that wasn’t my intent.

  It’s basically like this: there are two ways to approach the opposing viewpoints. One is to try and understand why someone believes the way s/he does, and relate to it. It’s stepping in the other person’s shoes. The other way is to interpret the belief through one’s own paradigm, which doesn’t help the person connect to the opposing viewpoint, because the paradigm is set up to show why the opposing viewpoint is wrong. As in, if I try and interpret a conservative viewpoint through the belief that the mainstream one is absolutely correct, of course I’m going to conclude that the conservative one is wrong. Craig and Bloomberg seem to come across in this way, from what I’ve read.

  but The Case for Christ details interviews from leading scholars and professors who talk about the extra-archaeological evidence that supports the historical reliabiity of scripture.

  I wouldn’t use this particular book as an example. The parts I’ve read came across as only to convince those who already believed in the viewpoint. Plus, if he truly wanted to provided a ‘Case for Christ,’ why not include both views and let the reader decide how to interpret the information? Or at least let the other side say why it believes the way it does.

• 23. eye-of-horus  |  July 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm

  You’re wasting time on Lewis’ pseudo-arguments.

  Lewis practiced blarnia ad narnia consistently and persistently.

  Much to Tolkein’s disappointment, he did not convert to Catholicism — such an Oxford thing to do, even in Lewis’ time. He became an Anglican. (Having been an agnostic.)

  Lewis was no theologian. His “Mere Xianity” means just that. It presents a mere, core set of alleged truths which define in an Aristotelian sense the essence of Xianity. Lewis longed for a medievalism incomprehensible to his fundamentalist idolators.

  He was a propagandist like so many a convert who must convince others of his new found “truths” in direct proportion to his insecurity about their being true.

  Right-wing Xians have always found Lewis an ally — they love “The Screwtape Letters”. After all no one knows the voluptuous pain of rigorism better than sexual involutes. They are constantly tormented by “sin” in their “members” — each true believer a do-it-to-yourself Marquis de Sade.

  The Xian ephebe, created both innocent and indescribably vile at once, is a pedophile’s heartthrob. Lolita was created by Saul/Paul infected by visions of yummy Mediterranean dream girls, Isis of Egypt and closer to home favorite, Diana of Ephesus.

  Xianity is pornography.

  eye-of-horus
  copyright asserted 2007

• 24. Stephen P  |  July 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm

  Brad,

  You made the specific claim that Church Fathers in the first generation after the apostles quoted so heavily from the NT that we could reconstruct almost the entire NT from their writings. So what were their names? I’ve pointed out that the two you named do not fit.

• 25. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 1:48 pm

  Heather,
  “I randomly typed this on google, and the only reference I seem to come across is listed in Wikipedia (not the most reliable, I know), and some references on Christian sites. But Wikipedia mentions that there’s debate on what happened here, in terms of what actually happened. And weren’t the religions seen as seperate by that point? Plus, if Claudius also against proselytizing, that would go a long way towards explaining his attitude.”

  I got this specifically from N.T. Wright’s commentary on Romans. He asserts that Paul was writing at the time when the Jewish Christians (who were kicked out of Rome) were just coming back to a church run by Gentile-Christians. Long story short, the uproar was caused by a disagreement over Judaizers (Jewish Christians priding themselves as God’s chosen people and looking down on gentiles who did not fallow the law) coming into conflict with Gentiles. This is the incredibly short version.

  Here is the book, though:
  http://www.amazon.com/New-Interpreters-Bible-First-Corinthians/dp/0687278236

  Also, I appreciate your understanding and clarification on the conservative-liberal spectrum. I am actually quite liberal culturally and politically, and will not vote republican in the next election. I find that because I am theologically conservative, there are many presumptions brought to the table. And as you have rightfully pointed out (although not intentionally) I should remember that I do as well.

  Stephen,
  As I said, I do not have the text in front of me (nor in a 20 mile radius) and will have to get back to you. I could be very wrong on the specific church fathers, but stand by the claim. I’ll get specifics for you as soon as I can.

  Eye-of-Horus,
  Well… that was interesting… I assume you can actually back that up… ?

• 26. HeIsSailing  |  July 19, 2007 at 2:03 pm

  Brad sez:

  The Church Fathers (1st generation of Christians after the Apostles; Polycarp, Tertullian, etc.) quoted heavily from the scriptures. Many of their writings predate our earliest manuscripts of the gospels, yet we could (with the exception of only 6 verses) peice together the ENTIRE NT from their quotations alone..

  Heather

  I’m also curious about this statement: is it in one of the books you listed as sources? If not, what’s the support for this? I ask because it’s the first time I’ve heard it.

  I have heard this claim made from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame, although when I heard him say it he left out the “exception of only 6 verses” bit. I have never seen it in print anywhere. Brad, if you could share where you got this, that would be great, but I have to confess that I am mighty suspicious. It sounds like kind of a Christian ‘urban legend’.

  With the magic of the internet, we can just look at the Church Father’s writings online, and see what they had to say for ourselves.

  For instance, I just read Polycarp’s only surviving document, his letter to the Philippians. Take a look at it here:
  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lake.html
  It took me 5 minutes to read – it ain’t long.

  Are any passages from the New Testament quoted in here? After my quick read, I say it is ambiguous at best. For instance, when Polycarp says, “But the beginning of all evils is the love of money”(Polycarp 4:1), can this be taken as a quote or as a way to reconstruct 1 Tim 6:10? It is close, but I don’t think so. Or how about the very next sentence in that verse, “Knowing therefore that “we brought nothing into the world and we can take nothing out of it,” let us arm ourselves with the armour of righteousness, and let us first of all teach ourselves to walk in the commandment of the Lord”, (Polycarp 4:1). Can this be taken as a quote of Ephesians 6:14? It is similar, but again I don’t think so.

  The only direct quotes that he makes claiming to be from Scripture are these:

  For I am confident that you are well versed in the Scriptures, and from you nothing is hid; but to me this is not granted. Only, as it is said in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry and sin not,” and “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” Blessed is the man who remembers this, and I believe that it is so with you.

  - Polycarp

  HUH? Where in scripture does it say to ‘be angry and sin not?” or “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath”? I’m not sure what ol’ Polycarp is referring to here.

  Direct quotes from scripture are really out there in the Church Father’s writings, but they come much, much later than Polycarp’s time – I think around 180-200 AD. From Turtullian sure, but now we are talking late 2nd, early 3rd century. But being able to reconstruct the New Testament from the writings of the first generation of church fathers is a pretty dubious claim.

• 27. HeIsSailing  |  July 19, 2007 at 2:06 pm

  eye of horus sez:
  “Lewis practiced blarnia ad narnia consistently and persistently.”

  I disagreed with almost your entire comment, but I thought this was pretty clever wordplay.

• 28. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 2:51 pm

  HIS,

  When I referenced this aspect, I should have allowed for a little more flexibility. It has been a while since I read the source (again, I listed them above), it could have been referring to a more paraphrastic quotation than a literal one. Again, it will have to wait until I can go look and read for myself.

  Also, in Re: to anger, he is probably referencing Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,”

  Also, with the internet, and I am only just beginning to discover this myself in my Greek in Exegesis class (my only summer class that is wupping my butt), be careful of who’s interpretation/translation you are reading. I have done my best to translate some Pauline material, and it is a good thing I didnt try to publish it because it was borderline heresy! Syntactical functions alone are hotly debated (i.e. N.T. Wright and his Federal Vision), and can make the difference between accurate and outrageous translations.

  I know what you mean, HIS, and also agree it is a good thing. I am not saying this in application to all sources, just recommending some caution for others.

  Again, for more info on the historical reliability of scripture and how the canon was put together, I cannot recommend “The Canon of Scripture,” by: F.F. Bruce, Inter-varsity Press, 1988, any higher.

• 29. HeIsSailing  |  July 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm

  Brad sez:
  ” I cannot recommend “The Canon of Scripture,” by: F.F. Bruce, Inter-varsity Press, 1988, any higher.”

  I have read it - and your’re right I did enjoy it. I have read several books by FF Bruce. My favorite on this topic, which I read several months ago was “The Formation of the Christian Bible” by Hans von Campenhausen. He thoroughly dissects what is known of Marcion, and the thought that went into refuting his verion of the Canon, which ultimately ended up with our New Testament. Campenhausen also seems fairly conservative and has a good balanced approach.

• 30. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 3:49 pm

  Wow. HIS… I admit, I am impressed. Awesome.

  I really don’t have anything else to add to that, lol.

• 31. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 5:12 pm

  Brad,

  Long story short, the uproar was caused by a disagreement over Judaizers (Jewish Christians priding themselves as God’s chosen people and looking down on gentiles who did not fallow the law) coming into conflict with Gentiles. This is the incredibly short version.

  Wait — I’m confused. The uproar that caused Claudius to kick them out? You also said that N.T. Wright asserts this. Does that mean he interpreted the text a specific way, as to this is why they were kicked out?

  Also, I appreciate your understanding and clarification on the conservative-liberal spectrum.

  I don’t think any of us can truly get away from our ‘biases.’ We just do the best we can. It was mostly just to make sure that we all understood that this isn’t like a discussion over what Bloomberg vs. Craig said, because that is still in the same spectrum. This is Bloomberg vs. Crossan, so it’s going to be sometimes radically different paradigms, from people who have different approaches. So it’s more difficult, in terms of the discussion, because it’s not the same playing field.

  be careful of who’s interpretation/translation you are reading. I have done my best to translate some Pauline material, and it is a good thing I didnt try to publish it because it was borderline heresy!

  That’s why I have about 8 Bibles, and a few sites that give what all the words mean in Greek/Hebrew in the Bible This does lead to an interesting point, though. Is Sola Scripture really Sola Scripture? After all, you said that your translations were borderline ‘heresy.’ But it’s really only ‘heresy’ if it’s going against an orthodox position, and that implies tradition/creeds.

• 32. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 6:11 pm

  Heather,
  “Does that mean he interpreted the text a specific way, as to this is why they were kicked out?”
  - No, the context he used to support this was extra-biblical (government and historical records mostly… Claudius kept a record of all his edicts in Rome and abroad). The focus of Paul’s writings (i.e. frequent use of the phrase “first to the Jews, and also for the Greeks [gentiles]) support the context.

  “Is Sola Scripture really Sola Scripture? After all, you said that your translations were borderline ‘heresy.’ But it’s really only ‘heresy’ if it’s going against an orthodox position, and that implies tradition/creeds.”
  - Solo Scriptura was never meant to imply that we glean information from scripture alone, but that divine revelation is gleaned from scripture alone. External sources outlining context are always helpful, and often necessary to discern the full message(s) in scripture. My translation being “heresy” does imply a tradition or creed, but far more accurately, it implies an objective intent of the author.

  If I translated “The love of God” in Greek to “God’s love” in English (Subjective Genitive), it is quite different than “The Love FOR God” (Objective Genitive), which may be the author’s intended message. In the Greek, there is often no difference between these two meanings in form, and the translator must glean the intent of the author from the co-text ( i.e. what is the subject/discussion before and after this verse?).

  Additionally, some verses require big-picture context, such as societal circumstance, to glean the true meaning behind a given text (this is my favorite, I’m a big picture person).

  So what really is the “orthodox position?” I would say that it is the true intent of the author and the message he/she is trying to communicate. While that can never be interpreted 100% objectively, a widely differing interpretation would indeed qualify as “heresy.”

  To equally validate a different interpretation that did not take co-text and context into consideration is not just wrong or inaccurate, it totally defeats the purpose of translating it in the first place! What meaning or purpose does it have if it is not what the author is trying to communicate? Based on this logic, I could write whatever I want, it could be interpreted however the reader wants, and it would be as equally accurate as what I was really trying to say.

  Man, this is some killer discussion. It really helps me to be challenged like this to be able to more effectively communicate and identify my position. Great stuff.

• 33. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  Brad,

  So what really is the “orthodox position?” I would say that it is the true intent of the author and the message he/she is trying to communicate. While that can never be interpreted 100% objectively, a widely differing interpretation would indeed qualify as “heresy.”

  I understand what you’re saying. If I interpreted the Bible to read that Jesus was a unicorn, clearly I might want to re-check that. But what I’m referring to is if someone reads the Bible, takes the whole thing into account, and the culture, and comes to a conclusion apart from the creeds, that person is considered a heretic. Even though s/he pretty much went the ‘Sola Scrpiture’ route. I mean, we see this with the Catholic church vs. Protestants, or the atonement theories. Anyone who passionately follows the BIble believes his/her viewpoint is correct — what labels a certain viewpoint heresy is then based on an interpretation of the Bible that is put into creeds.

  Truthfully, I think a heretic is someone who doesn’t live as Jesus did, in terms of loving everyone. Yet that has never made it to the definition of ‘heresy.’ Heresy reduces everything to the importance of beliefs, and beliefs only.

  Rather, the important part should be on salvation, on resurrection, on walking the Way. Say there is someone who does not believe that Jesus bodily resurrected and lives a Chirst-like life. You then have someone who holds the right belief, and shuns anyone who needs help. Even based on the Bible, I would go with the ‘heretic’ being the latter.

• 34. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 7:11 pm

  Heather, you and I are in agreement. The bible, in many areas, is not so clear as to avoid disagreement. I think that God-loving people can disagree. Some can be wrong, some can be right. I think also, that some can disagree, and neither be right or wrong. “Heresy” is a term that should only be applied to the far left or right field.

  “Rather, the important part should be on salvation, on resurrection, on walking the Way. ”
  - Amen!

  “Say there is someone who does not believe that Jesus bodily resurrected and lives a Chirst-like life. You then have someone who holds the right belief, and shuns anyone who needs help. Even based on the Bible, I would go with the ‘heretic’ being the latter.”
  - I would say the first is just wrong (maybe heretical…), and the second a hypocrite at best (and at worst, not a Christian at all).

• 35. Top Posts « WordPre&hellip  |  July 19, 2007 at 7:59 pm

  [...] C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma - Liar, Lunatic or Divine? [image]C. S. Lewis, author of the Narnia books and himself an atheist before turning to Christianity, was critical of […] [...]

• 36. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 8:03 pm

  Brad,

  I would say the first is just wrong (maybe heretical…)

  So … far left field?

  It would depend on what is meant by ‘body,’ though. I would say that Jesus was not bodily resurrected in the sense that he had a body like ours, based on Paul’s statements of Jesus appearing to him like he appeared to the other disciples, that the corruptable must put on the incorruptable, or that flesh and blood doesn’t inheret the Kingdom of God. Then, with Jesus passing through walls and such, it all leads to an incorporal sort of way. But a resurrection in the sense that everyone saw the risen Christ? Yes.

  I would still say that the latter — the shunning of people — is heretical, just because love is the most important factor.

• 37. Brad  |  July 19, 2007 at 8:41 pm

  

  This is fun….

  OK, in Re: to the PHYSICAL resurrection…. John wrote very heavily to the church in Antioch (1, 2, and 3 John), in direct contradiction to the gnosticism that caused a split in the church (he was writing to the faifhful remnant of course). The gnostics, influenced by platonic dualism, believed that Christ was resurrected only in spirit.

  But specifically in reference to passing in walls and such… “doubting Thomas” felt the wounds in Jesus’ hands and sides. It was very physical. Also, Jesus ate with the disciples to prove that he was not just a “spirit.” If Christ was (is) God (and he is, btw ), is it really out of the realm of possibility that He can find a way to be both physical and pass through walls?

  “I would still say that the latter — the shunning of people — is heretical, just because love is the most important factor.”
  - Meh, either way, I agree that it is atrocious and they deserve a good choking.

• 38. Heather  |  July 19, 2007 at 9:33 pm

  Brad,

  What I see in the letters, though, is that Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, not that he was resurrected in the flesh.

  Because this still doesn’t account for Paul’s statements of Jesus appearing to him in the same way that Jesus appeared to the others — and Paul received a vision.

  Then there’s 1 Corinthians 15 starting at verse 35. It asks what kind of body the dead are raised in and what one sows is not the body that shall be and there is an earthly body and a heavenly body, or the last Adam becoming a life-giving spirit. Resurrection leads to a different sort of body, because Paul saying that people wondering what sort of body is foolish talk.

  There’s also the fact that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

  is it really out of the realm of possibility that He can find a way to be both physical and pass through walls?

  Then how is the body still considered physical? If the body is capable of passing through walls, or appearing and re-appearing, it cannot fall into the realm of the same type of body we have. Yes, there are elements of people physically touching Jesus. But there are other instances, in Paul and in the Gospels, that the body went beyond what is defined as physical.

• 39. Brendan  |  July 20, 2007 at 10:18 am

  Stephen P:”1. The gospels are an accurate account of the life of Jesus, or
  2. The gospels are an inaccurate account of the life of Jesus, or
  3. The gospels are fiction, and Jesus of Nazareth never existed.”

  Exactly. This is the proper way of framing the decision, though I would add a fourth option:

  4. There are some real persons who inspired the creation of metaphorical fiction about their teachings and lives, but what we have is not an “historical” account, nor was it intended to be, as it was written within the confines of a more openly mythological culture. Thus there could be some kernels of historical detail that might relate to particular events in the lives of one or more celebrated individuals, but the character of the text is predominantly mythological, archetypal/psychological and allegorical.

  I’m between options 3 and 4, but leaning toward 4.

• 40. Will Vaus  |  July 25, 2007 at 7:37 am

  Simen, the context for Lewis’s trilemma is the appearance of Jesus, a first century Jew, a believer in YHWH, doing and saying things (like forgiving sins) that a Jew would have believed only YHWH could say and do. There is, in Jesus’ action of forgiving people of their sins, an implicit claim to deity.

  Brad, you can read N. T. Wright’s critique of Lewis in his essay “Simply Lewis” in Touchstone magazine. You can find it online by doing a Google search. And the fact that Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture is made quite plain in his chapter on Scripture in “Reflections on the Psalms”.

• 41. Heather  |  July 25, 2007 at 9:04 am

  Will,

  There is, in Jesus’ action of forgiving people of their sins, an implicit claim to deity.

  I’m not sure that’s actually valid — is there any support for this claim in a religious text that Judaism would find authentic, such as the OT?

• 42. Jesus: Man, Myth, or Misu&hellip  |  July 30, 2007 at 4:26 pm

  [...] 30, 2007 As a follow up to Simen’s post C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma - Liar, Lunatic or Divine?, I’d like to post a comment by Michael Turton’s from one of my earlier [...]

• 43. Anonymous  |  August 18, 2007 at 12:46 pm

  ** No respect for Urizen, please **

  Then old Nobodaddy aloft
  Farted and belched and coughed,
  And said,
  ‘I love hanging and drawing and quartering
  Every bit as well as war and slaughtering.’

  – William Blake

• 44. Jim  |  August 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

  I’m not sure if folks have mentioned this already, I skimmed all these comments.

  But someone early on raised the point that Jesus never claimed be the Son of God, and his followers changed his message after his death to make him so.

  A problematic challenge to that: all of those followers of Jesus (save John) were individually martyred for their beliefs (using extrabiblical Roman sources here). That’s a high price to pay for a lie if they knew it was not the truth.

  Just a thought. I enjoyed reading this flurry of posts!

• 45. Heather  |  August 19, 2007 at 1:57 pm

  Jim,

  all of those followers of Jesus (save John) were individually martyred for their beliefs (using extrabiblical Roman sources here).

  What sources are you using for this statement? I’ve seen it uttered a lot, but usually the people say that someone else told them there was proof for it. Do you have access to the other Roman sources?

• 46. Jim  |  August 19, 2007 at 4:51 pm

  Hi Heather,

  A great question.

  The one source I consider in this is Josephus’ Antiquities XX.9.1. Another is Clement of Rome writing about Peter’s execution in a letter in something like AD 90. Trying to recall off the top of my head.

  Fox’s Book of Martyr’s compiles a decent amount of sources from that time as well regarding those who died for the faith.

  And there is Biblical evidence within the text of their deaths. Some might say that it doesn’t count, but I would think the burden of proof to prove otherwise lies with those who disagree, since those texts assert martyrdom, and they were closer in time and sphere to the events at hand.

  Anyway, I hope that helps some. I have a feeling I may have half-closed one can of worms while clumsily disturbing another. =)

• 47. Simen  |  August 19, 2007 at 6:39 pm

  What, so if I say that I can fly, and you make a rebuttal a week later, my testimony is more trustworthy because it’s closer in time?

  Sorry, that’s a bit too circular for my taste.

• 48. Jim  |  August 19, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  It is a bit circular on its own.

  Thankfully proximity to the event is not the only variable taken into consideration when considering the trustworthiness of something said.

  To continue on your example, it’s a lot less believable that you can fly than it is to believe that martyrs could have died for the faith, namely the disciples. More people die than fly.

  I realize the rhyme makes it sound cheesy, that is a drawback.

• 49. Heather  |  August 19, 2007 at 8:34 pm

  JIm,

  And there is Biblical evidence within the text of their deaths.

  To clarify — are we talking of people in general, or are we talking of the apostles? Because in the Bible itself, my impression is that it only specifically mentions the death of two: Judas (who wouldn’t count, as he was a “traitor” and James, son of Zebedee and brother of John. It alludes to the matter of Peter’s death. The tricky thing with going into the non-Apostles is that people do die for incorrect beliefs: just look at the terrorists on 9/11. I don’t think they’d recant even under torture.

  Clement’s letter says the following of Peter: “Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.”

  But this says nothing about Peter being executed, or even the manner of death, or even that he was martyred (that can be inferred from the text, but it could also be that the persecutions were incredibly stressful, as I’m sure they were, and it weakened him to the point of death). Plus, it says that they were persecuted due to jealousy and envy.

  For Josephus and the Antiquities, this is what I found: “”And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”

  That doesn’t say that James was killed for any particular faith, but rather for breaking the law, and killed along with others. We don’t know that if James had renounced his faith, he would’ve still lived.

  I took a glance at Foxe’s book on Wikipedia, but it seems to be pulling a lot from tradition, such as Peter being crucified upside down. But when I clicked on some of the examples of the martyrs, Wikipedia kept referring to “tradition holds” that this person was killed here, rather than referrencing any specific source.

• 50. HeIsSailing  |  August 19, 2007 at 10:40 pm

  Heather sez:

  I took a glance at Foxe’s book on Wikipedia, but it seems to be pulling a lot from tradition, such as Peter being crucified upside down.

  Foxe’s does indeed pull much from tradition. What I found is that most of this tradition, including this of Peter’s execution comes from non-canonical writings, in many cases blatently heretical. The deaths of the apostles are often taken from these writings as evidence that they died martyr deaths, and these traditions are taught from the pulpit, while the rest of the heretical writings are rejected.

  This is really dishonest.

  The execution of Peter, and his upside-down crucifixion comes from ‘The Acts of Peter’, a mid 2nd century work. I read it several months ago, and …. wow, it is really something. The descriptions of the magical showdowns between Peter and Simon Magus read like Gandalf and Suramon fighting in the Lord of the RIngs movie. And don’t get me started on that talking baby…surely none of that really happened. But that last part of the book where Peter was crucified upside down? Yeah, that part *really* happened, just not the rest.

  Besides, even if The Acts of Peter is an accurate account of Peter’s death, it is not a martyrdom! Peter voluntarily walks to Rome, and willingly turns himself in to the executioner.

  Ol Josh McDowell sure left a lot out when he said, ‘Surely the Apostles never would have died for a lie!!’ Yeah, right buddy.

• 51. karen  |  August 20, 2007 at 12:15 am

  Ol Josh McDowell sure left a lot out when he said, ‘Surely the Apostles never would have died for a lie!!’ Yeah, right buddy.

  And yet, it was SO persuasive to hear that, back in the day!

  The unfortunate events of 9/11 and the current awful tradition of suicide bombers has certainly undercut his argument today.

• 52. The C.S.Lewis Trilemma &l&hellip  |  November 1, 2007 at 2:52 pm

  [...] See also Simen’s article:  C.S.Lewis’ Trilemma - Liar, Lunatic or Divine. [...]

• 53. Del  |  March 2, 2008 at 6:02 pm

  I think you miss the point of the whole trilemma statement : it was NOT meant to be used as a PROOF of Jesus’ divinity.

  Rather, it was meant to clearly and logically point out the options one has when deciding whether or not to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. It is something to think about, not to believe unquestioningly.

• 54. john  |  March 29, 2008 at 8:58 pm

  One of God’s supreme joys to display His power through or in spite of weakness.

• 55. Quester  |  March 29, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  I’ve heard that before, but not usually applied to weak arguments.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed