Yes, I’ve seen that theory also. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that embellishment definitely didn’t happen. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. The case has not been made definitively, and we should be careful when we assume that that is what most likely happened.
Also, I agree with the contention that Lewis’ argument was flawed. My main sticking point is the idea that we can claim Jesus was misquoted without providing any evidence for it.
Agreed. Considering how hard it is to remember exactly what somebody said even one week later.
Another point to consider is the good old translation flaw argument. Even if ancient copies of the books are found and translated carefully there may be conceptual problems. Syntax and some ideas may not translate clearly into English. What happens then?
If the King James version of the bible is used there could be even more flaws.
But I have provided evidence, in the form of the progression of the gospels I cited above. Earliest gospel, Jesus doesn’t claim godhood, last gospel, he does. That’s evidence that embellishment may be happening.
Besides which, we are trying to compile a list of possibilities here, not certainties. Are you saying that it’s not possible that Jesus was misquoted?
As I see it, the possibilities are:
Of those possibilities, I’d say the fourth might be the most likely.
In my opinion, bringing up the question of whether or not the New Testament accurately portrays the deeds and words of Jesus is completely irrelevant to the argument. It is obvious that Lewis was using this assumption, and every person that’s tried to use this argument to convert me uses it as well. Challenging an assumption that your debating opponent holds as a basic fundamental part of his/her worldview will not sway things one way or the other.
I think instead we should be examining Lewis’s claim from a logical standpoint:
“If you believe that Jesus was a great man, and that the gospels accurately protray his deeds and words, then you must logically believe that he is God.”
Lewis was directing this argument not at an audience of hardcore athiests who reject Jesus entirely (that would be completely pointless), but at one of atheists, agnostics, deists, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, etc. who believe that Jesus was a great human teacher but not God.
I happen to fall into the latter category–I believe that he was a great guy and had some great ideas, but was, like the rest of us, only human. I was first presented with Lewis’s lord-liar-lunatic argument (it sounds cooler as an alliteration, doesn’t it?) by a born-again Christian student a couple of years ago, and I admit it did take me by surprise and unarmed. After several minutes of deep thought, I came up with an answer, one which I still stand by today:
“Yes, Jesus was delusional. This does not change my opinion that he was a great man.”
In fact, plenty of my heroes are somewhat delusional. Archimedes, as an unarmed old man, was crazy enough to stare down and yell at a heavily armed Roman soldier who had stepped in his geometric diagrams. Galileo was crazy enough to fly right in the face of established “scientific” doctrine. So was Einstein, although he was never imprisoned for it. Ghandi and King were crazy enough to think that they could achieve immense goals without the use of violence. And Joshua Norton, one of the greatest people ever to have lived in the great state of California, believed that he was the Emperor of the United States. (Although I see no reason to disbelieve his claim…)
In short: I feel that I can believe that Jesus was both a great man and a lunatic without reaching the contradiction that Lewis suggested I must.
Newton was an amazing genius… but many of his mathematical ideas were nutty. John Nash was a genius, but went insane and was a pretty lousy human being. Human beings are complicated, sometimes with moments of genius and insight, sometimes with loony ideas and very poorly thought out overeaching claims.
As usual, Lewis is making an arguement for Christ’s divinity that even he would never take seriously for anything non-religious.
I can think of plenty of other possibilities anyway:
This is also what I read, though I have no online cite. I recall that Mark and Q were roughly contemperaneous, and both Luke and Matthew used them as sources.
I’m with the camp that thinks that Jesus could’ve been both crazy and a great teacher.
All the scholarly examples are taken, so I turn to the movies…
In Miracle on 34th Street, Kris Kringle claims to be Santa Claus. He was pretty crazy, but he was a great man, too.
Isn’t there supposed to be a fine line between genius and insanity? Why can’t Jesus be straddling that line?
Joe_Cool
Well, I’m not a Jew.
No, it’s not.
So everyone they stoned claimed to be God?
Besides which, look at the preceding to that quote.
He clearly is distinguishing between himself and God.
Oh blurbleflark, Ryan, how on earth did you manage to come to the conclusion that Joe Cool is suggesting that everyone they stoned claimed to be God? All he was saying is that:
a) Jesus said something which is believed to have been a claim to godhood,
b) they tried to stone him immediately thereafter so that
c) an obvious interpretation would be that they tried to stone him in reaction to what he said, and since
d) people didn’t get stoned for no reason,
e) the belief that he did claim godhood is consistent with the story, as opposed to
f) assuming that they tried to stone him because he garbled his tenses or some such.
Does that explain his reasoning for you sufficiently?
Similarly, since Joe Cool was quite obviously suggesting that any of the Jews of the time would have understood the reference to be a claim to godhood, it’s not even remotely relevant that you don’t immediately see it to be such.
Lastly… there is this idea called the Trinity. You may wish to look into it.
I’ll probably hate myself for posting this because the last thing I want to do is derail this thread into a pointless exercise in semantics when the average lackwitted three year old could have figured out what the point was, but this just cried for a little sanity to be injected into the discussion.
Was he crazy? Or was he really Santa Claus? The movie leaves the question essentially unanswered.
My personal opinion on the Jesus issue is that there may be more than one factor at work. He may have been misquoted. We know he was fond of speaking metaphorically (parables, anyone?) He may also have been the victim of overzealous publicists. Or he might ahve been a shrewd politician who just let his supporters believe what they wanted to believe.
And yeah, he could have been a touch delusional and still been a great moral teacher.
Nonny
It’s worth pointing out (if it hasn’t already been done so) that Lewis’ categories are not exclusive in any sense. It’s entirely possible that Jesus was a lying, insane god. 
This arguement of accuracy or quotability of the Bible and what Jesus might or might not have said is inasane. If you wish to chose what is relative in the Bible based on “unproven” facts to fit your ideology that Jesus was just a great man, is no better (or worse) than saying that He was God.I think what Lewis was trying to say is that either…
A) The only absolute in the Bible (about Jesus) is that everything is relative. So at best it is a moral fiction or at worse just plain fiction.
or
B) If you do find absolutes about Jesus, as a man of God, from the bible then his trichotomy is not too simple.
AFAIK, there are very few non-biblical records of Jesus of Nazareth. And since Christianity has been so world-prevalent in our history, who’s to say those records shouldn’t be circumspect as well hmm? 
Because the OT was written partly as a historical record, while the NT is totally propaganda.
Of course they do. Scholars don’t read the inscriptions on the wall of Great Pyramid of Cheops* tomb and think, “gosh, that Cheops dude was amazing. He called forth rain from the heavens, conquered the entire world, and made the gods bow before him.”
Sua
*Cheops used as an example. I have no idea what is inscribed inside the Great Pyramid, if anything.
Cool.
I’m developing a story right now based on this exact premise, starting from the Serpent’s admonition to Eve in Genesis. The implications are astounding.
Not he said "I’m always baffled when people say ‘Jesus never claimed to be God.’ " which implies that he thinks that it is not only “an obvious interpretation” but the only reasonable one.
The “to Jews of the time” qualifier was not explicitly included in the statement “it is an obvious claim to be not just a god, but THE God”. If he meant to include it, then he was not clear on his intention to do so.
Ah yes, the Trinity. The place where Christians stuff their inconsistencies.
Ryan, as usual, you’re picking semantics and nothing more; therefore, I have nothing further to say to you. Call me when you’re interested in actually making a point rather than defining the word “is” and we’ll try this debate again.
Well, since the Jews of that time were the people he was speaking directly to, it should be obvious that what they perceived him to say is what he actually said.
In other words, if I, as an American, say something in the common vernacular to another American, common sense dictates that the meaning that was obvious to the other American is the obvious meaning. Get it?
So yes, once you understand the context of what was said, that IS the only reasonable interpretation.
Ignorance is bliss, but it does make you look stupid. Loke g8r said, you may wish to look into it. And if you have tuckered your poor self out and can only find inconsistancies, you could ask others to help your tired self.
No, it’s not.
Saen
Your attitude of “you’re just too stupid to understand how Jesus both was God and was not God” doesn’t impress me. You people are acting as is just mentioning the word “trinity” absolves you of any responsibility of explaining inconsistencies. If you want to claim that it resolves the inconsistencies, then it’s responsibility to explain how, not simply make ad hominem attacks like “ignorance is bliss”.