CS Lewis trilemma redux (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)

As per my other post -- CS Lewis never offers the
trilemma to prove the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth,
if you read what he actually says.

--- John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
> >> It is clear that
> Howard (and Burgy as well) disagree with Lewis. I
> happen to agree with
> Lewis and
> disagree with them. >>
>
> Burgy does NOT disagree with Lewis. He merely has
> pointed out that Lewis
> made several assumptions in posing the two
> possibilities that are not
> accepted by everyone.
>
> The issue is the argument. Lewis gives only two
> possibilities:
>
> 1. Jesus was a madman, or worse
> 2. Jesus was the Son of God
>
> But there are all sorts of other possibilities, at
> least one of which
> is:
>
> 3. The scriptures are in error.
> 4. etc
> 5. etc
>
> Howard's point is simple. If you use Lewis's
> argument in discussions, you
> are very likely to be hooted down. At the very least
> recognize its
> assumptions. Lewis should have stated them; in not
> doing so he erred.
> IMHO.

It's not Lewis' argument for the divinity of Jesus, it
is Josh McDowell's on a misreading of what C.S.L.
actually said. ;)

As per my other post, here is an excellent summary of
what CSL said:

http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/trilemma.htm

Rilstone also does a good summary of the flaws in
McDowell's (not Lewis') trilemma proof argument:

http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/onto.htm

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Received on Sat Dec 20 20:45:18 2003