CS Lewis said: "There is no middle-ground with Christ Jesus. He either WAS a heretic and a lunatic or he IS, as he claimed, the Son of God."
I add: " A true Christian must proudly proclaim that Jesus IS the Risen Son of the Living God and reject any argument that he was merely a talented rabbi or a wise philosopher or a mere prophet".
2007-08-10 04:11:31 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Now you're talking in terms of absolute right or wrong, and you KNOW how much the world hates absolutes!
2007-08-10 04:27:52 · answer #1 · answered by Linda J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You say it like being a heretic and lunatic is a bad thing.
If he was just a heretic, lunatic talented rabbi, would that somehow make his philosophy less worthy of consideration?
Should we only Love Thy Neighbour if it was a direct commandment from an invisible sky-dude? Don't you think it's a good idea regardless of the divinity of the dude that said it?
And if you do follow Love Thy Neighbour, does it really matter whether or not you're a 'true Christian'? If two people follow Christ's teaching, but one thinks he was a talented rabbi, and the other insists he was the Son of God, does that somehow make the 'true Christian' a better person?
2007-08-10 11:29:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love CS Lewis, but I don't agree with him here.
Your statement, though, being qualified with the preface "A true Christian" is I think _quite_ true by the very definition of the word "christian".
Of course, I'm not a christian, so I reserve the option to consider him one part revolutionary philosopher and one part urban legend.
2007-08-10 11:23:07 · answer #3 · answered by B SIDE 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Forget the either/or argument, which sucks,and chill out. Lewis' and your stances do not not and cannot prove anything about God one way or the other. Just do all the good you can, while you can. Peace..
2007-08-10 11:16:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who knows whether he was a lunatic or not?
If he actually existed, he was either illiterate or perhaps crazy enough that he just didn't write things down.
Apparently, nobody else did until after he was dead.
Paul never even met him, but makes the fantastic claim that he met Jesus' ghost.
Interesting question, but I guess I disagree with you.
2007-08-10 11:20:15 · answer #5 · answered by Samurai Jack 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, that should be "Do you agree with C. S. Lewis and Me?" (sorry -- I couldn't resist.)
I think Lewis' point is clear: you either accept Jesus was a lunatic or that He was God. It is superfluous to add other arguments.
2007-08-10 11:14:58 · answer #6 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The son of God-My good Shepherd
2007-08-10 12:33:37 · answer #7 · answered by jenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree with that statement. And it makes perfect sense that he was a heretic and/or a lunatic. (If he existed at all.)
2007-08-10 11:15:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree and so does Josh McDowell, who wrote that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord.
2007-08-10 11:14:38 · answer #9 · answered by Bob T 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
it's very true. and history proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he was indeed not a legend, monica.
2007-08-10 11:16:13 · answer #10 · answered by shoefly 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋