Talk:Lewis's trilemma

I do not know ...

I do not know how to use a talk page or why I need to, but the descendant of the text being discussed here as currently written in July, 2023 seems mostly there to service someone's anti-Christian agenda. IF the text is somehow necessary it still does not belong in the intro. I in my attempt at removing the text said the following: There is no reason for this line at all in the intro of an article discussing Lewis' trilemma, it is 1) Irrelevant insofar as the article claims to be about Lewis' position 2) Only there because someone wants to sell their take on the question of whether or not Jesus Christ is God. 3) If needful in some strange world still positioned in the wrong place by being located in the intro of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uglylayout (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Uglylayout: thanks for bringing this discussion to the talk page. This is the place to discuss changes to the article.

The intro is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The sentence you are objecting to is, I presume, an attempt to summarize the content in the sections titled "Cristian" and "Jesus' claims to divinity". If you would like to propose different text to do this job please do so here, where other editors can discuss it. Paul August ☎ 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't have an anti-Christian agenda. We don't have a pro-Christian agenda, either. We do call a spade a spade, when WP:RS do it. Religious neutrality isn't persecution. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you should actually call a spade a spade. 2603:8081:7700:56D:F9ED:F779:E3F7:7D55 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Did Jesus call himself God?

I know that most Christians believers believe that Jesus did claim he was God. But it is the mark of modern Bible scholarship that he didn't. If one is a mainstream Bible scholar, highly likely they will claim that. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: This source disagrees (see also here). Potatín5 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Consensus isn't unanimity. See WP:RS/AC. E.g. Stevenson, Austin (2024). The Consciousness of the Historical Jesus: Historiography, Theology, and Metaphysics. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-567-71440-4. Retrieved 23 February 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Can you provide an appropriate quote from Bird's book supporting the point of view that Jesus claimed that he was god? If so then we might consider adding such as an example of a dissenting view. Paul August ☎ 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paul August: E.g. Bird, Michael F. (2022). Jesus Among the Gods: Early Christology in the Greco-Roman World. Baylor University Press. p. 408. ISBN 978-1-4813-1675-0. Hence my overall thesis: Jesus is a Jewish deity of the Greco-Roman world. Jesus sits among the gods of antiquity, and he can sometimes be mistaken for a Hermes or a Serapis; but his likeness to more than any other is to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, at least as he was believed upon and worshipped by Christians in the Roman east in the first two centuries. Jesus is a Jewish Mediterranean deity, or Jesus is identifiable with the Jewish God as expressed in the forms and tropes of eastern Mediterranean religion. Jewish literature and religion are the primary coordinates for mapping the origins of Christology...

Note also that Austin Stevenson is a systematic theologian, not a biblical scholar, and many of the quotes there are from works that are now several decades old (e.g. Dunn's Christology in the Making dates to 1980). Other recent scholars who have reached the same conclusion as Michael Bird include Richard Bauckham[1], Ruben A. Bühner[2] and Brant Pitre[3]. Potatín5 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5:: But this quote doesn't say anything about Jesus claiming to be God. What Bird is saying what Jesus was but nothing about what Jesus said. Paul August ☎ 12:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Bird's thesis is that Jesus was considered to be a pre-existent, divine figure alongside the Father within Jewish monotheism (high Christology) already during his own lifetime, and that this perception was in direct continuation with its Second Temple Jewish and Eastern Mediterranean religious and theological contexts. His point is not so much about arguing that Jesus claimed to be God as it is to argue that Jesus was already considered to be God during his own lifetime. Potatín5 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok that's fine, but the question we are discussing here is whether he claimed to be God. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, if Jesus and his disciples considered him to be God, that is not much different from the original question. Potatín5 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say that Jesus claimed to be god or even considered himself to be god. Do you have a quote? Question169 (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

John 5:17 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” Also John 1:1 "in the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 172.59.188.145 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Having a BA and MA in Theology in Germany, I have never perceived the kind of consensus you seem to perceive when you call denying Jesus' claims to divinity a hallmark of modern biblical scholarship. Maybe one can say that there is some controvery around the extent of the claims of the historical Jesus. As the text stands right now, it reads like muslim apologetics. 2003:F0:CF04:903D:5CF4:B731:151F:E825 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The article does not call denying Jesus' claims to divinity a hallmark of modern biblical scholarship. Paul August ☎ 01:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

As you see, others requested quotes from Pitre. Pitre says that mainstream Bible scholars are wrong about that, not that they don't teach it. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have reverted despicable vandalism (totally fake edits).

I don't know if they realize it, but their actions paint Christianity as the religion of people who lack intellectual honesty. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Does this Simplify Lewis argument?

"Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by postulating that the only alternatives were that he was evil or mad." <- this 'flattens' Lewis' argument, I think, to the point of not summarizing

Lewis eventually concludes (for himself) the divinity of Jesus, but initially the argument is subtle (and almost anit-apologetic). Lewis is argues against something specific.

The argument is explicitly against a certain posture: affirming Jesus as a great moral teacher (while downgrading his divinity to 'respectable levels'). This is his stated aim:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God..."

The point of the trillemma, in the largest part of the argument, is not that 'given madness and evil are out' -> choose divinity. The point is to show how the _three_ available options crowd out an impossible 4th 'a merely good human teacher'.

"You must make your choice... 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 patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher."

It's subtle and I'm not sure, to this point, it conforms to the conventional definition of apologetics since it commends all 3 options as possible... two thirds of which involve rejecting Christ. Only one door is closed.

"He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

The argument is, at one level, just "more interesting" than the afticle's framing allows.

A further point: Unfortunately, as it is, the subtext still shouts. The primary thing 'going on' in the article seems to be clarifying that Jesus did not claim to be God, and that this is an objective fact. As reads now, Lewis' argument mainly provides a pretext for this point rather than being the article's real subject.

Maybe there's a simple way of referencing the fact that a. some scholars doubt Lewis represents the biblical claims accurately and b. other scholars doubt the bible's veracity. Those are big arguments but, particularly given the people Lewis is addressing, already accept that Jesus did claim to be God, this article seems to be the wrong grounds for clarifying that battle. 2 short notes and a link to an apporpriate article about Christ's contested claims to divinity would give the article some breathing room to focus more on the trillema, itself.

~2026-11059-33 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Nope, the trilemma being sophistry is an entirely germane part of the article. His trilemma is at best a symptom of ignorance. He was an intellectual, so he gets judged by other intellectuals, having objective knowledge and critical thinking. Modern apologetics isn't highly regarded by intellectuals, since it displays either ignorance or outright deception. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course the possible logical failings of the trilemma is an entirely germane part of the article, but I don't think the IP disagrees with that. Rather it seems to me that he is saying that there is more to Lewis' argument (however flawed) which our article does not cover. Something I agree with. Paul August ☎ 17:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm also not a fan of apologetics (in the sense that it is always "driving to the hoop").

A. "Consciousness seems to be a counter-example to materialism" -> therefore Jesus rose from the dead [I don't like it].

B. "Consciousness seems to be a counter-example to materialism" -> therefore the scientific account, without a causal mechanism may be incomplete [I like it].

I'm getting to Lewis, but this can go wrong in 2 ways. First, Christian overclaim, as in [A]. But also, there's also an odd way the counter-attack can also go wrong. Someone might appropriately posit [B] and the odd counter is to say, "That doesn't prove Jesus rose from the dead!" (which is true... but that wasn't the limited claim)

Back to Lewis: What concerns me is that he may be arguing something like [B] - meaning, something conditioned, scoped and appropriately limited... who does he address and what does he set out to prove?

An interesting aspect in Lewis argument (and I think he spend a large part of his argument on this) is the way he offers two options for disbelief (to someone who believes the text and takes Jesus to be claiming divinity).

It looks to me that on the Christian side ("Liar, Lunatic, Lord") his argument has been flattened to score baskets too. The nuance in the argument to me is evidence of real thinking and scoping... perhaps of making appropriately minimal arguments. ~2026-11059-33 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The article, at present, evaluates the logic of Lewis argument (which is fair), but also trades on a category error.

Category 1: 'Foundational apologetics' are meant to establish God 'from zero', so to speak (using only rational moves). There are a lot of historical arguments 'for God' in this category. A modern example would be something like Plantinga's modal ontological argument. This isn't the category Lewis' argument is in (clearly).

Category 2: This argument is 'theological', in the sense that it's an argument from logic among those that presuppose agreed grounds. It's directed explicitly at the person who has _already accepted_, that Jesus did claim to be God (even if they reject his claim) as common ground (in fact this is a part of what he's critiquing... the acceptance of certain presuppositions absent the logical consistency to follow them to their conclusion).

So his premise (directed against a liberal Christian posture) reads like this:

1. a. _If_ you accept the biblical account and that Jesus claims to be God...

not like this.:

1 b. Jesus claims to be God. The biblical account is true.

Attempts to establish that, objectively, the biblical account is invalid or that some scholars say Jesus never claimed to be God fail to attack 1. a. It's possible of course to say that everyone who is in the 1. a. group is mistaken or decieved... but that's not a critique of the internal coherency of his logic (with respect to those who believe the bible and take an orthodox view of Jesus claims to his own divinity).

The category error is treating this as foundational apologetics. Then saying, Lewis fails to establish X & Y. Lewis does a poor job of establishing the historicity of the bible precisely because this is not an argument establishing the historicity of the bible. Once that fact is obscured, he burns like a straw man.

"Modern apologetics isn't highly regarded by intellectuals, since it displays either ignorance or outright deception." You're presupposing that anyone who thinks rationally about God or defends Christianity 'doesn't count' as an intellectual... but you've already granted that Lewis is _both_ an apologist and an intellectual. Augustine wasn't an intellectual? Tozer wasn't? That atheist intellectuals don't approve Christian's defending Christianity can't shock either of us (...that they comprise the total intellectual culture is false).

~2026-11059-33 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding on: I want to find a soucre about how trillema's are constructed. If they mislead that's one facet, but that's not what I'm thinking. Quite by accident I ran into a quote by Richard Dawkin's yesterday, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Trillema's (or 'quadrallema's in Dawkins case) have to be exhaustive to be effective and I think this article brings that out well... but possibly the derivation of the trillema (or the attempt to derive it) 'from logic' is insufficiently represented (even if options like, "sincerely mistaken", or "legend" are arguably missed). I would argue the category error not so much excludes "legend" as removes it to another level of criticism. It doesn't attack Lewis' logic, if 1 a. conditions his conclusion. It attacks biblical historicity but in a real sense... that's another fight.

But is the trillema logically derived? Here's how it might be: someone who claims to be God is logically lying or telling the truth -> the 'dillema' _seems_ logically sound. If lying, they may know they lie or not know they lie (add lunacy, given extravagance of the claim (incidentally, I heard someone joke that "sincerely mistaken" applies better to, "I think we have milk" than "I think I am God."). In any clase, if it makes sense to include the expansion of options (as almost an ongoing critique of the argument) it would be nice to present the way the available options seem to fall out, logically (logical dillema > explansion to trillema). Even if someone thinks it should be expanded once or twice more the way it 'falls out' will rule out or mitigate against (for some readers) a planned deception.

~2026-11059-33 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I found an article backing these ideas on Brill | Pro: A Defense of C. S. Lewis’s “Trilemma”, In: C. S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics, Author: Donald S. Williams

// Opposes a Specified Historic Posture in Context rather than Directly Arguing Christ's Diety from Zero //

"First, let us remind ourselves of the argument itself as it is presented in

Mere Christianity. (See Brazier, 2002, pp. 91-102 for a survey of other works

in which Lewis gives a version of the argument.) Lewis is addressing a person

who says, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not

accept his claim to be God.” We note first of all that the Trilemma is

presented not so much as an argument for the deity of Christ per se, but as a

refutation, a heading off at the pass, of one popular way of evading the claims

of Christ. This, Lewis argues, is the one thing we cannot say..."

// Explicit Purpose: 'Clarified Options' Central //

"Lewis’s version of the argument involves the following steps:

(1) Jesus claimed to be God. (This is assumed in Mere Christianity.)

(2) There are three logical possibilities in the case of such a claim:

(a) He was telling the truth.

(b) He was lying.

(c) He was mistaken (and hence insane, given the nature of the

claim).

(3) A liar or a megalomaniac (the relevant form of insanity) could not be

a great moral teacher.

(4) Therefore, we must either accept Jesus’ claim or reject him as

immoral or insane. The merely mortal great moral teacher option is

logically eliminated.

Note that one could go on to argue that (5) Jesus was not a liar, (6) Jesus

was not insane, therefore (7) Jesus was God. One could; many have; I might;

in the next chapter Lewis does—but in the original passage from Mere

Christianity Lewis leaves it at (4). He is explicit about his purpose: “I am

trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often

say” (Lewis, 1943, p. 55). Lewis does not claim to have proved the deity of

Christ beyond a shadow of doubt, but only to have clarified our choices."

~2026-11059-33 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you're beating a lot around the bush. Say in a one-liner what is wrong with the article. And then WP:CITE WP:RS to address that. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

None of this is based upon citing scholarly works. If you want to change the article, WP:CITE WP:RS. This is not a WP:FORUM for philosophical discussions.

I have WP:CITED Donald S. Williams. What does he say? That Lewis addressed a lay audience, not people who studied history/theology. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Paul August: While they might have a point, all this lavine of philosophizing is unwelcome. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well yes. But I think they do have an important point. And although one is tempted to simply reply TL;DR I think a careful reading of their posts makes their point reasonably clear (and seems reasonably persuasive to me): that our article spends most of its time discussing and disputing the unstated assumption that Jesus claimed he was god, and does not seem to take into account the meaning of Lewis' argument if one grants that unstated assumption. Which our poster asserts Lewis and his intended audience did.

The problem is of course the lack of supporting sources. Paul August ☎ 13:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The scholarly paper I found is -> A Defense of C. S. Lewis’s “Trilemma”, C. S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics, Donald S. Williams (I'm logged in and will propose concrete changes under a new topic). F.I.Pinball (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent and useful source; specific proposed changes are good; having and using an account will make easier for all of us. Paul August ☎ 14:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I will start a new topic and try to edit myself down (avoid long-winded philosophizing) and instead propose concrete changes (I'm adjusting to Wikipedia). F.I.Pinball (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Conciseness is your friend here. Paul August ☎ 14:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Changes Proposed to ‘Un-simplify’ Lewis

I want to propose (under this topic) concrete changes to the article to try to make Lewis's own claims clear. It's not appropriate that his argument stands unopposed, but it's appropriate that what he is arguing is presented accurately (such that this is what is first understood and then opposed). I have in mind 1. differentiating what his argument is (and is doing)--his 'version'--from a history of similar arguments and 2. separating his own words from how the Church and the culture of apologetics has 'stewarded his argument' going forward (is the formulation "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", for instance, a helpful distillation?).

Lewis argument explicitly opposes something : the posture that endorses Jesus as a good human teacher; it does so by clarifying exhaustive options.

Donald S. Williams claims that, "..the Trilemma is presented not so much as an argument for the deity of Christ per se..." and later, "He is explicit about his purpose: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say” (Lewis, 1943, p. 55). Lewis does not claim to have proved the deity of Christ beyond a shadow of doubt, but only to have clarified our choices."

[Donald S. Williams, “A Defense of C. S. Lewis’s ‘Trilemma,’” in C. S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics (Leiden: Brill, 2013).] — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.I.Pinball (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest, therefore, for the first paragraph, that something like the following is much more accurate to what Lewis (not the historic argument, nor a later Christian understanding of it) actually argues:

Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument which opposes the endorsement of Jesus as “a great human teacher”. He argues that this option is excluded by proposing that Jesus own claims logically enforce a trilemma –a choice among three exhaustive options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept.

To Lewis, Jesus cannot be a ‘good human teacher’ because a man who said what Jesus said, could be only one of three things, “…what he said he was, or a lunatic, or something worse”. F.I.Pinball (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, this is what I think you are proposing, i.e. to change the first sentence to "something like":

Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument which opposes the endorsement of Jesus as “a great human teacher”. He argues that this option is excluded by proposing that Jesus own claims logically enforce a trilemma –a choice among three exhaustive options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept.

Yes? This sounds reasonable, but your approach here (common among new editors) is to begin by making changes to the first section of the article (what we call the "lead", please see WP:Lead). But this is backwards. The lead is a summary of the rest of the article. So before we can add something to the lead, it must first be found somewhere in the "body" of the article. So I suggest that you instead propose a short paragraph (itself a summary of what scholarly sources, such as Williams, say) for which your proposed sentence would be an appropriate summary. Regards, Paul August ☎ 14:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I've written it myself, but I am still somewhat unconvinced that it belongs in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This is really helpful guidance. I've found 2 articles by Willaims and one by Mark Taylor ("A Look at the Lewis Trilemma").

1. Both authors stress that Lewis argument (*in the main) was not meant to be an argument for the deity of Christ; instead, it “clarifies options”. Taylor argues it has been misunderstood.

“Lewis does not claim to have proved the deity of Christ beyond a shadow of doubt, but only to have clarified our choices.” (Williams)

“These objections, however, miss Lewis point. The Trilemma, as he presented it, was never meant to be a proof for the deity of Christ… Lewis should not be blamed as the owner of the straw man others are burning.” (Taylor)

2. Both authors work to recover context. It’s written (they say) explicitly to those who call him a “good human teacher” (he intends to exclude this option by clarifying choices).

“At the argument’s start we find what has been consistently overlooked by critics. It is here that Lewis states the type of person he is addressing.” (Taylor)

“The only choice Lewis claims to have eliminated absolutely is that Jesus was simply a great, but merely human, moral teacher.” (Williams)

3. Williams notes that the argument proceeds conditionally but not because Lewis was unaware of biblical criticism.

“The argument is presented in the form, if Jesus said and meant these things this is what follows… It was not because he was unaware of biblical criticism…. Lewis knew of this challenge and was prepared to meet it when appropriate is proved by essays such as “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism.” (Williams)

4. *A structural nuance we might capture: Williams says elsewhere that “…it is not written as an argument for the deity of Christ per se…”… the major argument in Mere Christianity, as above, occurs before a chapter break and concludes with clarified options, excluding ‘good teacher’.”

“Note that one could go on to argue that (5) Jesus was not a liar, (6) Jesus was not insane, therefore (7) Jesus was God. One could; many have; I might; in the next chapter Lewis does—but in the original passage from mere Christianity Lewis leaves it at (4). He is explicit about his purpose: ‘I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say’…” (Williams) F.I.Pinball (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Although I haven't looked in detail at what Williams has written, at a first glance I think that tgeorgescu has done a credible job of incorporating William's views into our article. (@Tgeorgescu: Thanks.) @F.I.Pinball: What do you think? Paul August ☎ 15:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)