The Trilemma Refuted

The Christian theologian C.S. Lewis proposed an argument called the “Trilemma” that has since become famous. The “Trilemma” states that since the blessed Jesus claimed to be God, either he was God, or a lunatic, or a liar, and that since you can tell by the way he spoke that he was honest and rational, therefore the only option left is to conclude that he was God. This argument presumes that all the sayings which the four Gospels attributed to the blessed Jesus were really spoken by him. The Jesus Seminar wrote a book on the subject called The Five Gospels in which they concluded that only 18% of the sayings attributed to the blessed Jesus by the four canonical Gospels and the equally early Gospel of Thomas, were genuine. I plan to read this book as soon as I can, as the concept intrigues me. I'll have a review up on this site once I've finished it.

But I think that a lot of the sayings that the Gospels attribute to the blessed Jesus (not all of them) are probably genuine after all, as they frequently parallel statements he makes in the Koran or statements that the blessed Muhammad makes in the ahadith. (He frequently echoed the teachings of the blessed Jesus before him just as the blessed Jesus himself echoed the teachings of the Old Testament before him.) Now to get down to the Trilemma itself. The conclusion of the argument does follow from the premises in a sound way: if someone claims to be God, then they are either God, or delusional, or lying. I think those are indeed your only options--I mean, you can't just be mistaken about thinking that you're an infinite, eternal being, right? You'd have to be delusional. Or else lying. Or telling the truth.

The premise of this argument is where the argument falls apart, the assumption that that the blessed Jesus claimed to be God. Where exactly in the text does he make this claim? Search the four Gospels all you want, but nowhere will you find the statement, “I am God.” Don’t you think that it’s a little strange he never said this? Some people think the Gospel of John was written for the purpose of establishing his divinity, but even in the Gospel of John the statement, "I am God," is nowhere to be found. John himself does say in the opening verse that the Word was divine, but this is his own, personal opinion, not the words of the blessed Jesus himself.

The most common quote from him that Christians give to support their claim is John 10:30, which says, “I and the Father are one.” But compare this to John 17:11, in which the blessed Jesus prays for his apostles, saying, “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” So obviously the oneness he spoke of is of a much more mystical nature than that, not anything Trinitarian at all. And that just makes sense: when someone says they are one with God, I never assume that they're proclaiming that they're God incarnate--rather, it always seems to be meant in a mystical sense.

Christians also claim that when Satan tempted the blessed Jesus to turn the stones of the desert floor into bread and the blessed Jesus responded by saying, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” (Matthew 4:7), he was declaring his own divinity. But remember that miracles come from God and done through people, and so God was being tempted as well as his “son” when Satan made that remark. Or take the question that the Pharisees asked in chapter two of Mark: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Remember that the blessed Jesus responded, “Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” This is obviously a denial of what the Pharisees were saying, not a confirmation of it. Think about it and I think you'll see what I mean.

Next, we have the statement of John 8:58, which is, “Before Abraham was, I am!” The statement “I am!” in that verse not the same as the statement, “I AM!” in Exodus 3:14. They were different in the original languages of the writings, which is why one statement is all in capital letters in the cited English rendering and the other isn’t. If the Gospels go out of their way to render foreign phrases that are important, like, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?" then why did they leave this in Greek? The answer is simply that it was not the same statement, and it did not have the same meaning. Remember that he was "one" with God in a mystical sense, and wanted his apostles to be as well. But he was not God in any truer since than that, for he himself couldn't do anything without the one who sent him (John 5:30) and the Father was greater than him (John 14:28).

And finally, we have the statement of John 14:9: “Whoever has seen me has seen the father.” Compare that to John 6:46, which states, "Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father." Quite obviously such a literal interpretation of 14:9 would fail in light of 6:46. As you can see, the blessed Jesus never claimed to be God. On the contrary, he said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18) So if the blessed Jesus was not God, then was he at least the son of God? You could say that he was, but not in the sense that you're probably thinking. Let's take a look at what the Old Testament (and the book of Luke) has to say on the matter:

“You [the Jews] are the sons of the LORD your God.” (Deuteronomy 14:1)

And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.’” (Exodus 4:21-23)

The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

"I [God] am a father to Israel, and E'phraim is my firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. (2 Samuel 7:12-15)

First, I should note that Christians usually consider that last quotation to be a prophecy of the coming Messiah, but since the character it speaks of is said to commit iniquity, I think we can safely put that interpretation aside. The passage is obviously referring to the blessed Solomon. So as you can see, numerous people are spoken of in the Bible as being sons of God. Now let's take a look at where the whole confusion begins: the anunciation.

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:31-33)

The keyword there is “called.” The angel did not say he would be a son of God but that he would be called a son of God. In other words, it’s an honorary title, not to be taken literally. What point is there to a virgin birth if the child has a father? Face it: the idea of a son of God who’s born of a virgin just doesn’t make sense. It destroys the significance of a virgin birth if there’s a father, be he earthly or heavenly. And though the angel said that the blessed Jesus would reign over the house of Jacob forever, this could easily be an absract way of referring to one prophet taking another’s mantle and setting forth his words to be followed by the people of his region forever. The Lord’s prayer begins with the words “our Father,” does it not? And God is our Father as well as Jesus's (peace be upon him) father, our God and his God (John 20:17). How did the blessed Jesus identify himself, then? He called himself "son of Man," and this title was not unique to him, either, as you can see:

And [the angel] said to me, “Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you.” (Ezekiel 2:1)

So “son of Man” is a title that can apply simply to prophets, and “son of God” is can also apply to prophets, or even to the Jews in general, or to Christians in general when they recite the "Lord's Prayer." What was the blessed Jesus, then, if neither God nor God's son? By his own words, he was a prophet:

Coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” (Matthew 13:54-57)

As we can see, the blessed Jesus never claimed to be God incarnate, nor even to be a literal son of God. He was just a prophet. God is one, as the blessed Jesus himself testified:

One of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.'" (Mark 12:29)

"The Lord is One." Not "the Lord is One God in three persons," nor "The Lord is One but also Three," or, "The Lord is One God in three," but just, "The Lord is one." One is the loneliest number.