Talk:Lewis's trilemma

Mental health issues

I am troubled by the words "lunatic" and "madman". In the 19th century, and possibly still for Lewis, it was possible to say that someone who wrongly believed himself to be god was "mad", with madness as a broadly understood cliché of raving insanity. In fact, what we now know about mental illness and religious delusion would suggest that it would be perfectly possible for a person to have a belief in themselves as a divine messiah without being psychopathic. Look at Vissarion, for example; he doesn't seem like either a liar or a lunatic, but most of us would not agree that he is what he claims to be. He doesn't sound like a conman, so I would tip that he believes what he says, but his delusion is way short of "lunacy". I am not competent in mental illness, so I can't add this to the article, but perhaps somebody else can? --Doric Loon (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Vissarion behaves like this? ---> Mark 9:19, Mark 11:15–16, Matthew 11:13–36 ? --Wikipek (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sources Unrelated to Lewis's Trilemma

There have been more than a few edits arguing the merits of Lewis's Trilemma with sources being added to back up those arguments, but the sources are not about the trilemma itself amount to original research. See WP:OR This article is not a place to debate Lewis's Trilemma, and content for or against it should reflect sources discussing Lewis's Trilemma directly. PeRshGo (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article is not the place for Wikipedia to debate the soundness of the Trilemma. But it is, of course, the place to present—in a neutral way— the debate to be found in scholarly sources. Can you be specific as to where exactly you think we are doing the former rather than the latter? Paul August ☎ 14:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased Source

First, allow me to say that I am new and am not sure how most of this is supposed to go. But I wanted to present a concern: The article says that "something that most biblical scholars and historians of the period do not believe to be true." I understand that it has one citation that claims exactly that, but I wanted to know whether one person, who appears to be a pluralistic apologist, should speak for the majority of theologians. This fellow quoted is not a theologian. He is an apologist for Pluralism. How do we know that the majority of theologians actually believe such a thing?

If you wish, I can give a list of biblical scholars who do not believe in such a thing.

1. Dr. Michael Kruger - President and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary
2. Dr. Stephen Nichols - Teaching Fellow at Ligonier Ministries and President of Reformation Bible College.
3. Dr. William Lane Craig - Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University
4. Dr. N.T. Wright - Former Bishop of Durham and Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews
5. Dr. Norman Geisler - Co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary and prolific author
6. Dr. R.C. Sproul - Founder of Ligonier Ministries and former professor at Reformed Theological Seminary
7. Dr. Craig Blomberg - Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary
8. Dr. Ben Witherington III - Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary
9. Dr. Darrell Bock - Executive Director of Cultural Engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary
10. Dr. Gary Habermas - Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University
11. John Fienberg Bachelor of arts, master of divinity, master of theology, master of arts and doctor of philosophy, Professor Emeritus of Biblical and systematic theology at Trinity evangelical Divinity School, among other things.

If someone would like to give the credentials of John Hick, other than being an apologist for pluralism, go ahead. Lenderthrond (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are very conservative scholars, WP:FRINGE is of application. We know that conservatives can't stand the consensus of mainstream Bible scholars, that is nothing new. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: This source argues that Jesus did claim to be God, and it has been endorsed by such renowned scholars as Dale C. Allison Jr., Chris Tilling, Matthew W. Bates, Matthew Levering, Jordan J. Cruz Ryan, Tucker S. Ferda and Christine Jacobi. I doubt that all of these count as "very conservative scholars." Potatín5 (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Seriously? Pitre is an apologist rather than a scholar. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: According to Matthew Levering, "Brant Pitre has established himself as the preeminent Catholic historical-Jesus scholar". If so, then he must be a scholar. Potatín5 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Pitre holds the position that Catholic dogmas are true both theologically and historically. That is an extreme outlier in the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Why? Do you have any evidence that Catholic scholars who believe that Jesus claimed to be God are considered "extreme outliers" in the academia? I have found this source which states that "Jesus’s divine self-consciousness constitutes a real historical possibility" (p. 138). If so, then it is clear that since recent times a growing number of biblical scholars are now arguing that the historical Jesus could have claimed to be God. Potatín5 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Let's say that such POV is not altogether impossible. But the POV that all Catholic dogmas are literally (i.e. not in a broad metaphorical way, like according to Schopenhauer's friends) and historically true, is extremely WP:FRINGE. See for details [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

At least these are actually biblical scholars. John Hick is not even a biblical scholar at all. He is an apologist for pluralism. See his wikipedia page. Lenderthrond (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because they are conservative does not mean they are fringe. If we have to bring up personal opinions, Liberals are fringe theologically. But personal opinions don't belong on wikipedia. Lenderthrond (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, Liberal Christianity is not WP:FRINGE in any way, form, or shape. It might be considered fringe in Oklahoma, but not at Wikipedia.

I saw the article John Hick, it does not agree with your characterization of Hick.

In case you did not know it, for Wikipedia the gold standard is what full professors teach at the Ivy League. That is, we don't follow Dallas Theological Seminary or Liberty University, we follow the Ivy League.

As the saying goes: at the third generation of professors, all seminaries tend to become liberal. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

so can you give me a reason why conservative Christianity is considered fringe? Lenderthrond (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not making a blanket statement that conservative Christianity would be fringe. While I admit that very conservative Bible scholars are fine and dandy in matters of theology, they are WP:FRINGE (or close enough) in matters pertaining to mainstream history. They're not good at anything that requires higher criticism, so they should not be allowed to speak for higher criticism. Their own POV could be briefly rendered as "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." tgeorgescu (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

tgeorgescu, please refrain from comments like It might be considered fringe in Oklahoma, but not at Wikipedia. I get why you might be personally upset with the recent policy decisions of that state—I am too—but that does not excuse inflammatory statements. The other editors in this discussion have done quite a bit to cite their sources and have countered your claims of FRINGE with scholarly evidence to the contrary. I think they may have a point here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: The initial argument was a rub about WP:RS/AC: I understand that it has one citation that claims exactly that, but I wanted to know whether one person, who appears to be a pluralistic apologist, should speak for the majority of theologians. This fellow quoted is not a theologian. He is an apologist for Pluralism. How do we know that the majority of theologians actually believe such a thing?

All I have argued here for is that Hick is not WP:FRINGE. That was the whole dispute about, not upon whether very conservative scholars may be WP:CITED.

My argument is for citing Hick. It isn't an argument against citing conservative Bible scholars.

Same as I allow conservative scholars to be cited, they have to allow liberal scholars to be cited. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Hick is being cited to make a claim about most other academic scholarship. The published source for Hick's statement isn't from an Ivy League institution, but from Presbyterian Publishing Corporation and was published the same year that they also published a book promoting a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I 100% believe that the claim Hick is cited here as making needs additional verification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hick's claim seems to be supported by Brant Pitre himself. In his book Jesus and Divine Christology, Pitre writes that: "Bart Ehrman emphasizes the 'one thing' contemporary studies of the historical Jesus 'all agree on' is this:

Jesus did not spend his ministry declaring himself divine ... One of the enduring findings of modern scholarship on the New Testament and early Christianity over the past two centuries is that followers of Jesus, during his life, understood him to be human through and through, not God."

He goes on to say: "Ehrman's assessment of the modern quest as a whole is quite accurate". As far as I can Pitre's entire book is an attempt to rebut what he considers to be this majority view. Hick seems to be a respected scholar. Typically a single source from a reliable scholar stating X in the strongest terms is sufficient to support for asserting X. However if we want corroborating sources, it seems Ehrman and Pitre would be more than sufficient.

I would add that, in my view, most of the objections with asserting the statement: P = "most biblical scholars believe X" here, is not because they think P is false, but rather they believe X is false. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You went a sullied a very good contribution with a statement that demonstrates a failure to AGF. Preferably, we would cite someone like Ehrman—who is broadly respected as an expert in the field—saying something to the effect of "most scholars believe Jesus did not claim to be divine". I would not say Pitre should be the only expert cited for something like this, but he could be cited alongside someone like Ehrman to amplify the point. Instead, we have a citation to Hick—as much a strident partisan as Pitre—as published by a company which had dubious scholarly standards. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the, for the possible lack of AGF. I was not thinking of you are other editors commenting here, but rather of the many who have, over the years, removed the statement, and who I assumed were in good faith simply conflating or at least confusing P with X. In any case, there was no reason for me to try to characterize other editors thinking, and I apologize for that. The only reason I pointed out the distinction between P and X—which, however obvious it may seem to some, it is not obvious to all—was to make sure everyone here understood it. For our purposes here, that is all that matters. Again I apologize for the characterization. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

More than ok, Paul August. Communication over computer has a tendency to look worse than intended. Thanks for your valuable input here. If you chase down a good Ehrman (or similar) source to definitively support the statement, let's add it ASAP. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

In fairness to Paul August, I don't think that was a breach of AGF. He wasn't imputing bad faith, but rather, calling out bad logic, and he was referring to users who have repeatedly come on here and spelled out their thinking in such detail that there is no question this really is what they were thinking. It's quite OK to explain respectfully why they were wrong. Doric Loon (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)