Can Jesus be Just a Great Moral Teacher and Not God? – by Tor Constantino
Virtually, every major religion recognizes and admits that during his short physical life on this earth, Jesus rose to the level of one of the following categories: a great ethical teacher; a moral leader and/or a spiritual prophet.
Despite that observation and religious concession, none of the major faith traditions of the world (namely Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or Sikhism), outside of Christianity, acknowledge His divinity.
Those aforementioned belief systems place Jesus on equal footing with the founding fathers of those faiths and prophets, which include: Siddhartha Gautama for Buddhism; Muhammad for Islam; Abraham and Moses for Judaism; as well as Guru Nanak Dev for Sikhism BUT they collectively reject the idea that Jesus was God incarnate.
It was this obvious, discrepancy among the faiths that Jesus was a good man but not a God-Man or divine was poignantly addressed by C.S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity where he wrote:
“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.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
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. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
The point of Lewis’ argument is that Jesus claimed to be God’s son, equal to the creator of the universe – that was how Jesus defined and identified himself. At no point is Jesus recorded as ever backing away from that strong assertion. In fact, it was his diehard support of that assertion that ultimately led to his death by crucifixion.
So Lewis logically extends that point when he goes on to state that either Jesus was knowingly false and wrong, which would make him a liar, or Jesus was mentally imbalanced which contributed to his being unknowingly wrong in which case he would necessarily be a lunatic. In fact, the mental condition of a “savior complex” or “delusions of grandeur” are most often associated with people diluted thinking.
But if Jesus wasn’t a liar or lunatic (using Lewis’ words) than Jesus was the actual son of God.
Despite this logical progression of thought by Lewis, there are skeptics and athetists alike that discredit the underlying logic of the argument and who discount this quote from Lewis stating that it is an example of the debate-class problem of a “false dilemma” where only select options are offered in support of a given argument.
Among logicians and debators there are about 40 or so different types of fallacies that they use to poke holes in opposing arguments.
Using the “false dilemma” fallacy as a base, the skeptic would allege that there are more options that could describe Chrsit beyond liar, lunatic or lord. The skeptic maintains that Jesus could have lied or been a lunatic and STILL have been a good moral, ethical teacher. They would cite other good, Christian, moral leaders who had shortcomings including Saint Augustine or Martin Luther King Jr.
Personally, I don’t know how that particular follows exactly since lying seems to violate moral and ethical standards. Again, at no point is Jesus ever recorded as refuting or recanting his divine claim. I would propose that a key component of being good, is recognizing, repenting and not repeating a given sin. Last time I checked, lying was still one of the 10 Commandments and if Jesus knowingly misled his followers he never repented.
Even his last few words on the cross perpetuate his belief that he was the son of God when he cries out to heaven asking why his father had forsaken him.
Regardless, such skeptics may further state that Jesus’ words were not accurately recorded or that He Himself was mistaken about who He was.
The thing that the skeptic would fail to address is that they themselves are committing the logical fallacy of “negative evidence,” which simply means that something is false because it has not been proven to be true. That is a valid point against the skeptic, just because you can’t empirically prove the fact that Jesus was the son of God doesn’t mean he wasn’t.
The skeptic’s “negative evidence” fallacy is further undermined by the often-quoted observation that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because you don’t have a murder weapon doesn’t necessarily mean a death wasn’t a homicide or just because you didn’t observe something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
So, to the skeptic’s mind, because the divinity of Jesus has not been proven by C.S. Lewis’ example (or anywhere else) – it must be false. However, the “negative evidence” of that very argument is self defeating, and the skeptic’s ranting isn’t going to push Jesus aside from the right hand of God.
——————————————-
Tor Constantino has more than 20 years experience as a former journalist and current PR practitioner. Additionally, he’s a father, husband, marathoner, writer and believer. He just completed his first nonfiction book titled “A Question of Faith: a Simple Question Toward Ultimate Truth.” He blogs daily regarding faith, family, finance and fitness at torconsblog.blogspot.com/.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
