Why is Jesus not a "madman"?

[naimless]

“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 was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the 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.”

- C.S. Lewis

I found this interesting. Lewis understands the latter choice and chooses the former. Why is Jesus not a "madman", as Lewis puts it? The Quran believes in Jesus as a messiah and yet not the son of god. Only the bible refers to Jesus as the son of god. Why would one of these books lie about that and, furthermore, how does one know which book is a more reliable source of what Jesus said or is or was?

[Minimalist]

In the comic books Superman can leap tall buildings in a single-bound. Do you believe that? If not, why not? It is "written" after all.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

I read this as "Why is Jesus not a madam?" at first. That's a very different question.

[naimless]

In the comic books Superman can leap tall buildings in a single-bound. Do you believe that? If not, why not? It is "written" after all.

No, I was hoping that someone that understands what Lewis said can help me understand. I believe Jesus, or at least the character of Jesus, is there for moral lessons and his existence has been picked and chosen by writers of him. I believe, if he existed, he was human, unlike what Lewis believes.

Lewis made the distinction that if he was human, he would be a "madman". I was wondering why someone, after understanding this, could then choose that he was the only son of god instead.

Given the two options that Lewis gives, I'd lean towards madman. But then I'd also proclaim myself as a madman before the only son of god, as with any other human being.

I read this as "Why is Jesus not a madam?" at first. That's a very different question.

Indeed.

[Minimalist]

C. S. Lewis was a xtian apologist. I haven't run into an apologist yet who makes a damn bit of sense. Their whole purpose is to confuse the issue with their holy horseshit.

[naimless]

I don't think that is their purpose but I'll digress.

I am not a Christian, my post was aimed for Christians that frequent this forum to help me understand how they choose son of god over "madman".

I have had experiences where I am god. At the moment I accept I am a bit of a madman.

I felt me and Jesus may have had a bit in common. I'm interested in people's dreams and hallucinations and visions and psychotic states.

I don't really see it as something worse than him actually being the son of god.

I can take it metaphorically because he could have meant that he was "a" son of god as opposed to "the", and "god" was the universe. Similarly, I feel I am 13.7 billion years old.

But Lewis says, "no". That is patronising to Jesus. Well yes, but then it is also patronising to the other people that believe they are god to seclude them as something other than Jesus.

Furthermore, if I am the "something worse", there isn't a lot I can do about it.

[Anomalocaris]

Define "mad"

I think if there was a historic personage some of whose words, actions and circumstances formed the basis of the Jesus myth, then such a person would likely have in many ways resembled Gregory Rasputin. He would have been uneducated, versed in the use of mystical and apocalyptic aspects of the prevailing religion to subvert weak minds, cunningly perceptive of some people's emotional weaknesses and needs, but have only lose grasp of the limits of his power and influence.

Jesus was probably a Rasputin without the good fortune of a czarina or a czarivitsch.

Was rasputin mad?

[Nine]

The last few sentences of that quote kinda piss me off. Deliberately making it two options. One involves being aggressive or violent and the other to be overly nice. Wheres the don't give a flying fuck and ignore the daft git option?

[Minimalist]

IIRC, part of Lewis' routine was Lord, Liar or Lunatic.

I see no evidence that there was any such recognizable person but that did not stop those who concocted the story from being liars.

[naimless]

Define "mad"

I think if there was a historic personage some of whose words, actions and circumstances formed the basis of the Jesus myth, then such a person would likely have in many ways resembled Gregory Rasputin. He would have been uneducated, versed in the use of mystical and apocalyptic aspects of the prevailing religion to subvert weak minds, cunningly perceptive of some people's emotional weaknesses and needs, but have only lose grasp of the limits of his power and influence.

Jesus was probably a Rasputin without the good fortune of a czarina or a czarivitsch.

Was rasputin mad?

That is an intriguing resemblance. Rasputin is still widely regarded as righteous in Russia.

I tend to believe everyone has the capabilities of being mad. Perhaps mad is being seen as illogical, but I don't believe humans are logical beings and therefore approaching them with logic does not work. Similarly, if Rasputin and Jesus genuinely believed what is said of them, then I don't think it is cunning of any sort.

I think it is mad that we evolved to believe in god only for god to not exist. I think it is as mad to be a theist as it is to be an atheist. I don't really attach to the significance of madness. It's mad that we are discussing this how we are and probably communicating in miscommunication.

At least it is mad that I am.

The last few sentences of that quote kinda piss me off. Deliberately making it two options. One involves being aggressive or violent and the other to be overly nice. Wheres the don't give a flying fuck and ignore the daft git option?

I suppose this is what grabbed my attention as well. I know a lot of Christians and I know a lot of C.S. Lewis fans. They are often in the higher ends of society, discussing literature over fine wine. Now if they have the intelligence to grasp the reality of the situation that Lewis presents, they must realise something doesn't add up here.

IIRC, part of Lewis' routine was Lord, Liar or Lunatic.

I see no evidence that there was any such recognizable person but that did not stop those who concocted the story from being liars.

You don't believe they could have been madmen as well instead of liars?