Liar, lunatic, Lord?

A careful reading knocks out the “it’s propaganda” option, too | Marvin Olasky

C.S. Lewis, the leading 20th-century defender of Christianity, famously argued that we could view Jesus in only three ways—as liar, lunatic, or Lord. Lewis eloquently showed that it made no sense, based on the Gospel accounts, to consider Him liar or lunatic, so the only logical choice is—Lord.

I've had atheistic journalism students, though, who argued that Lewis' tripartite divide was flawed: They charge him with assuming that the Gospel accounts are accurate, but couldn't they have been written decades later by distorting propagandists?

Here are two arguments against that contention. Readers far more skilled in apologetics than I am should feel free to offer others.

Reason one: If the Gospels were propaganda brochures, their authors were incompetent. One indication: They gave women vital roles in the founding of a religion. Showing women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb would add to suspicion as to whether Christ truly rose from the dead.