Lunatic, Liar, or Lord

Today's reading, with the Pharisees and unbelieving Jews accusing Jesus of being "demon-possessed" and "raving mad" (John 8:48, 10:20) and their previous accusations that he was working in league with the great liar Satan (Matthew 12:24), made me think of C.S. Lewis' "lunatic, liar, or Lord" argument from his book Mere Christianity:

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 patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. 

A good point by Lewis, don't you think? It's not surprising, then, that his detractors were doing their very best to pin him as a lunatic or a liar. How blessed we are to see  him as Lord (John 8:12)!