WHERE WE ARE

In Chapter 7 of their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the divinity of Jesus. Here is the main argument they present in Chapter 7:

1A. Jesus was either God, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth.

2A. Jesus could not possibly be a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth.

THEREFORE:

3A. Jesus is God.

In Part 3 of this series, I analyzed and clarified a series of four dilemmas (four EITHER/OR statements) that they use to support premise (1A). The four dilemmas are used to try to prove that there are only FIVE possible views that can be taken on this issue. I summarized the clarified version of their four dilemmas in this decision tree diagram:

In Part 4 of this series, I argued some key points about the first dilemma in the above diagram:

Here are those key points:

• When Kreeft and Tacelli added two more possible views to the TRILEMMA to make their QUINTLEMMA, they unknowingly changed the meaning of the key question in the first dilemma (“Did Jesus claim to be God?”), making the meaning of the question UNCLEAR.
• Kreeft and Tacelli fail to clarify the key concept of the MYTH VIEW and make a mess of the first dilemma, requiring me to fix the first dilemma by specifying a simple and clear definition of the MYTH VIEW as well as providing a plausible interpretation of the key question: “Did Jesus claim to be God?”.
• Given my repairs to the first dilemma, it turns out that the answer to this key question is “NO” and yet that the MYTH VIEW is FALSE, contrary to the logic of the first dilemma. So, the logic of the first dilemma is INVALID.
• The QUINTLEMMA FAILS on the first dilemma of Kreeft and Tacelli’s series of dilemmas and thus the dilemmas FAIL to show that premise (1A) is true (that there are only FIVE possible views about the alleged divinity of Jesus).

Because Jesus did NOT make a claim that if taken literally would be a claim to be the eternal creator of the universe and the omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good ruler of the universe, the answer to the question posed in the FIRST DILEMMA is: NO. That put an end to the series of dilemmas presented by Kreeft and Tacelli, and their attempt to prove premise (1A) FAILS right out of the starting gate.

However, in order to attempt to evaluate the SECOND DILEMMA, we examined six verses from the Gospel of John that were put forward by Kreeft and Tacelli as proof that Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be God. A careful examination of those verses showed that, even on the dubious assumption that the historical Jesus actually said the things those verses claim he said, those verses FAIL to show that Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be God. So, based on a careful examination of those six verses, the answer to the question posed in the SECOND DILEMMA is: NO.

The second dilemma or second basic question supposedly leads to the GURU VIEW, if the answer to the question is “NO”:

The question at issue concerning our evaluation of the second DILEMMA is thus whether Jesus meant these statements LITERALLY, and whether in making them he was LITERALLY claiming to be the eternal creator of the universe and the omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good ruler of the universe.

Here are the six verses from the Gospel of John that Kreeft and Tacelli quote in the opening pages of Chapter 7 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA):

• John 8:12
• John 8:46
• John 8:58
• John 10:30
• John 11:25
• John 14:9

According to Kreeft and Tacelli, the statements Jesus makes in these passages imply that Jesus is claiming to LITERALLY be God, that is, claiming to LITERALLY be the eternal creator of the universe and the omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good ruler of the universe.

In Part 6 of this series and in Part 7 of this series, I carefully examined each of the above six verses from the Gospel of John. I showed that NONE of the six verses from the Gospel of John quoted by Kreeft and Tacelli (at the beginning of Chapter 7 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics) as proof that Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be God actually show that Jesus made such a claim. Therefore, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Gospel of John provides historically accurate information about the words and teachings of Jesus (it clearly does NOT do so), the evidence from the Gospel of John FAILS to show that Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be the eternal creator of the universe and the omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good ruler of the universe.

DOES THE GURU VIEW FOLLOW FROM A “NO” ANSWER TO THE SECOND DILEMMA?

According to Kreeft and Tacelli, a “NO” answer to the SECOND DILEMMA logically implies that the GURU VIEW is true:

Is this inference logically VALID? Based on my interpretations of the six passages from the Gospel of John, the GURU VIEW does initially appear to be true. Jesus calls God his “father”, but then he also tells his followers that God is THEIR “father” as well. Jesus claims to be “one with God”, but then he also says things that imply that his followers will also become “one with God”. So, it appears that Jesus claimed to have a very similar relationship with God as what he claimed his followers had or would soon have.

However, in the Gospel of John Jesus also claims to be the promised Messiah of the Jews, and there is no indication that he believed that his followers were also Messiahs. So, in claiming to be the “Messiah”, Jesus was claiming to have a unique and important role in God’s plan for humanity. But then Gurus and Buddhas in Eastern religions also claim to have important roles in bringing enlightenment to others. So, the GURU VIEW seems initially to be a good fit with what Jesus claimed about himself.

There is an important difference between Jesus’ claims about his and his followers’ relationship with God, and the views of gurus in Eastern religions. Although Jesus was inclined to tell his followers that God is THEIR “father”, he was also inclined, according to the Gospel of John, to tell his opponents that God is NOT THEIR “father”:

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God, and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me.
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word.
44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
47 Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.”

(John 8:42-47, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

Jesus is arguing with some of his opponents here, not talking to his followers. Jesus clearly does not believe that his opponents are “from God”, nor does Jesus believe that God is their “father” in the way that God is his “father” and that God is the “father” of his followers. In short, Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospel of John, does NOT believe that God is the “father” of all humans, nor that all humans are children of God. Some humans are “from God”, but others are NOT “from God”, but are from “the devil”. This view is clearly contrary to the philosophy of gurus in Eastern religious traditions.

According to Kreeft and Tacelli, the mystical view of gurus in Eastern religious traditions is that “we are all God” (HCA, p.165) and that “we and everything else are all, ultimately, God.” (HCA, p.166). That is NOT the claim that each of us is LITERALLY the eternal creator of the universe, nor that each of us is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good ruler of the universe. Rather, this is a weaker claim that we are all “divine” in some vague metaphysical sense that we are all “part of God”, and that all humans are on a path or journey to enlightenment where we will eventually fully realize our oneness with God.

Jesus believed, according to the Gospel of John, that he had a close and loving relationship with God, and that his followers also had a close and loving relationship with God. But Jesus did NOT believe that every human had such a close and loving relationship with God. Some people, especially people who hated and opposed Jesus, were NOT “from God” but were evil and from “the devil”. Therefore, although Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospel of John, was similar to a mystical guru, in that he did NOT claim to be divine in a unique or supreme way, and only claimed to be divine in the way that his followers were also divine, his views were radically different from those of a mystical guru, because Jesus believed some people were “divine” or “from God” while other people are NOT “divine” and NOT “from God” but are from “the devil”.

In conclusion, because Jesus’ views on this matter, as characterized in the Gospel of John, radically depart from the view of mystical gurus from Eastern religious traditions, if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the words attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of John actually came from the historical Jesus, then the GURU VIEW is FALSE.

But this same assumption about the words attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of John also shows that Jesus did NOT mean “his claim to be God” LITERALLY. Those words show that Jesus did NOT LITERALLY claim to be the eternal creator of the universe and the all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good ruler of the universe. Therefore, the inference from a “NO” answer to the question posed in the SECOND DILEMMA to the conclusion that the GURU VIEW is true, is a logically INVALID inference. The words of Jesus in the Gospel of John show that the answer to the question “Did Jesus mean his claim to be God literally?” is: NO, but the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John also show that the GURU VIEW is FALSE.

Kreeft and Tacelli are thus wrong on BOTH of their basic points concerning the SECOND DILEMMA. First, the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John do NOT show that Jesus meant his claim to be God literally. Second, a “NO” answer to the question posed in the SECOND DILEMMA does NOT logically imply that the GURU VIEW is true. Thus, the inference they make in the SECOND DILEMMA is INVALID.

Both the FIRST DILEMMA and the SECOND DILEMMA are logically INVALID, and therefore, there are at least two major problems with the argument that Kreeft and Tacelli have given in support of premise (1A). They have clearly FAILED to provide a good reason to believe premise (1A) of their argument for the divinity of Jesus.

NOTE:

Because the Gospel of John is the least historically reliable Gospel of the four canonical Gospels, especially when it comes to the words and teachings of Jesus, it is unlikely that the six alleged quotations of Jesus pointed to by Kreeft and Tacelli are accurate representations of the words and teachings of the historical Jesus. So, if those quotations had indicated that Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be God, they would still not provide a good reason to believe that the historical Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be God.

Even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the alleged words of Jesus from the Gospel of John were accurate representations of the words of the historical Jesus, they still FAIL to show that Jesus claimed to LITERALLY be God, and they also FAIL to show that the GURU VIEW is TRUE.

Furthermore, since the Gospel of John is an unreliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus, those words also FAIL to show that the GURU VIEW is FALSE. What the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John do show, however, is that we can imagine a Jesus who both did NOT claim to LITERALLY be God and yet who did NOT hold the mystical guru view that all human beings are divine.

This is the view of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John. Whether or not the Gospel of John presents an accurate view of the historical Jesus, it presents a logically possible version of Jesus in which the inference that Kreeft and Tacelli make in the SECOND DILEMMA would be mistaken, and thus the logic of that dilemma is INVALID. In short, the Jesus presented in the Gospel of John provides a CLEAR COUNTEREXAMPLE to the inference made in the SECOND DILEMMA presented by Kreeft and Tacelli.