From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Christological argument for the existence of God is a relatively modern argument or cluster of related arguments, based on certain claims about Jesus. The arguments show that if, or to the extent that, these claims are substantially valid, one should accept God exists. These claims would be valid if the Biblical account of Jesus is substantially true, but could be valid even if many of the details of the bible were inaccurate. There are three main threads:

1. Argument from the wisdom of Jesus
2. Argument from the claims of Jesus as Son of God
3. Argument from the Resurrection

Contents 1 Argument from the wisdom of Jesus 2 Argument from the claims of Jesus as Son of God 2.1 Suggested reasons for disputing the premises 3 Argument from the Resurrection 4 References

The essential structure of this argument is as follows:

1. The character and wisdom of Jesus is such that his deep views about reality are (or are likely to be) correct.
2. One of Jesus's deep views about reality was that God exists.
3. Therefore the view that God exists is (or is likely to be) correct.

The argument is formally valid, there is no controversy about (2) so discussion focuses on point 1.

Modern evangelism often takes this approach. Potential converts are introduced to Jesus as a historical character and the merits of Jesus's teachings are discussed. In such a context, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth naturally takes on enhanced urgency; the usual historian's questions of documentation, authentication, and the like, tend to be removed from ordinary historical discourse, to take supportive places within Christological theology.

The principal objections to (1) are the suggestions that: a. The reports of Jesus's character and wisdom in the Bible are not reliable. b. Jesus' deep views about reality are not (or not likely to be) correct^[1] Bertrand Russell, in his famous essay "Why I Am Not a Christian", criticized Jesus' personal character and philosophical positions on various grounds.

A related line of evangelical argument, associated with the apologist C. S. Lewis, and more recently with Josh McDowell and his popular series of books from his series that begins with Evidence that Demands a Verdict. This approach begins with the notion that people are willing to accept Jesus Christ as a philosopher and ethicist, but not as the Saviour, Messiah, or Son of God. It points out that Jesus is reported in the canonical Gospels as making claims to the "the Son of God". It then attempts to recast questions about Jesus' identity to argue that since Jesus made those claims, either they were true and Jesus was in fact divine, or else he was a charlatan or a madman. For this reason, it is sometimes called the Lord, liar, or lunatic argument, sometimes called the "Trilemma," and sometimes called the "Lewis Triumvirate".

The trilemma argument focuses on Jesus and the acceptance of Jesus as God. The Christological argument is typically in the context of arguments for the existence of God and does not necessarily use the trilemma.

The argument need not be made as an argument for God's existence. It is also possible to assume (or separately try to establish) God's existence, whereupon one uses this argument to try to show that Jesus is indeed the God whose existence one has already established (or assumed). This is how the argument is in fact used by C. S. Lewis, who in his book Mere Christianity first argues, on moral grounds, that there is a God, and subsequently argues for Christ's divinity in this way.

The formal structure of this argument^[2] is

1. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God
2. Jesus was a wise moral teacher
3. No wise moral teacher is a liar, who makes a claim that they do not believe to be true.
4. Anyone who falsely believes they are the Son of God is suffering from a Delusion^[3] such as Megalomania
5. No wise moral teacher suffers from a Delusion
6. Any such claim is either true or false, and, if false, is either believed by the person making the claim or not.
7. by (4) and (5) the claim is not a delusion, and by (2) and (3) the claim is not a lie, so it must be true.
8. Hence (to the extent that the premises are accepted) it is reasonable to believe that Jesus is the Son of God
9. Hence a fortiori (to the extent that the premises are accepted) it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

The argument is formally valid, although (as with any philosophical argument) it is possible to dispute any of the 4 premises. In any case, the argument is meant to exclude one commonly held view: that Jesus was merely a good moral teacher.

Those who dispute these premises may suggest that:

1. Jesus was a moral philosopher, but his reported teachings have been distorted or misrepresented in order to bolster claims of divinity.

1. Jesus could have been a wise moral philosopher even if delusional, lying, or rhetorically ironic about his own divinity. Granting credence to some, or even most, of someone's claims does not require that we give credence to all of his claims. Someone can believe Socrates' philosophical claims about justice, without also believing Socrates' theological speculations about the Greek gods, or accept Aristotle's views on poetry without also accepting his claim that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

See also: Arguments for the existence of God and Christology

The final argument in this cluster is that Jesus's resurrection occurred and was an act of God, hence God must exist. Proponents suggest that there is historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection; this is, of course, a matter of great debate.

1. ^ This is the principle line in The God Delusion although there are subsidiary suggestions that Jesus may not have existed.
2. ^ see eg C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity, Nicky Gumbel, The Alpha course or the Star Course
3. ^ see eg The God Delusion passim