I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.)
Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine.
He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the issue. (Only the Ebionites, who wrote the bible, paint his trial as unfair. The Jews and Romans say that they gathered evidence for forty days. The Pharisees say he wasn’t crucified but rather hung.)
Anyway, since he has no motive to lie and there’s no evidence that he was lying there’s no logical reason to make this conclusion. Since he shows no symptoms of insanity there’s no logical reason to think he was insane. He must be divine, according to Kreeft. He argues with a sort of ‘Ocham’s Razor,’ type approach, you see?
Working on his assumption that the historical information claiming that he Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed, showed no signs of insanity, and had no motive for lying is there any counter for his argument?