Deity of Christ

My aim in this round is to show that the verses he uses as "explicit" evidence are not explicit when considered in context, and that the conclusions he draws with them ignore fundamental principles of good exegesis (and even some common sense). And since Pro said the truth of his implicit evidence rests on the truth of his explicit evidence, this round I will focus my attention on his "explicit" texts; however, due to space constraints, I will only be dealing with the passages from the Gospel of John. There are two fundamental problems with the proposition that the Gospel of John proves the deity of Jesus: first, it contradicts John's stated purpose (20:31); so Pro must prove that "Son of God" means "God" (without begging the question and assuming that because he seems to call Jesus God, "Son of God" must somehow mean "God"); otherwise none of the passages he uses from John can count as evidence for Jesus' deity. Secondly, that idea is inconsistent with the many statements of Jesus' inferiority, subservience, and utter dependence on the Father [1]. If we assume that the author does not contradict himself (and is not an idiot), then it makes no sense to think that he thought good evidence for the deity of Jesus would be showing how Jesus was dependent on God in every way. Conversely, that makes good evidence for his claim to be the Son of God, because all of God's children should rely on him for everything. With that in mind, there is good reason to believe that the Gospel of John is written using a figure of speech called prolepsis. Prolepsis is used to describe a prophecy as already fulfilled, even when its fulfillment is still future [2]. This figure of speech helps in interpreting passages which seem to ascribe things to Jesus that would have been inconsistent with John's stated purpose. For example, in 3:13 Jesus says he is the only one who has ascended into heaven; if taken literally, this cannot make sense, because Jesus did not ascend until after the resurrection (20:17); however, if it is interpreted proleptically, it make sense that Jesus was describing a future reality as certain because it was promised by God. Also, in John 3:35, it says that the Father HAS placed all things in to Jesus hands; again, John is using the past tense; however, Jesus clearly does not have all authority until after the resurrection (Matt. 28:18). There could be many more examples given [3], but these should illustrate the point that interpreting these verses without a proleptic framework presents some difficulty. In reference to Pro's arguments about the Gospel of John, his argument about 1:1 hinges on two major assumptions: that the "word" was a person and that the "beginning" refers to the creation of Genesis 1. There is however both good evidence against both of these assumptions, and that evidence comes from the most reliable source: John himself. In 1 John 1, John acts as his own interpreter, and explains what the "word" of John 1:1 actually was. In 1 John 1:1, he states "that which was from the beginning concerning the word of life" (1 John 1:1), compared with "In the beginning was the word" (John 1:1). There are even more parallels: "the word was with God" (John 1:1) and "the eternal life, which was with the Father" (1 John 1:2); "in [the word] was life, and the life was the light of all mankind" (John 1:4) and "this we proclaim concerning the Word of life"(1 John 1:1-2); "we have seen his glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father" (John 1:14) and "That . . . which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at . . . " (1 John 1:1). Clearly there are enough major parallels for us to conclude that these two passages are almost certainly talking about the same thing; if John calls the word a "what", and it is constantly referring to it as "that", "which", and even "it", then it cannot be God; and since he refers to "the beginning" as the time where he has seen and heard, it cannot be referring to Genesis. These observations, coupled with and understanding of prolepsis, provides a strong case against the idea that the word was an actual person, which of course would disqualify it from being God. Pro also claims that 8:58 is evidence that Jesus both eternal, and the "I am" of Exodus. Firstly, Pro makes a hasty conclusion in asserting that "before Abraham was" implies "eternally existent", and that "I Am" implies "Yahweh". Secondly, Pro's interpretation does not to justice to Greek syntax or the immediate context of this passage; "ego eimi" is not a name, but a statement of identity. For example, in John 9:9 the man that was healed was asked if he was really the same man; he answered "ego eimi" or "I am ". This is the exact phrase used by Jesus in 8:58, and since no one picked up stones to stone that man, it is clear that this phrase in and of itself is NOT indicative of deity. Also, Jesus uses it this way several other times, and almost invariably it is in connection with him being the Messiah or Son of God* [4], and the context of 8:58 is no different; in verse 25, the Jews asked Jesus who he was, and he replied by saying "what I have been telling you from the beginning"; the "beginning" implies before the exchange of 8:58, and the only thing that Jesus is recorded as telling them before that is that he was is either the "Son of God" or "Son of Man"[5]; therefore, it follow in 8:58 his claim is no different. Furthermore, in verse 28 Jesus says ". . . then you will know that I am [ego eimi] and that I do nothing on my own . . . " It is clear from the context that he is NOT claiming to be God, because to argue that Jesus wanted the Jews to know that he was God, and that as God, he does nothing on his own, would be asinine. The EXACT same phrase is used by Jesus in verse 58, so if he didn't claim to be God in 28, then it follows that he didn't in 58; similarly, since Jesus WAS identifying himself as the Son of Man in verse 28, it would follow that the same was true in verse 58. Thus, in this passage Jesus is not claiming to be God, and Pro cannot use this passage to support the deity of Jesus. Pro also cites 20:28 as explicit evidence. However, in 10:33-36, Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone him, and they say it is because he makes himself "theos". Jesus' response counters any claim of deity: he denies claiming to be "theos", but instead claims to be "huios theos" (the son of God). If Jesus were God, and he could express it so clearly (as Pro believes) in John 8:58, why would he deny it here? The answer which makes the most sense is that he never claimed to be God at all. Therefore, if Jesus denied the charge in 10:33, it makes little sense that he would accept it in 20:28, from which it would follow that Thomas was likely not addressing Jesus as "God". Also, Thomas did not believe that Jesus even rose from the dead; therefore to expect that within seconds he would go from doubting the resurrection, to accepting without question that Jesus was God in the flesh (fully God and fully man), and thus part of a triune Godhead, requires a leap in logic that would scare Olympic long-jumpers, and is EXTREMELY unlikely. In light of this, as well as the fact that Jesus previously rejected assuming the title of "theos", the most probable explanation is that Thomas spoke about two separate persons "Jesus" (My Lord) and God the Father (My God), because the resurrection proved to him that the Father was "in" Jesus (14:9). [1] 4:6; 5:19,26,31; 6:38; 7:18,28; 8:28,50; 10:18; 12:44, 49-50; 13:32; 14:10,28,31; 15:10; 17:2, 4, 6, 9-11, 14, 18, 22, & 24. [2] E. W. Bullinger, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", pp 914-915. [3] 5:20-23; 11:25; 13:3; 17:1-2, 4, 5, 11-12, 14, 22, 24 [4] *except in instances where he is referring to location*- 4:26; 8:24; 8:28; 9:37; 10:36; 13:13. [5]1:50; 2:16; 3:14-18 (possibly); 4:26; 5:16-27, 39; 6:27,53.