Deity of Christ

I also thank every reader that patiently read and considered all five rounds before voting. With that, I will start my final rebuttal, which will read like a blow-by-blow. The "Word" I did not say that John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1 are not parallel. I simply showed that it was fallacious to define "the Word" in the Gospel of John using ambiguous relative pronouns from 1 John instead of using the Gospel's own words, "and the Word became flesh. " I also showed that it was unreasonable to think that those pronouns could not refer to a person when it was something that John personally witnessed and the pronouns appear in an introduction to a letter about Jesus Christ. The warrant for my interpretation is that it involves fewer assumptions. The Apparant Contradiction To say that being the Son of God is consistent with being God is not the same as saying "to be the son of President Bush is consistent with being President Bush. " We are dealing with God, a being far more complex than President Bush. I explained how the apparent paradox can be the result of our limited perception of a more complex existence. Just as a single cube is perceived as three distinct entities in 2D space, The Son and the Father can both be the same God. Con uses eisigesis to conclude that because people cannot be both Son and Father, God cannot be both Son and Father. He is injecting his idea of what God ought to be into the scriptures. My interpretation, again, uses fewer assumptions. Consider the differences in our approach to interpretation. My approach is, if the Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, then he must be the Son of God. Moreover, if the Bible says Jesus is God, then he is God. When I see the contradiction, I accept it. For Con, whenever he sees the contradiction, he is compelled to resolve it. So much so, that he is willing to spend paragraphs explaining away the plain meaning of the text. I ask the readers to consider which methodology is more honest to the text. Did Jesus Deny Being God? To be blunt, Jesus is not denying his divinity in John 10:33. Again, this is made plain in the context of the text immediately before it. Why did the Jews pick up stones? Because just three versus earlier, Jesus said, "I and the Father are one. " The Jews want to stone him "for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God. " So, if Jesus is denying godhood in verse 36, then we was a liar in verse 30. Since Jesus must not be a sinner in order to preserve the doctrine of salvation, Jesus must have been truthful when he claimed to be one with the Father and also when he avoided stoning by claiming to be the Son of God. Thus, we have both John 10 and the account of Thomas confirming the deity of Christ. "I am" Regarding Jesus using the term, "I am," Con insists I am reading between the lines. How can I be guilty of this, when the lines are right next to each other? In verse 58, Jesus says "before Abraham was born, I am! " In verse 59, they picked up stones. The Jews were not permitted to stone someone for just any reason. They weren't doing it because they just didn't like him. Of the eighteen crimes warranting stoning[1], Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. To say that it could have been for any number of other unsaid reasons is to argue from silence. Mine is the most logical interpretation using the immediate context of the text. Notice also how Con says I engaged in eisigesis here but did not provide a more plausible interpretation. Ipse dixit. Con finally answered my questions regarding the elevation of a sinner. He says the Jewish concept of agency fills the gap. But, the Jews wanted to stone him on multiple occasions for blasphemy. Why didn't the Jews understand that he was just an agent instead? After all, if it's a Jewish concept, it should have at least been considered. The reason is simple: because Jesus' claim to divinity was as plain to them as it is today. Paul's Claims Regarding Romans 9:5, I wonder if Con actually reads these passages. Paul does not call Jesus "God blessed forever. " The exact text is, "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. " This directly contradicts Con's claim that Paul never refers to Jesus as "God over all. " He does it right here. Now, I will be honest that the Greek's lack of punctuation leaves room for interpretations such as, "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. " (NASB) However, there are several good reasons to accept the ESV translation[2], including its historical acceptance and the fact that "God over all" was then an established formula of Praise. Even Paul used it regularly, as Con himself pointed out. Con again ignores context in his treatment of Phillipians 2:6. Look at versus 6 and 7, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. " Paul is using simple contrasting statements here. If "form or God" is the same as Adam's "image of God," then Jesus would not have had to choose to be "born in the likeness of men. " Moreover, how can a mere human choose how he is born? Lastly, the Titus 2:13 verse is actually the most explicit given the original Greek. The Greek translation is precisely "tou megalou theou kai sothros emon iesou christou," or "of the greatGod and Savior of us Jesus Christ. " According to The Granville Sharp Rule[3], when a Greek phrase is in the structure the-noun1-and-noun2, then both nouns refer to the same person. Thus, the most parsimonious interpretation is that Paul is calling Jesus Christ both God and Savior. This is also harmonious with Isaiah 43:11-13, in which the LORD (YAHWEH) claims to be the only savior. Consider the implications of Con's interpretations. If it is true that Paul did not consider Jesus to be divine, it would seem he would have not been as so ambiguous as Con wants to make him to be. Indeed, the plain reading of all these passages is to understand that Jesus was divine, whereas Con has to rely on possible alternative explanations that I require leaving out vital context. Conclusion Recall Con's claim in the opening round was that my position involves taking scripture "violently out of context," but I have repeatedly shown Con to be guilty of this through the omission of phrases or even the ignoring of verses immediately before or after a citation. I have defended my explicit passages using fewer assumptions and immediate context. I also still have the dozens of versus implicitly supporting my position as well. I have shown that Con's position is absurd; for if Christ is only a human, his actions make him a deceiver. If the deity of Christ is on trial, then I believe I have defended it beyond reasonable doubt. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.forananswer.org... 3. . http://vintage.aomin.org...