Christ is God

Pro's casePro's primary argument throughout this debate has been that since Jesus is the "begotten son of God," that he must share the same nature as God, and if he shares the same nature as God, then he must BE God.What we both agree on is that "son of God" means different things when applied to different people and groups. We also agree that when "Son of God" is applied to Jesus, it is meant in a messianic sense. But Pro thinks it has an additional meaning when applied to Jesus. He claims that he gave arguments for this additional meaning but that I didn't respond to his arguments, so he repeated them.Supposedly ignored argumentsOne scripture he brings up is Romans 1:4, but Romans 1:4 doesn't say anything about Jesus having the nature of God, and there's no reason to take "son of God" in any way other than a messianic sense.He says Psalm 2:7 is quoted in Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, and Acts 13:35. Psalm 2:7 is simply a messianic psalm about the king of Israel. Noting about it suggests that the king of Israel is God. Hebrews 1:5 cites Psalm 2 to contrast the messiah with angels. Against, nothing to suggest the messiah is God. There's nothing in Hebrews 5:5 to suggest the messiah is God. Acts 13:35 quotes Acts 2:27 as a proof text for the resurrection of Jesus. Again, nothing to suggest the messiah is God. So none of the passages that Pro brought up do anything to substantiate his claim that "Son of God" means "having the same nature as God." It's used strictly in a messianic sense in all of the passages that Pro cited.I didn't ignore Pro's other passages in the last round. Rather, I dismissed them as irrelevant since they don't support his case. I said, "The only relevant passage he cited was John 1:18." Then I went on to say why John 1:18 doesn't support his case.John 1:18Pro acknowledges that John 1:18 has a textual variant. Then he attempted to argue for why "monogenes theos" should be preferred over "monogenes huios."In his third and fifth point, Pro lists some of the manuscripts and citations that have "monogenes theos." That doesn't help his case, though, because by acknowledging that there's a textual variant, he's admitting that there are other manuscripts and citations that have "monogenes huios." That's the whole reason it's controversial.His first point nullifies his fifth point. His first point is that it's more likely a copiest would change something to fits it's normal use, but his fifth point is that "theos" fits the context of John 1 better than "huios." If it's true that "theos" fits the context better and that a copiest would be more likely to change an odd reading to a normal reading, then we should expect a copiest to change "huios" to "theos" to keep with the flow of the passage. So Pro's fith point and first point nullify each other. Pro's second point is a straw man response to an argument that I didn't make, so it can be safely ignored.I've responded to all of Pro's reasons for preferring "theos" to "huios" in John 1:18. The bottom line, though, is that this remains an unresolve textual variant. Scholars who are experts in textual criticism haven't even come to an agreement about John 1:18, and neither of us are textual critics. So John 1:18 really can't be used to support Pro's case.John 1:1Pro admits that John 1:1 can be translated in different ways. His preferred to translate it in such a way that Jesus is God himself. But the very same verse seems to exclude that interpretation since it says the word was WITH God, making a distinction between God and the Word.Philippians 2:6Pro tells us that the word "form" is used in various places in the Bible, but he doesn't tell us that it means Jesus is God. He neither responds to my reasons for saying this passages doesn't support Pro's case in the last round, nor does he attempt to show in this round that the passage supports his case.2 Peter 1:4In the last round, I pointed out that since we all partake in the divine nature, but are not for that reason God, then the fact that Jesus partakes of the divine nature doesn't mean Jesus is God. Pro's response is that it's a matter of degree. While we partially take part of the divine nature, Jesus does so completely. But that is fallacious. If one degree of partaking of the divine nature does not move us one step closer to being God, then neither does a thousand degrees because 0 + 0 is 0. Pro's claim that it's a matter of degree is just made up and has no support from the Bible. Adam, the first human, was made in the likeness of God, but was not God. When it says Jesus conforms perfectly to the likeness of God, that just means Jesus is the perfect man. It doesn't at all imply that he is God anymore than Adam was God.John 5:26All John 5:26 says it that Jesus has life in himself. From the context, all we can conclude is that Jesus had the ability to raise the dead. All the other meanings Pro pours into this passage are purely speculative eisogesis.My caseThe indiscernibility of identicalsPro again attempts to undermine my argument by giving a reason for why the incarnate Son was not all knowing. He fails to grasp the fact that it doesn't matter why the Son is not all-knowing. My argument hingest on the fact that the Son is not all knowing. The fact that the son is all knowing makes it impossible for the Son to be God, regardless of the reason for his lack of knowledge. Pro has not been able to deal with this argument throughout this debate.He claims that the son only concealed his omniscience, but Mark tells us plainly and eplicitly, not that the son was pretending not to know something, but that in fact the son did not know it. You either know all things, or you do not know all things. Jesus did not know all things, and there's no getting around that. That means he was not all knowing and was therefore not God.Hebrews 1:3Pro seems to have given up by the time he got to Hebrews 1:3. Instead of grappling with my argument, he simply asserts that the son has the same nature as the father since he's an exact copy. Pro needed to undermine my argument that the passage makes Jesus out to be a distinct being from the Father. Unless Pro is a polytheist and wants to say there are two Gods, this passage makes it plain that Jesus is not God.ConclusionThank you for coming to tonight's debate. I know it was long, but if you read this far, please don't let your efforts be in vain. Go ahead and vote.Thank you to Pro also. As I said at the beginning, I was playing devil's advocate in this debate, and I do believe that Christ is God. I brought up two of what I think are the strongest arguments against the deity of Christ because I wanted to know how Pro would respond to them.