The Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus was an Addition to Christianity c. 80-100 C.E.

Round 2 Rebuttals: A). 1). Mark's alleged absence/denials of divinity My opponent claims: "there are no instances where Jesus calls Himself God in Mark."This is a claim that is simply not true, and is firmly rooted in the presupposition that because Mark is the earliest Gospel, it most be the most accurate depiction. It does not take into the account the doctrine of Holy Spirit inspired scripture wherein, the different Gospels highlight the different aspect of Jesus life/ministry (we will get to this later) Although little in comparison to John, we find claims of Jesus to be the special Son of God (as in the parable in the tenants), we find that Jesus links himself to "the one like a son of man" who receives worship only designated for deity (Daniel 7:13), we see Jesus entering Jerusalem humbly on a donkey which is a direct fulfillment of Zech. 9:9 in which "the Sovereign Lord will suddenly appear at the temple"There are plenty more examples but in these, it is quite obvious that Jesus thought Himself as the physical manifestation of God in the direct fulfillment of prophetic events and His own claim to be God's only Son. This is what caused the High priest to rip off his clothes and proclaim "you have heard his blasphemy!" My opponent then claims "there are places where Jesus explicitly states that He is not God."He gives one example in Mark 14 wherein, Jesus allegedly states that He is not good and only God is, therefore He is not God.. When one carefully looks at this verse however, this is actually a claim too Deity! Jesus is calling the young mans assertion to question, "why do you call me good?" It's Jesus' way of trying to get the 'rich young ruler' to fully understand the gravity of his original assertion. Here's a syllogism to better understand what Jesus is actually claiming. I. No one is good but GodII. You call me good III. therefore, I am God. This is also paralleled in John where Jesus is called the "Good Shepard"My opponent then states: "Mark records a time when Jesus sinned"He gives 1 manuscript (Codex Bezea) as the basis for his conclusion and remarks "most textual critics would label it as the preferred reading".. So far, I have found no textual critics that refers back to this manuscript as the 'preferred reading' or anything of the sort. Regardless, the logic following this textual inclusion just doesn't make since.. Why would the original New Testament writers (the apostles) include such an erroneous detail that would completely dismantle all of their claims of Jesus perfection? It just doesn't add up.. One would have to come to 2 conclusions, either they actually wrote "compassion" and the single manuscript my opponent gave is wrong, or they sincerely believed that Jesus anger was not a sin.. Either way it proves nothing to my opponents original claim. 2). John's Christology called into question "A great deal of John uses wordplay that only works in the Greek. - The problem, however, is that 1st century Jews, they would have spoken Aramaic." This entire claim lies on the assumption that Greek was not a common language spoken by the first century Jews. Although, there is MOUNDS of archaeological evidence to the contrary! Out of the 1600 Jewish funerary inscriptions, 70 % of them are Greek from this time period! We also know that the dead sea scrolls displayed a form of trilingualisim between the Jews in which, they spoke Hebrew and Greek. This information paired with the fact that Greek was widespread used in the Roman Empire and certain instances where Jesus spoke to Hellenistic Greek speakers in the NT (7:26), leave the conclusion that Jesus did in fact, speak in the Greek language... Check this link for a more examples....http://www.ntgreek.org...3). "Contradictions"I."Did Jesus arrive by boat to a great crowd, or did Jesus go to a mountain and the crowds followed Him?"I'm not sure why my opponent got his information for this assertion, the stories are identical in that Jesus arrives on a boat. "When he went ashore he saw a great crowd" (Mark 6:34) "After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee" (John 6:2)"Did Jesus send His disciples to Capernium, or did He send them to Genneserat?"Capernium IS in the land of Genneserat.. The 1st century historian Josephus puts it plainly: "the land of Genneserat was watered with a very excellent spring, which the inhabitants of that place called Capernium(h)" Oops. II."Was Jesus betrayed with identification by a kiss from Judas, or did Jesus identify Himself?"the account of Jesus identifying himself in Johns Gospel does not restrict us to only one account, it would logically follow that Judas identifies him to the Roman guards while John gives the fuller account of Jesus identifying Himself. B). 1). Jesus as a lesser cosmic being? My opponent makes the audacious claim that according to 1 Cor. and Galatians, Paul saw Jesus as "a cosmic being, but NOT God Himself." Lets deal with each of these passages separately A). During his interpretation of 1 Cor 8, my opponent seems to have overlooked the context.. Lets look at the entire verse:So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through (di') whom all things came and through (di’) whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:4-6Now according to Paul, there is only one true Lord Jesus amongst many "so called lords". According to my opponents logic, The Father (God) could not be Lord then, since Jesus is the only true Lord.. Its clear that Paul was not somehow dening Jesus deity but rather establishing it in this claim.. We also see in the Sheema: "Hear O Isreal, the Lord your God, the Lord is One!".. How is it that God is only Lord while Paul establishes Jesus as Lord? I think it is very clear, Paul is invoking Jesus into the Sheema to display God's Tri-unity.. How else do you explain Pauls idea of Jesus' pre-eminesne? "through whom all things came". B). As shown by my opponent, Paul refers to Jesus as an angel in Galatians 4:14. This does not somehow imply that He cannot be God... It seems my opponent has agian, misunderstand the core tenets of the Trinity.. For the perspective of a Trinitarian.. Yes, Jesus was a messenger (angel).. He revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27) and proclaimed the Good News (Matt. 4:23).. He was also the uniquly begotton Son of God who share deity with the Father as One Being. As you have seen, my opponent gives 1 verse to support his claim of a "cosmic being" depiction of Jesus but continuly overlooks the other verses in which, Jesus is creator and preminent (Colossians 1:15) and will share in the Glory of the Father (John 17:5). Round 3 Rebuttals: C). *I have already dealt God's unity/tri-unity in light of the Hebrew language in my previous round. 1). "Impossibility" of a virgin born messiah Let me give 2 answers to this assertion: A). The "Messiah" is David's Lord We find that in Psalm 110, David writes: "The Lord says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feat".. Ask any Jew and they will plainly state that this is David speaking about the coming Messiah. We also see multiple prophecies where the Messiah would be a heavenly figure worthy of worship and service (Daniel 7, Zech. 9:9). This leaves us with a conundrum: how can the Messiah be both a heavenly and human figure? The virgin birth is the only solution. B). Luke's Genealogy traces to Mary Since we know that Mary descended from the tribe of Judah and holds Davidic ancestry, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the idea that Luke traces his genealogy through her, especially when it starts by naming her father "Heli" and tracing back to king David. D). 1). Differing representations of Jesus in the Gospel accounts A). Matthew - Messiah My opponents entire section of Matthew relies on the claim that "no passage in the Old Testament where the Messiah is claimed to be the incarnation of God.".. Since Mathew displays Jesus' Messiahship, therefore He cannot be God Let me show you the direct error in his claim: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (God with us)." Isaiah 7:14 There are plenty of verse in the OT that display the Messiah as God, these being the most blantent. It would seem that displaying the Messiahship of Jesus in Matthew IS in fact, a claim to His deity.. Not to mention the Son of God claims and the connection to the exulted figure in Daniel 7... *Unable to finish rebuttal due to lack of space.