Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ Peace be upon Him

My opponent asserts three things 1. One who claims to be divine must claim so in the most unambiguous and unequivocal way. 2. Verses offered as proof for Jesus' (pbuh) "divinity" should not be open to several interpretations. 3. There should be no contradictions in what Jesus (pbuh) says and others say in the Bible regarding the topic of divinity. I would like to point out that points 1 and 2 have no foundation. He has simply asserted them. I am going to assert the opposite. Who is Con to determine what is required for someone to assert divinity? What credentials does Con posses that allows him to dictate what is required for someone to claim to be divine? What makes Con's assertion more valid than mine? The answer, my friends, is none. He is no more credentialed in Biblical Interpretation (In fact he is far less credentialed in Biblical Interpretation) than I. So at the very BEST our competing assertions cancel each other out, and in reality when two competing witnesses contradict each other in their testimonies, the more credentialed witness trumps. Also, Point 2 is ludicrous... all passages of the Bible are open for multiple interpretations. This is how communication of any type works. To say that any given passage should not be open to multiple interpretations is to misunderstand the function of communication. Point 3. Con has not shown a contradiction in what Jesus said and what other say. Until he does so in a way that cannot be refuted, this point does not hold water. Regarding the use of Father in reference to God. Lets use some logical deduction. In the passage in question, Christ uses the word Father twice and in two different ways. He uses it in parallel with other terms in the broader context of verses 1-11. The parallel constructions are "Rabbi-Teacher" "Father-Father" and "Instructor-Instructor." The first of the diads is always a response to what the scribes and Pharisees were calling others (Rabbi,Father,Instructor). These are places of spiritual authority and leadership. Lets consider the reasonableness of Jesus instructing the Pharisees not to call people God (as Con contends he was). The Pharisees were the primary group of individuals who were behind the Crucifixion of Christ. They were also same people who attempted to stone Jesus for claiming to be God in John 10:33. Do you think it is reasonable for this group of people to need to be told not to call people God? Of course not. So we must understand the use of father in another way. Rather, Jesus is instructing them not to call people father in regard to spiritual leader. This is most logical considering that the passage opens with Jesus chastising them for believing themselves worthy of special honor due to their leadership positions. Also, when we consider how he i using the parallel terms (Rabbi,Instructor) which are both positions of spiritual leadership. Rather he is saying "Do not call anyone A (Position of Spiritual Leadership) when you only have one B (Divine Spiritual Leader)." My opponent is asking you to ignore the context of the passage, and believe the ridiculous notion that he Pharisee's had to be told not to do something that they were stoning people for doing. Defense of my points - John 8:58 - My opponent claims that Solomon made a similar statement... however he is incorrect. The Author of Proverbs uses a personified "Lady Wisdom" and it is "Lady Wisdom" that is speaking, not the Author of Proverbs. In both Christian and Hebrew literature... Lady Wisdom is seen as divine and is present before creation. My opponent has misrepresented the passage and therefore has not knocked down my point. Furthermore, my opponent that Jesus was saying that he subjectively existed in God's mind but was not yet created... this is a post-modern imposition into a pre-modern figure. The concept of "subjective" existence did not occur until much later in the development of philosophical discourse... if my opponent wishes to argue that Jesus was referring to his subjective existence in God's foreknowledge, he is going to have to prove it. John 10:30 - My opponent claims that "if we read this in context" but then does not explain how the context disagrees with the standard Christian interpretation. Furthermore, if my opponent claims (as he does) that Jesus is making a distinction between himself and God here, he needs to explain why the Jews reacted as they did. In verse 33 and following the Jews attempt to stone Jesus for these words, because they believed he was claiming to be God. My opponent presumes to understand the mindset and words of a 1st century Jewish man better than a 1st century Jewish author. This is an arrogant and absurd presumption. The most natural reading is to see Jesus' words meaning exactly what they say 'I and the Father are one." This is bolstered when we see that the immediate audience interpreted it in exactly that way. John 10:38 - My opponent claims that this passage shows clear distinction between Jesus and God... however it does not deny the divinity of Christ. It is possible (and orthodox) to say that Jesus is distinct from God yet still equally divine. John 14:9 - You are correct, 10:9 was a typo and I meant 14:9. Again, my opponent argues that when we consider the context of surrounding passages that it makes this unclear. However, again he fails to explain how the context does this. This is another passage where Christ refers to himself and the Father in a way that makes them distinct. As I mentioned above, this does not challenge his divinity... it simply establishes him as distinct from the Father. Argument from Silence - My point was that Con cannot attack an argument from silence without undermining the vast majority of his argument. My argument is that in the passages above, Jesus has made claims of his divinity that were clear enough to his original audience that they attempted to stone him. Furthermore, other Biblical Authors (who hold equal authority in determining Doctrine as the Gospel writers do) clearly assert Jesus' divinity. My opponent has not successfully refuted these. I do not wish my opponent to spend space discussing the Qur'an. I know the story. Mohammad went into a cave, was visited by an Angel who revealed certain things to him about Allah. This virtually identical to the claim in the Book of Revelation (it was not a dream, it was a vision. Most often being revealed to him by an Angel). He cannot attack Revelation without also attacking The Qur'an. However, that is a debate for another time, please disregard the point.