Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ Peace be upon Him

It is an honor to be selected out of all the Christian debaters on this site to challenge this worthy opponent. Before the beginning of the debate, there still remains a few definitions to be addressed. I shall do so presently. First of all, the resolution of this debate is the "Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ" (Forgive me for not including "Peace be upon Him," for this is a Muslim phrase and I wish there to be no confusion as to which religion I am representing). As such there are a few things that we must define. Biblical - This debate hinges on the Bible itself. For this debate this means the 66 books of the Hebrew Bible (39 books) and the New Testament (27 books) that are universally held as inspired by all branches of orthodox Christianity. Since this debate is about what the Bible teaches, all other sources of teaching are irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, we must understand how the Bible is understood in Christianity. I will talk more about this in my responses to Con's arguments. Burden of Proof - This debate has an unusual burden of proof. Typically Pro has the burden of proof in a case where the resolution is an affirmative statement (this is). However, In this case Con is the Instigator and is challenging 1800+ years of Christian interpretation. As such, the Burden of Proof is unique and complex. In order to secure victory in this debate Con must do the following: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible either A) Claims that Jesus is NOT God, or B) Prove that the passages that Pro supplies do not argue for the divinity of Christ. Pro on the other hand also has a burden of proof. To secure victory, Pro must do the following: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible A) claims that Jesus was/is God or B) Prove that the passages supplied by Con do not argue against the divinity of Christ. Rebuttals: Let us break Con's argument into component parts. I shall then address each one in limited detail (with more to come in following rounds if needed). A) Con asserts that if Christ was divine, then he must necessarily have explicitly claimed to be divine. He asserts that since this is true that if Jesus did not claim to be divine, that he was not. B) Con then argues from Logic. He claims that if God became incarnate and came to earth, than he would explicitly state that. He then asserts that since there is no explicit statement to this effect in scripture, that we must conclude that He is not divine. C) Con then seeks to assert that statements of Jesus' divinity found in the Book of Revelation are not legitimate because the book of Revelation is based on a dream, so it cannot be considered reliable. D) Con then argues that Christ's attitude and behavior as a humble servant of God with no power outside himself, prove that he was indeed not God. E) Con continues this line in asserting that there are various human limitations (lack of knowledge, thirst, sorrow, temptation, etc) show that Jesus was not in fact divine. F) Con then puts forward what he feels are the most compelling passages, and attempts to refute them. I shall now respond to each of these arguments. A and B) Both of these arguments rest on an assumption. The assumption is that if God came to earth, he would do so in an explicit way and reveal it to all people. However, this is an assumption that is simply that. .. an assumption. In a formal debate, we must prove (either via evidence, or by irrefutable logic) that an assertion holds weight. Con has not fulfilled this burden in these two arguments. As such, I shall address them no further until he has given proof other than to provide the following passage. Furthermore, Jesus does not explicitly claim many things that we understand as true from the text. He does not explicitly claim to be Jewish, he does not explicitly claim to be the son of Mary nor does he explicitly claim to have been born of a virgin. Not explicitly claiming something does not make it untrue. C) As I said previously, we are using the Bible and Christian interpretation to deal with this debate. As such, we must follow the rules inherent in Christian interpretation. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. " As such, we must acknowledge that there is not a hierarchy of scriptures in the Bible. The red words of Christ are no more significant doctrinally than the black words of John, or Paul, or Peter. D and E) Con argues that the humble attitude of Jesus contradicts the possibility of his divinity. This, however, is not true. We see at various places in the Old Testament that Yahweh is either called or calls himself a "helper" to the people. The word "helper" is the Hebrew word "Ezer" and often carries the connotation of "servant" or "assistant" (See Genesis 2:20). Additionally, Jesus commonly teaches that the true way to be a leader is to be a servant. He also says that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. With this in view, having a humble attitude of service and "lastness" is completely in line with divinity. Additionally, Philippians 2:6-7 claims that Jesus made himself nothing. The actual word is "emptied (gk=Keno-o)" himself of his divine attributes. This means that he self limited himself, so the limitation of hunger, lack of knowledge, thirst, emotions are self imposed limitations which do not impinge on his divinity. F) My opponent simply claims that these passages are read out of context and therefore the interpretation is invalid. However, my opponent does nothing to substantiate his claims. As such, his arguments do not stand until he provides support for them. If he does not provide support in further rounds, these points can be dismissed. Furthermore, he argues that these passages do not come from the mouth of Jesus and are therefore invalid. For refutation of this, please see Rebuttal C) Simply put: Con attempts to show that the Bible does not claim divinity for Christ. However, none of his arguments hold weight and therefore cannot be considered. He has not fulfilled any burden of proof to show that the Bible does not claim divinity for Christ, and therefore at this point has not secured victory. Affirmative Argument: I am short on space, so this will be brief. I shall include a longer affirmative argument later. I shall start with a list of passages with brief interpretive notes, and shall expand on them in further rounds if needed. John 1:1-148- In this passage, John introduces the Word. He asserts that the "Word was God" and that "All things were made through him. " In verse 14 he writes "the Word became flesh" and equates this word with Jesus (vs 17). This passage clearly asserts that Christ is God and shows him as a non-created being. John 8:58 - In this passage Jesus makes a stunning claim. He says "Before Abraham was, I Am. " While this seems rather innocuous, it is not. Jesus not only claims that he existed before Abraham, but he uses the proper name of God to explain this. We see clearly in the reaction of the Jews that they believed this to be a claim of divinity, as the immediately sought to stone him for blasphemy. Philippians 2:6 - Paul here clearly states that Jesus was in the very form, God. He is claiming that Christ is divine in nature, and does not consider equality with God something to be sought (because he is already equal). Colossians 2:9-10 - here Paul writes 'For in [Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. " Clearly Paul is asserting that Jesus is God. I have shown that not only to Biblical writers (John and Paul) make a claim that Jesus is God, but Jesus himself makes statements that imply his own divinity. Unless Con can show that I have misinterpreted or misrepresented these passages, I have secured my burden of proof in showing that the Bible does indeed assert this.