Christ is God

Pro's casePro goes to great lengths to show that "son of God" is used in various senses in the Bible, but that was unnecessary because I already acknowledge it. It has been my position throughout this debate that when "only begotten son" is used of Jesus, it is used in the messianic sense. I have already provided scripture in support of that, and Pro has not rebutted my case.Although Pro cited several scriptures in support of his explanation, the only relevant passage he cited was John 1:18, which in some translations called Jesus the "monogenes theos," meaning "unique god" or as some translations say, "only begotten god.""Monogenes" does not mean "begotten," by the way. It means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind." The word for "only begotten" is "monogennao." "Genos" means "kind" or "type." "Gennao" means to beget.[1] So Pro's whole case about eternal begetting is invalid.The problem with Pro's citation of John 1:18 is that there is a major textual variant there. Some manuscripts read "monogenes theos," meaning "unique God," and other manuscripts read "monogenes huios," meaning "unique Son." Pro arbitrarily favors "monogenes theos" because it supports his point of view.But we should favor "monogenes huios" for three reasons:1. Everywhere else in the New Testament, monogenes is always followed by hious, not theos.2. I have shown, and Pro has not refuted, that Jesus is not the unique God.3. Most modern translations go with monogenes hious, not monogenes theos. Pro also cites a very controversial passage--John 1:1--to support his case. John 1:1 has been the subject of much debate as to the meaning of "kai theos en ho logos," literally, "and god was the word," but usually translated, "And the word was God." To really get to the bottom of the meaning of this passage would require a debate all its own, but suffice it to say that since there is a great deal of controversy surrounding how this passage ought to be understood, Pro can't use this to support his point of view without justifying his particular translation and interpretation. The same thing is true of Philippians 2:6.It's ironic that Pro would cite 2 Peter 1:4 since it undermines his case. According to 2 Peter 1:4, we will all partake of the "divine nature." But obviously that doesn't mean we're all going to become the one unique God. So when it says in Philippians 2:6 that Jesus existed in the form of God (or "by nature God" as some translations say), it doesn't mean Jesus actually was the one unique God.My caseThe indiscernibility of identicalsPro does not dispute that being all-knowing is an essential attribute of God. It follows that if Jesus is not all-knowing at any point in his existence, then he is not God. God cannot cease being God, then become God again at a later point. So if there is ever a point in Jesus' existence in which he is not all-knowing, then Jesus never was God and never will be.Mark is explicit that there is something Jesus doesn't know. That means it's impossible for Jesus to be God.Pro is merely repeating an argument that I have already answered. He claims, once more, that although Jesus had the ability to know all things, he lacked the authority to know all things. But the divine attribute we're talking about is not "the ability to know all things," but rather, "the state of knowing all things." It is still the case that Jesus didn't know all things, regardless of what the reasons is for why he didn't know all things. The fact that Pro can give a reason for why Jesus didn't know all things only serves to highlight the fact that Jesus didn't know all things and could therefore not be God.Pro goes on to try to argue that Jesus is all-knowing by pointing out that both he and God know the hearts of men. But to be all-knowing is to know all things, not just the hearts of men, and as we've already seen, Jesus did not know all things.Hebrews 1:3The point of my use of Hebrews 1:3 is to show that Christ is not the same being as the Father. If there is only one God, and if the Father and Son are both God, it follows that the Father and the Son share the same being. And that is what the Trinity says--that the Father and the Son are distinct persons, but the same being, God. But Hebrews 1:3 makes it impossible that the Father and the Son could be the same being. That means they are not the same God. If there is only one God, and if it's indisputable that the Father is God, it follows inescapably that the Son is not God.Pro says, "I admit that this is a very possible interpretation and literal at best but because it cannot contradict other explicit scripture, another interpretation is needed."In other words, Pro thinks that because his argument for the deity of Christ is sound (the argument that I refuted above), that we should try to find another way to interpret Hebrews 1:3. But considering the fact that I have already refuted Pro's case for the deity of Christ above, no such exegetical gymnastics are necessary.And Pro's suggested alternative interpretations do not get around the point anyway. For example, the NIV calls Jesus the "exact representation of his being," which implies that Christ is not the same being as the Father.ConclusionWe are about to enter into the concluding round. I hope that Pro will stick to usual debate ettiquette and not introduce new arguments into the last round. If he does, then in all fairness, I ought to be able to do the same. But then Pro would not be able to respond to my new arguments. So let's just agree not to introduce any new arguments in the last round.NOTES1. The Forgotten Trinity, by James White, p. 201-202, footnote 27