Deity of Christ

In the first place, those verses said to prove the deity of Jesus cannot be considered to be in the explicit teachings category. My opponent's statement does not take into account the many clear verses that make this impossible. For example, in John 17:3, Jesus says that eternal life is "to know you [the Father], the only true God AND Messiah Jesus whom you have sent". There are clearly two categories here: the only true God, and the Messiah whom the only true God has sent. Unless you already believed in the deity of Jesus, it is impossible to see this verse as consistent with that proposition. Furthermore, after Jesus has resurrected, he tells Mary that he is ascending to "My Father and your Father, My God and your God" (John 20:17); here is a clear statement that Jesus has a God, and since Jesus identifies his God as the Father, then the logical conclusion is that God the Father is the God of Jesus. And since this is the same person referred to in John 17:3 as "the only true God", it follows that the "My God" of John 20:17 and "the only true God" of John 17:3 are the same person, meaning that the Father is both the God of Jesus and the only true God, and since Jesus would not have a God different than the only true God, his Father must be that one true God. My opponent may try to argue that the phrase "My Father and your Father, My God and your God" is not the same as "Our Father . . . Our God", and thus Jesus was not identifying his Father as God the same way his Father would be God to Mary. However, any elementary English student can see that saying "mine and yours" is just another way of saying "ours". Besides, would Jesus have a different God than Mary? What exactly is the point of this argument? If there is only one true God and Jesus claimed to worship and serve that one true God, why would he turn around in this passage and tell Mary to worship a different God? Clearly, this explanation does not stand up to scrutiny, and the clear meaning of the passage is that both Jesus and Mary share the same God, that God is Jesus' God in the same way that he is Mary's God (i.e., the God of the whole person); this God is the Father of Jesus, and the only true God of John 17:3. Another example of a clear teaching concerning the identity of Jesus is from Revelation 3:12, in which Jesus declares his Father to be his God no less than three times. Now, if as my opponent and I agree, there is only one God, then one person calling another person their God, would in its clearest expression have to mean that the person called "God" is the one God; otherwise if Jesus is God, and the Father is Jesus' God, then that makes at least two Gods: the Father (who is Jesus' God) and the Son (who is not Jesus' God-unless you want to argue that Jesus was his own God). However, if the Father and Son are both the one God, then there cannot be such a glaring distinction in which one is called the God of the other; two members of the same God are not Gods to each other. Any person of average intelligence with common sense would read this verse and instantly understand that is says that Jesus has a God, and since there is only one God, Jess must not be God. My opponent may try to argue that Jesus said these things as a man, and Jesus has a God in his human nature, so he can refer to his Father as God when speaking in his human nature. Since my opponent said that all true Biblical doctrines should be founded on explicit teachings, the burden of proof is on him to show where the Bible teaches explicitly that: a) Jesus had these two natures that he spoke in, and b) that he was speaking in his human nature in John 20:17, John 17:3, and Revelation 3:12. If he cannot do this, according to the rules that he established, he must concede that there are no explicit verses that teach the doctrine of the hypostatic union, and thus to argue that in the case of these passages he is interpreting the implicit in light of the explicit, would be a flat-out contradiction of his own rule. The passage in Acts 20:28 that he uses has two variant readings; it is true that some Greek manuscripts say "Church of God", but there are others which have the phrase "Church of the Lord". However, even if the reading "Church of God" was the correct one, the Greek phrase that follows it literally means the blood of his own, which of course could mean his own Son; and since there is no other passage in the Bible which speaks of God having blood, and yet there are many passages that speak of God's Son shedding his blood on the cross, as well as of the Son of God being the one who died (not God himself), both the text in question as well as the wider context of scripture agree with this alternative reading. In reference to Hebrews 1:10-12, it is actually strong evidence against the deity of Jesus. In the first place, the context of this chapter is to demonstrate how Jesus is superior to the angels (verse 4). Now if Jesus was God, why would the author of Hebrews waste so much space trying to show he was better than the angels in other ways, when all he had to do was say "He's better than the angels because he is God"? The best explanation for that is the fact that the author wasn't trying to show that God (i.e., Jesus) was better than the angels, but that the exalted man Messiah Jesus was better than the angels. It makes much more sense in the context and in general to say that the reason the author of Hebrews had to argue Jesus' superiority to the angels at all was because he was dealing with two classes of created beings, and without explanation it would not be as clear why a man would be superior to angels. Therefore, whatever else the author may say about Jesus, it must be taken in context not to contradict his point in writing this chapter: to show that Jesus was superior to the angels. The author of Hebrews connects the Son's exalted status to events that only occurred after his resurrection. He argues that the Son's "being made much better than the angels" (verse 4) as contingent upon his sitting down at the right hand of the majesty on high (verse 3). This is because he uses the word "so", in between the statements of him "sitting at the right hand of the majesty on high", and "being made much better than the angels". For anyone who has studied logic, the word "so" is a conclusion indicator, meaning that what precedes it is a premise, and what follow it is the conclusion. So, this means that the author is arguing that Jesus became much better than the angels because of the fact that he sat down at God's right hand, and not because of some preexistent deity he already attained. Also, after the phrase "having by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than they" is the word "for". Unlike "so", "for" is a premise indicator, indicating that what follows it is meant to be the supporting evidence for the preceding conclusion. In this case, the evidence for the conclusion that the Son has obtained a better name than the angels is found in the passages that the author subsequently quotes. Assuming that the author is being consistent with himself, he will say nothing in the premises that contradict the conclusion. So if the conclusion is that Jesus has obtained a better name as a direct result of sitting at the right hand of the Father (which happened after his resurrection), then the premises used to support it CANNOT serve as evidence for his preexistent deity; because if the passages that he quotes prove that Jesus was preexistent deity, they would disprove his conclusion that Jesus obtained a more excellent name than angels because of his sitting at the right hand of the Father; this is of course because God by definition would have a more excellent name than the angels. This is just a primer, I hope that in the rounds to come we can get into the meat of this issue.