Deity of Christ

Now that I have painted the deity of Christ in broad strokes, it is time to get down to details. As I indicated in my opening round, I used a small subset of scriptures supporting Christ's divinity. Now I will break it down more granularly in the hopes of making the clearest case possible. Note: All biblical quotes are English Standard Version translation. Con proffered three versus in favor of his position. Let's consider the raw data his sources provide: 1. Jesus Christ is distinct from the only true God. [1] 2. Jesus Christ is distinct from Father and God. [2] 3. Jesus Christ is distinct from God. [3] Given only this data, Con is correct in logically concluding that Jesus is not the only true God, God the Father. Now let's consider more data: 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [4] My opponent might object, but it is generally understood that "the Word" is referring to Jesus. If this scholarship is correct, then we have explicit data that Jesus was in the beginning, he was with God, and he was God. Assuming, however, my opponent objects to this interpretation, I offer the next for explicit citations. 2. "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'" [5] Note that Thomas explicitly calls Jesus God and is not rebuked, despite the fact that Jesus was known to do this. [6] 3. "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." [7] Paul explicitly calls Christ God over all. 4. "…who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," [8] Paul explicitly teaches that Jesus was in the form of God. 5. "…waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," [9] Paul calls Jesus God and Savior. So far, we have five passages explicitly teaching that Jesus is God, whereas there are no passages explicitly teaching the opposite. Con has of course given us scripture implying that Jesus is not divine, but given my first rule, my explicit verses outweigh Con's implicit ones. In order to preserve the explicit teachings of both mine and Con's citations, we must logically conclude that Jesus is both God and distinct from God. This is a valid logical conclusion given the data, even though the conclusion itself appears to be a contradiction. Consider for a moment the science of light. [10] Evidence shows that light has both the properties of waves and particles. Science has not rationalized away one property in favor of the other because the evidence for both is simply too stark to ignore. In fact, wave-particle duality is now a central concept of quantum mechanics. [11] My point is this: the fact that Jesus is both God and distinct from God is an antinomy—a contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem equally necessary and reasonable; a paradox. [12]—but it does not preclude it from being true. The bible has many antinomies, such as free will versus God's sovereignty, and they cause tension. Recall my third rule, that tension should not be resolved unnecessarily. The reason for this rule is simple, as it always leads to the breaking of rule two, favoring rationalization over logic. The only way Con draw his conclusions from the scriptures he cited is to rationalize that my citations somehow refer to something else. I invite my opponent to show how the verses I cited teach anything other than their most obvious interpretation, but I fear it will require exegetical gymnastics. Now that I've shown explicit evidence in favor of my position, let's consider some evidence against Con's position. Consider when Jesus said to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [13] Jesus here is implying that he is eternal, an incommunicable attribute belonging to God alone. Furthermore, he does so using the very name God uses for himself when Moses asked his name. [14] His Jewish audience would not have mistaken this connection. So, if Jesus is not divine, then he was a deceiver, in which case God is not just in elevating a common sinner to the right hand of his throne. Moreover, his death would have accomplished nothing, and we are no longer justified by faith. As for implicit evidence, Jesus is ascribed all the divine attributes: 1. Sovereignty [15], e.g., "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." 2. Eternal [16], e.g., "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." 3. Righteousness and Justice [17], e.g., "But you denied the Holy and Righteous One…" 4. Love [18], e.g., "…having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end." 5. Omniscience [19], e.g., "…for he himself knew what was in man." 6. Omnipresence [20], e.g., "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." 7. Omnipotence [21], e.g., Jesus calmed the storm 8. Immutability [22], e.g., "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." 9. Veracity [23], e.g., "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." Now, these versus are all supporting evidence, but the weight of all this data combined with the explicit teachings already mentioned is screaming in favor of a Christ divine. I cannot see how my opponent can truly expect to provide the sheer amount of counter-evidence needed to dismiss this teaching. Before I close, I will respond to Con's criticisms of my earlier versus. To start, I will conceded that Con is correct that the interpretation of Acts 20:28 could also mean "blood of his Own," in which case, this is no longer an explicit teaching of the divinity of Christ. However, it still is a strong implicit passage since it begs the question: how can Jesus be God's "Own" and not be at all divine? My Hebrews 1:10 citation suffers from an error on my part, as I meant to cite 1:8 instead. As Con pointed out, the passage is about the superiority of Jesus to the angels. It is here that Psalms 45:6 is quoted, saying that God says of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom." Thus, we have the author showing God calling his son God. However, since the author is quoting Psalms, I will reclassify this verse as implicit evidence and rely on my new citations for the time being. That being said, it is still one more piece of evidence in favor of my position added to the heap. In conclusion, my opponent is right in that scripture teaches that Jesus is distinct from God, but I have shown that scripture is in overwhelming opposition to Con's hasty conclusions. The resulting antinomy creates tension, to be sure, but the conclusion is valid nonetheless. Is Jesus distinct from God? The bible says yes. Is Jesus God? The bible says yes. It may be difficult to accept both answers as true, but for this debate, all that matters is the second affirmative. SOURCES 1. John 17:3 2. John 20:17 3. Rev. 3:12 4. John 1:1 5. John 20:28 6. Matt. 16:23 7. Rom. 9:5 8. Phil. 2:6 9. Titus 2:13 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 13. John 8:58 14. Exo. 3:14 15. Matt. 28:18; Rom. 9:5; 1 Pet. 3:22; John 3:27; Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:9,10; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5,6; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:16 16. Isa 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1; John 8:58; Col.1:17; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 22:13 17. Jer. 23:5,6; Luke 1:35; Acts 3:14; Heb. 7:26; Rev. 3:7 18. John 13:1,34; 1 John 3:16 19. John 2:24,25; John 16:30; John 6:64; John 13:11; Mat. 9:4; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 2:23 20. Ps. 139:7-10; Deut. 4:39; Prov. 15:13; Isa. 66:1; Jer. 23:24; Act. 17:27; Mat. 28:20; Mat. 18:20; John 3:1 21. Mat. 8:25; John 10:18; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 7:25; 2 Tim. 1:12; Jude 24; Rev. 1:8 22. Heb. 13:8; Heb. 1:10-12; 1 John 1:9 23. John 14:2; John 14:6; Rev 3:7