The Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus was an Addition to Christianity c. 80-100 C.E.

This round is a rebuttal round. There will be no counter rebuttals or the like. No new arguments. One can only address previous rounds and their arguments through quotes, reducing underhanded or subtle means of rebuttal that often happen.For this, I will simply identify specific arguments, via quotes, that I will rebut.My arguments about the meaning of the Son of Man and Son of God have been put forth in a positive argument, but now I will address the "acceptance of worship" argument that is very flawed.Round Two Objections1) Acceptance of worship My opponent argues:" In the Gospels, Jesus is worshipped a multitude of times by his disciples and others." I must admit, back when I was clinging to anything to keep me Evangelical, this was an argument made by Dr. Bird that kept me going... until I really looked into it. What does the word "worship" mean in this context and understanding? Unfortunately, our modern concept of "worship" and our English translations really mess this one up. The Greek verb here "proskyne!;" (1) is a derivative of the words "pros" and "ky!3;n." "pros" is a Greek preposition which means "to, towards, unto." "Ky!3;n" is also in the Greek and means "dog." Essentially putting these two words together, it would be "as a dog." A term of extreme humility.Let's see why a strict "worship" interpretation makes no sense in like of a passage in which someone is "proskyne!" to Jesus: the mockery of Jesus before the crucifixion. Here's a literal translation:"They struck Jesus' head with a reed, and their knees worshipped (proskyne!) him." Their knees worshipped Jesus? What the heck? With a better understanding of the Greek word, is is obvious a better translation would be "they kneeled to" or something similar. Obviously, these guards were not worshipping Jesus. They were mocking Him. This word is used as a kneeling or humility statement, and even then it does not always mean that. Sometimes it is simply an act of kneeling, which can happen to anyone.Here is another example from the Septuagint that clearly shows that you do not need to be God to be knelt to with this Greek verb.2 Chronicles 24:17"Now after the death of Jehoiada the princes of Judah came and paid homage (proskyne) to the king."Clearly, that word does not mean worship. In fact, it only does if you are an evangelical translator with an agenda or dishonest.2) The Petrine Literature and Divinity." Simon Peter, according to Christian tradition, is attributed to have written 1-2 Peter around AD 65-68. In these letters he wrote: our God and savior Jesus Christ. May you have more and more grace and peace through the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord." This is indeed a claim to divinity. Ironically, it supports my claim of a late understanding of the divinity of Jesus. As we've seen, John, the latest Gospel, is the only one that is explicit about "Logos" style divinity. And Peter, ironically, is a forgery from the end of the first century. This solidifies the fact that this is a late theological addition.How do we know 1 Peter was a forgery, a written work not by who the author states to be?Simple.1. The Petrine Epistles were written in Greek using extensive knowledge of the Septuagint. Peter could not read or write and was an illiterate fisherman. Even the Bible attests to this. Not only that, John was too. Acts 4:13" Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and illiterate men, they were amazed, and began to recognise them as having been with Jesus."2. Even if Peter learned to read in the years between that verse and his death, it is unlikely that he became fluent, familiar with the Septuagint, trained in rhetorical composition, and finally wrote this. We haven no knowledge of adult education in the Roman world, and why would he have done this? And when? This would take 10+ years of training, and Peter seemed busier on missionary journies.So, this was a later writing long after Peter was dead by someone far more educated... solidifying the late addition of logos-Christ theology. 3) In the form of God?"Though he (Jesus) was in the form of God,he did not consider being equal with God something to exploit"Oh. You're right. Jesus was equal to God. I concede. Pack up. Go home. Not quite.My opponent's entire argument rests on his translation of the Greek word "harpagmos." However, this word only appears once in the Bible... so how do we know how to translate it? Without other uses of the word with context, I could easily say "thought it not possible to be equal."Fortunately, Plutarch uses it in his work multiple times, and his context makes it clear that it is in the act of theft or robbery. (2)The word for "form" as well does not mean copy, simply outward similarity. (3)So a better translation based on contextual passages would be"Though Jesus similar to God, he did not consider equality with God as something to steal."Ironically, again, giving support to my point of God giving a position to Jesus as a heavenly being.Verse nine of the same creed solidifies it."Therefore, God highly honored Him, and gave Him a name above all names." So God gave God a name above all names? This is a simple impossibility and lends itself to an earlier, less "God from very God" Christology.Round Three ObjectionsI'd ask my opponent to please remember the rules against rebuttals not during the rebuttal round and be careful about that as we go on. The line seemed to be crossed or almost crossed in this round multiple times, especially with the use of the Shema.Regardless, I will continue.1) Trinity and the concept of YHWH.Although it is possible that "ehad" means a kind of "complex" instead of "simple" unity, it simply makes no sense in a Jewish context. YHWH is a single being. He is referred to in Third Masculine Singular instead of Third Common Plural verbs, pronouns, adjectives, etc. When YHWH speaks of Himself, He is using First Common Singular verbs, pronouns, adjectives, etc. This means YHWH is a singular being in every way. The only way out of that is to say that YHWH is simply the "Father," but that means there is more than one divine being of YHWH. YHWH is clearly defined as an individual.2) "Divine" incarnations in the OTMy opponent attempts to use theophanies as evidence for the possibility of a human-divine form of an existing pre-Jesus. I will take a couple seconds to look at why these are incorrect understandings.First, Joshua 5:14 actually, again, improves my look at Jesus as Paul's version of a high angel. He is identified not as God or the Lord, but as the commander of the Lord's forces, differentiating him from God. Ironically, if my opponent wants to say this is Jesus, he is saying Jesus is the commander of the angels and an angel himself, not God.Second, as with Genesis, just because God is shown to be human, it does not mean he was Jesus. There is a logical disconnect. In some older Torah traditions, especially J, YHWH is very anthropomorphic, but that does not mean Jesus is this being.And again, if my opponent wants to say Jesus is YHWH, that provides logical issues.3) Colossians and Hebrews understanding of Christ.Again, my opponent seems to like certain attributes given to Jesus and forget others. For instance, the "firstborn of all creation" is in Hebrews and Colossians. This is literally "Creation's firstborn" if you translate the geminate differently. Jesus is a created being in these verses. Used in creation, yes, but a creation Himself. Conclusion So, let's sum up what we've seen1) Acceptance of "worship" in the English translation, proskyne, is not the same as accepting worship as God. 2) The Petrine Epistles were forged and help show a late understanding of Jesus' divinity.3) Jesus was commended, not for "exploiting" equality with God, but for not stealing equality.4) The Trinity does not match with Hebrew language structures for YHWH logically or grammatically.5) Theophanies are never identified with Jesus. 6) Colossians and Hebrews equate Jesus with a created being.Quite glad this discussion was focused more on the actual Biblical text this round.Sources: 1) https://www.blueletterbible.org...2)http://biblehub.com...;3) http://biblehub.com...