Deity of Christ

I am thankful for my opponent's sharp intellect and thorough responses. With two whole rounds to go, this is a lot of dialog to take in, so I will write this round with an extra measure of sensitivity to the reader. I will begin by analyzing the state of my argument in light of Con's most recent round. I provided three rules of interpreting scripture in the first round, and there has been no contention over these rules. I would like, however, to further point out that these rules are at their heart an effort to maintain parsimony. Thus, the debater that more closely follows these rules is the one whose arguments involve the least amount of assumptions. I provided seven scriptures explicitly teaching the divinity of Christ. The first two, Acts 20:28 and Heb. 1:10 (which should have been Heb. 1:8), I downgraded to implicit evidence. The remaining five (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13) have not been refuted, though my scholarship has been criticized. My lack of commentary on the original language is an intentional omission, not a failure. I am tasked to provide evidence in support of my position, and Con is tasked to cross-examine it. Though no translation is perfect, the English Standard Version has solid academic backing. Still, if Con wants to oppose my verses using original Greek, then I will gladly respond, but I will not do his job for him. In the meantime, my five remaining verses remain unanswered. I provided copious amounts of verses implying the divinity of Christ, none of which have been questioned or refuted. Granted, they hinge on the veracity of my explicit citations, but it is evidence nonetheless. So, compare this with the only evidence for Con's position: three verses (John 17:3, John 20:17, and Rev. 3:12) that I have not disputed. I fully agree that Jesus and God are separate and distinct as made explicit in these scriptures, nor do I believe I have mischaracterized them. However one chooses to say it (such as, "Jesus has a God"), the data is the same. Jesus is separate from God, which IMPLIES that Jesus is not God whatsoever—an implication that does not stand against the explicit teaching that Jesus is indeed God. It is Con, not I, that insists that such a logical contradiction cannot be allowed. It is Con, not I, that wants to resolve the tension between these two biblical facts. In fact, he INSISTS that I resolve the tension in order to win the debate: "Pro must not only furnish clear passages of scripture which teach that Jesus has two natures, he must also prove that Jesus was speaking in his human nature only (not the whole person) when he said 'My God'; otherwise, Pro will have to explain how Jesus (as God) can both have a God and be God at the same time, without violating monotheism." I made no pretenses as to the mystery surrounding this antinomy. In fact, I spent a good portion of round two explaining that antinomies are not unusual in scripture and even used light as an example. Con objected to this example, thinking it was some kind of proof of dual natures in general. I was merely pointing out, given a limited amount of knowledge and perception, you go with what you have. Sure, we now have wave-particle theory, which is neither wave nor particle, but would we have gotten there if we ignored the evidence when they seemed logically incompatible at the time? And this really strikes at the heart of Con's position. He wants to force the nature of God into something he can comprehend by resolving the logical tension, but scripture is adamant that God is quite beyond our comprehension. [1][2] He cannot be entirely described within the confines of our cosmos as he is separate from it [3][4], distinct from it [5][6], and create it [7]. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to accept that Jesus is both a distinct person and God himself, even though we cannot understand how this can be. Here is an analogy (not a proof) that reveals how something complex cannot be understood by something simpler. Imagine a perfect cube that creates a 2D universe with life. He cannot say to his creation, "I am a cube," for such things cannot be fathomed in their existence. Depth literally has no meaning. To reveal himself, he intersects his corner with the plane of the universe, which appears to a creature as a point. He later intersects his edge, revealing himself as a line. He finally intersects his whole being, revealing himself as a square. While the simpler beings cannot comprehend how their god is simultaneously a point, a line, and a square, we can easily understand since we can perceive 3D space. God has revealed himself to us in Jesus, who has done many things as a person separate from God. The scriptures are undeniable in this regard. However, the scriptures also depict him as God himself. Moreover, the scriptures are adamant that there is only one True God. What do we do with this conflicting data? If we resolve the tension one way, we take away the deity of Christ and have to accept that God lifted a sinner to his right hand side (an objection my opponent hasn't addressed). If we resolve the tension the other way, we end up with polytheism or modalism. But if we choose to accept the tension, we are one step closer to humbly accepting God as he has revealed Himself in his own diving words. Con likes to arbitrarily creates rules I must follow to win. He states, "Unless Pro can furnish a passage that teaches PRECISELY what the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches, or strongly implies it, he cannot claim that doctrine to be an explicit Biblical one." The simple answer is there isn't one, and I have NEVER claimed the Bible explicitly teaches the hypostatic union. I have, rather, provided scripture that explicitly teaches the divinity of Christ. That is all I am tasked to do, and I have done it. To say that the divinity of Christ is impossible because the Bible never precisely teaches the hypostatic union is to argue from silence. I furthermore object to the notion that I have to "find a passage in the Bible that makes the same distinction that Trinitarians do between being a God-man (i.e., half and half), and being a God-man (fully both)." While Hebrews 1 is a possible example, I do not see the need to defend the Trinity itself. I am simply defending the deity of Christ, which I have done amply thus far. Speaking of Hebrews, verse 4 indeed implies that Jesus became superior to the angels at a moment in time, namely "after making purification for sins." But the entire rest of the chapter speaks otherwise. Verse 2 says God "created the world through him," which is evidence of preexistence. Verse 3 says Jesus is "the exact imprint of his nature," evidence of his divinity. In verse 10, the author quotes Psalm 102:25-27, which—in the old testament—was spoken of Jehovah, thereby equating the Son with the Father, evidence for both the deity of Christ and his being fully God. The issue of timing in verse 4 is outweighed by the rest of the chapter, so I do not think that Hebrews 1 counters my case as much as Con would have us believe. Which brings me to the conclusion that my position, thus far, is stronger. I have provided biblical evidence for the resolution both explicit and implicit. I have shown that antinomies do not necessitate that the resolution be negated. I have shown that God is expected to be beyond our comprehension. And I have shown Con's attempts time and again at needlessly resolving tension. I have done all this within the confines of the rules of parsimony. In addition to seeing more biblical citations in Con's defense, I also would like to see him respond to my earlier criticism. Jesus implies his own divinity in John 8:58 when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Did a merely human Jesus deceive us, and yet still rise to God's right hand? SOURCES 1. Is. 40:18, 25 2. 1 Cor. 8:2-3 3. Is. 40:22 4. Acts 17:24 5. Ps. 102:25-27 6. 1 John 2:15-17 7. Gen. 1:1