Jesus is not God

In the last round, I showed that all of Pro's arguments against the deity of Jesus begged the question against the doctrine of the Trinity by assuming God is only one person. So in this round, he attempted to shore up his arguments by arguing that the Trinity is false and that God is only one person. So let's look at those arguments.Arguments against the TrinityGod is emphatically stated to be one throughout scripturePro is right that God is said many times in scripture to be one. However, the scriptures do not say that God is one person. All of the passages speaking about the oneness of God are monotheistic affirmations meant to emphasize the utter uniqueness of the one God. The Old Testament doesn't address the question of whether God is one person or three. Pro is reading his theology into the passages.Pro brought up Mark 12:29 where Jesus recited the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 which says, "Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God is one YHWH." Most translations put "LORD" in all caps to indicate where the name of God is. It doesn't follow that because there is one YHWH that YHWH is therefore one person.Pro also brought up verse 32 of the same chapter where one of the scribes agreed with Jesus and affirmed that besides God, there is no one else. Again, this doesn't tell us anything about whether God is one person or three. It only tells us that there's one God.Pro goes on to point out that this would've been a good opportunity for Jesus to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, but he didn't. This is a fallacious argument because (1) it's an argument from silence, and (2) Jesus was frequently cryptic in his teaching, not explaining himself. The bread of life discourse in John 6 is a good example. Thats where Jesus tells his listeners that to have eternal life, they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus actually let people walk away in disgust rather than explain his meaning to them. So the fact that Jesus didn't give an explanation of the Trinity when Pro thinks he should have is not a good argument against the Trinity.The word, 'Trinity,' does not appear in the Bible.It's true that the word, Trinity, is not in the Bible, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true. There are lots of theological terms that were invented to codify Biblical concepts. If the concepts are Biblical, then it doesn't matter whether the words we use to codify them are found in the Bible or not. The Bible doesn't have the word "monotheism," but Pro and I nevertheless both subscribe to monotheism and believe it is Biblical.Athanasius formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, and his philosophy was rooted in PlatonismThis is a genetic fallacy. Pro is attempting to discredit the Trinity by pointing to it's supposed shady origins. But that is fallacious. The Trinity could be true even if Athanasius believed in it for all the wrong reasons. I and every other Trinitarian believe in it because it can be deduced from the Bible, not because Athanasius believed in it, and certainly not because our philosophy is tainted by Platonism. You can pick up any book defending the Trinity (like the ones I mentioned in the last round) and see that the Trinity is defended strictly from the Bible.Arguments for the creation of JesusIn the last round, I gave what I think is an air-tight argument showing that Jesus was not created. Since all things that came into being did so through Jesus, Jesus himself could not have come into being. Pro completely ignored that argument.But Pro did bring up a few scriptures that he takes to mean Jesus was created. Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the Beginning of the creation of God." The Greek word translated "beginning" is "arche," which can mean beginning (ESV), origin (NRSV), source (NAB), or ruler (NIV). Any of these translations are possible, so this passage does not prove that Jesus was created.In John 6:57, Jesus said that he lives because of the Father. But this does not mean Jesus was created. In this passage, Jesus is telling his hearers that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life. So this whole passage is about the human body of Jesus. When Jesus said the he lives because of the Father, he was talking about his human life, not his pre-existence.Argument from the subordination of JesusPro quoted John 14:28 where Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" to show that Jesus is not co-equal with the Father. But there are different senses in which one person can be greater than another. An officer is greater than an enlisted person in rank, but they are both human beings with equal value and worth. The equality of the Father and the Son is an equality of being, not of function, so it is perfectly consistent to subscribe to the Trinity while acknowledging that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.In 1 Corinthians 11:3, it says, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ." This passage makes it clear that God is the head of Christ in the same sense that the man is the head of the woman. Men and women are ontologically equal. So God is the head of Christ in a functional sense, not an ontological sense.Jesus asked God to raise LazarusPro apparently thinks the fact that Jesus asked God to raised Lazarus means that Jesus is not God. But that doesn't follow. When Jesus became man, he voluntarily took on the form of a servant and made himself subordinate to the Father (Philippians 2:5-8). Since Jesus was subordinate to the Father, it makes perfectly good sense that Jesus would pray to the Father and ask Lazarus to be raised. That doesn't mean Jesus isn't God. It only means that the persons of God have a relationship between them in which one is subordinate to the other.Nobody has seen the FatherPro brings up John 5:37 where Jesus said of the Father, "You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form." Pro then points out that lots of people have heard Jesus' voice and seen his form, then concludes that Jesus is not God. But it doesn't follow that Jesus is not God. All that follows that Jesus is not the Father. But, of course, that is perfectly consistent with the Trinity since the Father and Son are distinct persons.The angels strengthened JesusPro points to Luke 22:42-43 where God sends the angels to strengthen Jesus, and Pro concludes that Jesus is therefore weaker than God and is therefore not co-equal with God. But this passage is consistent with the Trinitarian notion of Jesus taking on the form of a servant when he became a man. As a man, Jesus experienced all the same emotions that humans have, including fear and dread. Jesus was strengthened because he was in fear and dread of the cross. Again, that does not entail that Jesus isn't God. It merely entails that Jesus was truly human--an essential aspect of the doctrine of the incarnation.Jesus is at the right hand of GodPro argues that because Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God, that Jesus is therefore not God. But this argument begs the question against the Trinity since it only works if you assume God is one person. If only the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus is not God. But if both the Father and Jesus are God, then it's perfectly possible for Jesus to stand at the right hand of God, i.e. the Father.Besides that, Stephen was seeing a vision. Nobody can actually see the Father, as Pro has already pointed out. What Stephen saw was an apocalyptic vision, so you can't draw ontological conclusion from it anymore than you can draw ontological conclusions from John's visions in the Book of Revelation.Arguments for the deity of JesusIn the last round, I gave three arguments showing that Jesus is God. Pro ignored all three of those arguments. So those arguments still stand unrefuted. I'd give a few more except that I'm just about out of characters.