Deity of Christ

My opponent has once again brought his "A" game, and for that I am appreciative. However, while his interpretations of the John scriptures are thorough and thought provoking, I intend to do show precisely where he has erred. Before I do that, I want to point out that Con has so far only objected to the verses I cited from the Gospel of John. He has yet to respond to the Pauline versus I've cited. This is not a criticism against him, for he was explicit in his intentions. I only mention it so the readers will not forget the rest of the evidence still in my favor. To start, note that Con says my verses are not explicit when considered in context. With that in mind, I will show how he breaks that very rule in his analysis. The Word Con's treatment of John 1:1 is a prime example of what I earlier called exegetical gymnastics. He leaps back and forth from John 1 to 1 John 1, cherry picking scriptures and using their similarities to conclude that "the Word" cannot be God because of the usage of terms such as "that,"which," and "it." There are two errors in this approach. First, he engages in the fallacy of equivocation by relying on the ambiguity of these words to draw hasty conclusions. By definition, the objects of pronouns are defined by the context in which they are found. Second, he strips all context, thereby breaking the very rule he intended to use against me. Con quotes 1 John 1:1 as, "that which was from the beginning concerning the word of life." However, he omitted whole clauses that give that sentence vital context. The whole verse is, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life." In John's own words, the relative pronoun "that which" refers to something he and others heard, saw, and touched. In fact, as you read the opening paragraph, you get the sense the John is enticing the reader, withholding the object of these pronouns until the big reveal. What could it be? Given that 1 John is entirely about Christ and given that John personally touched "it," the reasonable conclusion is that these pronouns refer to Jesus. This is the most logical and least rationalized conclusion. In fact, there is no need to parallel John 1 and 1 John 1 at all, or to even appeal to prolepsis, to make sense of the Word, because all the context you need is in John 1. John then tells us in verse 14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." As Con kindly reminded us, John's stated purpose in 20:31 is to reveal Jesus to us "that by believing [we] may have life in his name." So, given that the Gospel of John is entirely about Jesus, the most reasonable and parsimonious conclusion is that Jesus is indeed the Word. Thus, we have explicit evidence of Christ's divinity when John states, "and the Word [Jesus] was God." John's Stated Purpose While we're on the subject on John's stated purpose, how does the deity of Christ contradict it in any way? Verse 20:31 states in its entirety, "but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Nothing about the deity of Christ logically requires one to reject that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Unless of course one already presupposes that Jesus cannot be both Son of God and God himself. I sincerely hope the readers catch on to this. I have tried desperately to allow the Bible to speak for itself. I have not rejected Con's scriptures teaching the distinct personhood of Christ, but I have also not rejected the seemingly contradictory evidence that Jesus is God. In other words, I am using exegesis whereas my opponent uses eisegesis. He keeps injecting his limiting view of God into the scripture, despite the fact that I already showed that the Bible teaches that God is not to be so limited. Doubting Thomas Con states that if Jesus is denying being God in 10:33, then it follows that Thomas did not mean Jesus to be "God." This line of reasoning is weak, since it's equally valid to go the other way. If Thomas did call Jesus "God" without rebuke, then it follows that Jesus was not denying being God in 10:33. I offer two reasons to accept John 20:28 as explicit evidence. First, the term Theos in 10:33 can validly be rendered, "a god," given the context of 10:33-36 and of Psalm 82:6 that is quoted there. [1] Thus, a possible translation could be: "We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god." Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your own Law, 'I said: You are gods'? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" This is in keeping Jesus' responses to Jewish leaders in other passages, as Jesus was known for using their own legalism against them. Still, this is just a possible interpretation. I suppose the same possible translation could be said of Thomas' words as well. However, consider Con's own verse, John 20:17, when Jesus also uses the exact same phrase (in Greek) of "my God." Thus, Thomas' words could mean no less than Jesus words, and what the Father is to Jesus, Jesus is to Thomas. Furthermore, the author uses the Greek plural construction ("our God") exactly as he used it in Rev. 4:11. I feel compelled to point out that Con engages in eisegesis again when thinking it absurd that Thomas would have leapt from skepticism to belief that Jesus was "part of a triune Godhead." Just because Con thinks the notion is absurd to begin with does not mean that Thomas would have. Any argument based on what anyone might or might not do is purely speculative and inadmissible. Con simply assumes without warrant that people in John's time simply would not have grasped or accepted such a concept. Why not? The Apostle Paul taught it as a matter of fact. Jesus said, "I am." Regarding Jesus' use of "I am," Con again discards the context of the chapter. Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Con concludes that, since no one picked up stones against the man in John 9:9, that all usage of "ego eimi" is a mere statement of identity. But in the verse immediately following my citation, the Jews "picked up stones to throw at him." Indeed, Jesus uses the "I am" throughout the entire conversation of Chapter 8, identifying himself as the light of world and the one that absolves all sins, something that all Jews understood to be God's jurisdiction alone. What really matters is that Jesus, if he is not God, is taking God's name in vain. If he is not God, as Con insists, then he is sinning throughout this entire scene. How can Con justify that a mere human take credit for the work of God? My goal in citing this passage is not to prove the deity of Christ, it is to prove the absurdity of the contrary. How does a sinning human get lifted to the right hand of God? That is the question I want Con to address. Conclusion Having covered all of Con's latest objections, I think my explicit scriptures from the Gospel of John stand strong. I also still have the Pauline passages and the many supporting implicit passages still in play. Con's penchant for resolving tension has been repeatedly abused and I've caught him dropping context in his latest round. Thus, I think the doctrine of the deity of Christ is quite reasonably true and biblical. Sources Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62 Luke 5:21