Debate: Jesus was only human (Negative)

Opening Remarks

To answer before listening— that is folly and shame.
Prov. 18:13

The first to present their case seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.
Prov. 18:17

Or as the saying goes, “Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.”

First of all, let me commend any and all who are willing to hear different perspectves. This doesn't mean that we must change our views, but only that we don't reach conclusions too soon. The purpose of debate is to present differences in an orderly way so that both sides can be heard, since reaching a conclusion without having heard both sides is lazy and foolhardy.

The debate over the deity of Christ is certainly not new. It was one of the main reasons for convening the first Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. To Athanasius, the 20th bishop of Alexandria who was influential in the debate against Arius at that council, Christ’s divinity was no trifling matter. Salvation itself was at stake, because only someone who was fully human could atone for human sin, and only someone who was fully divine could have the power to save us. The logic of the New Testament doctrine of salvation assumes the dual nature of Christ, as we will see.

Over time, various views disputing Christ’s deity arose:

  1. Subordinationism taught that the Father ranks over the Son, who ranks over the Holy Spirit, and that neither the Son nor the Spirit are of the same divine nature as the Father.
  2. Arianism grew out of Subordinationism, and added that the Father created the Son, who created everything else.
  3. Socinianism took the next step of saying that the Son was a mere holy man who did not exist prior to his earthly conception— which paints the Bible's writers as liars. It also denies the personhood of the Spirit, and by extention the Trinity. Thus the Son could not be the substitutionary sacrifice for mankind, which is the key to the dispute.

Since no one participating in today's debate can claim expertise in ancient languages or textual criticism, nor any infallibility of interpretation, we must rely upon reference material such as interlinears and lexicons to make sure we understand the original language texts of the Bible. More importantly, no debate on the Bible's teachings can take place before we agree on the canon itself in Hebrew and Greek as the authoritative text to be debated. So this debate focuses only on whether the Bible as-is teaches that Jesus was merely human, not whether the Bible is complete, or corrupt, or divinely inspired, and not on sacred names. But we will certainly pay attention to the various names of God and Messiah, since the contexts in which they're found have bearing on whether the Messiah, Jesus, is also God.

During my full presentation I will be citing scriptures in both the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint, because the Greek is the Bible translation the New Testament writers quoted from most often. This is why the wording is often different in English translations of a given New Testament quotation of the Old. And I will be presenting technical grammatical concepts, not to obfuscate but to enlighten, since a debate over words must examine them carefully.

Both sides agree that there is only one true God and that Jesus is the Son of God, so the real question is whether this one God has plurality of being, meaning God's nature or composition, and whether Jesus is part of that plurality. A link to this web page with all references and sources will be made available after the debate.

Main Presentation

The plurality of God in the Old Testament

The Hebrew words are transliterated and put in italics. The various names for God were translated into Greek before the time of Christ. El and its variants were translated as Theos, and YHWH and Adoni as Kurios.

  1. Deut. 6:4
    Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohenu, YHWH echad.
  2. Gen. 2:24
    …and they shall become echad flesh
  3. Gen. 11:6
    …echad the people, ahat the language they all have
  4. Gen. 1:26
    And Elohim said, Let us make human in our image according to our likeness
  5. Gen. 1:27
    So Elohim created human in his own image; he created them male and female.
  1. Deut. 6:4
    In Hebrew this can mean, The Lord our God is one Lord; or The Lord is our God, the Lord is one; or The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. The meaning in all contexts is simply that there are no other gods; it says nothing about the nature or composition of God.
  2. Gen. 2:24
    This uses the same word for "one" as in Deut. 6:4, for an obvious pair.
  3. Gen. 11:6
    This uses two different words in Hebrew; many people are one as a group, but one language is an absolute numerical one. So again we see that echad can indeed mean a plurality, and that there is a more precise word available when a strict numerical one is meant.
  4. Gen. 1:26
    What are the possible reasons that plural pronouns are used for God? There is a linguistic device called the plural of majesty, which is a way some cultures have referred to deities or kings, but such a device was unknown when the text was written. Its earliest known usage was 300 years after the Bible was completed, so we can rule out the majestic plural. Scripture never indicates that angels create, even as part of the so-called “heavenly court”, and never hints that people were made in the image or likeness of angels, so we can also rule them out. That leaves us with the possible plurality of God.
  5. Gen. 1:27
    This states that the male/female pair is made in God's image, which at least allows divine plurality.

Descriptions of Messiah in the Old Testament

  1. Psalm 45:6-7
    Your throne O Elohim is forever… therefore Elohim your Eloheka [both H430] has anointed you with the gladness of oil more than your companions.
  2. Isaiah 46:9
    …I am El, and there is no other; I am Elohim, and there is none like me.
  3. Isaiah 7:14
    Therefore the Adonay himself will give you a sign: look, the almah/parthenos will conceive and bear a son, whom you will call Immanuel.
  4. Mat. 1:21,23
    She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Iesoun, because he will save his people from their sins.
    Look, the parthenos is pregnant and will give birth to a son… and they will call his name Emmanuel, which is translated God With Us.
  5. Isaiah 9:6-7
    For to us a child is born, a son is given… and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty El, Everlasting Father… the zeal of the YHWH of Heaven's Armies will perform this.
  1. Psalm 45:6-7
    Elohim is the one being addressed and doing the anointing, yet also the one with companions being anointed. And since the psalmist and readers all know whose God is being praised, the phrase "your God" is not an interjection by the psalmist or the reader.
  2. Isaiah 46:9
    As with Deut. 6:4, this is another statement of there being only one true God, which again does not determine the nature or composition of God. But if there is no other, who are the companions of Psalm 45:6-7?
  3. Isaiah 7:14 and Mat. 1:23
    The child is named God With Us because God intervenes in some special way. Though the Hebrew word almah is considered by many to be ambiguous between "virgin" and "young woman", respected rabbi Rashi said it meant "virgin", and the translators of the Greek text chose to render it parthenos which also means "virgin". The point is that the New Testament takes it as a prophecy which Jesus fulfilled.
  4. Mat. 1:21,23
    These verses give the child two names: Emmanuel (God With Us) and Iesoun (God Is Salvation).
  5. Isaiah 9:6-7
    The child/son is called The Mighty El (remember Isaiah 46:9?) and The Everlasting Father, to be accomplished by YHWH (remember Deut. 6:4?). Yet the God of Gen. 1 and Ps. 45:6-7 is called Elohim in Hebrew, while the Greek simply uses Kurios or Theos.
  1. Isaiah 52:13-53:12
    (condensed) Many were appalled at his disfigured appearance, marred beyond any human being; he had no beauty or majesty to attract us. He was despised and rejected, a man of suffering and pain. But he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we presumed him punished by God. He was pierced and crushed for our sins, the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. He was punished and killed for the sins of my people; he was assigned a grave with the wicked and the rich, though he had done no wrong. The Lord made him an offering for sin, but after he suffers he will see the light of life and justify many, bearing their sins.
  2. Ps. 22:18
    They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment. (John 19:24)
  3. Micah 5:2
    But you, Bethlehem, thought you are small in Judah, from you will come one who will rule over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times. (Mat. 2:1-8, Luke 2:4,15, John 7:42)
  4. Zech. 9:9
    Zion, Jerusalem, your king comes to you righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Mat. 21:2-7, John 12:14-15)
  5. Mat. 23:39
    For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'
  6. Zech. 12:10
    They (the house of David and citizens of Jerusalem) will look on me (YHWH and Elohim from vs. 8), the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as for an only son.
  1. Isaiah 52:13-53:12
    This same child/son and servant, though Mighty God, would first suffer and die and then live again. But in this way he would do what only God can do: bear the sin of others. He would also do what only a perfect, sinless man could do: be a vicarious sacrifice.
  2. Ps. 22:18
    Jesus could not have orchestrated this fulfillment of prophecy.
  3. Micah 5:2
    Neither could Jesus have determined the place of his birth to fulfill prophecy. Further, this refers not to the ancient origins of Bethlehem or Israel, but to that of the ruler himself. This was also the opinion of respected Rabbi Rashi.
  4. Zech. 9:9
    This was a deliberate fulfillment by Jesus' choice.
  5. Mat. 23:39
    Israel has not yet returned to God and said these words. That Jesus did not yet bring the kingdom to Israel is not his fault but that of the people of Israel who rejected him, which they continue to do to this day.
  6. Zech. 12:10
    No mere man or even an angel could pay for the sins of others and fulfill all these prophecies as "me, the one they pierced, and mourn over him". To insist that this is only poetic license is to beg the question. There is also a link for anyone claiming it doesn't say "me".
  1. Daniel 7:9-14
    (condensed) I saw thrones set up, and the Ancient of Days was seated. His garment was as white as snow, and his hair was as pure as wool. His throne was flaming and its wheels were made of fire, and a river of fire came from it. Many thousands served [H8120] before him. Then the court was seated and the books were opened, to judge the boasts of the beast who was destroyed. Then I saw one like a son of man come with the clouds of the sky, and he was brought to the Ancient of Days. He was given dominion over all peoples forever, and they all served him reverently [H6399].
  2. Mat. 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
  3. Zech. 2:6-12
    Come, flee from the land of the north, declares YHWH… For this is what the YHWH says: "After the Glorious One has sent me… then you will know that the YHWH Almighty has sent me… I will live among you and you will know that the YHWH Almighty has sent me to you…"
  4. Amos 4:10-11
    YHWH Adonai says… "I sent a plague… I overthrew some of you as Elohim overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah…"
  5. Ex. 23:20-21
    I [YHWH, vs. 17] am sending my angel ahead of you… do not provoke him, for he will not forgive your sins, since my name is in him.
  1. Daniel 7:9-14
    The Ancient of Days is widely interpreted as God, and the description matches a vision of God in Ezekiel 1. But the descriptions "one like a son of man" and "hair like wool" are given for Jesus in Rev. 1:13-14, and his return with the clouds is seen also in Mat. 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26, 14:62, and Rev. 1:7.
    Scripture uses a variety words for "serve" or "worship" to describe deep respect. But the words themselves are less important than the context. Since whether the person is deity is the point of debate, the service or worship by itself cannot prove or disprove a claim. But notice that the Hebrew word for "serve" is stronger for the Son of Man than for the Ancient of Days. According to one source, the Aramaic word pelach is very clearly only given to God, and this passage in Daniel was originally in Aramaic. Likewise, the Greek word latreuo was only to be given to God.
  2. Mat. 28:18
    This matches the authority given to the "one like a son of man" in Dan. 7:14.
  3. Zech. 2:6-12
    Who is this Glorious One who has the authority to send YHWH? And who is the one YHWH sends? No one but the Lord is speaking in this section. Since YHWH is both the sender and the one sent, and there is no other God but YHWH, how can a strict numerical "one" make sense here?
  4. Amos 4:10-11
    Be aware that most translations change "as God overthrew" to “as I overthrew” for stylistic reasons, presuming God refers to himself in the third person. But this begs the question; divine plurality cannot be ruled out. Remember who YHWH and Elohim are in Deut. 6:4 and Isaiah 46:9? "Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohenu, YHWH alone" and "I am Elohim and there is none like me".
  5. Ex. 23:20-21
    Only God can pardon sin, and what angel is said to have God's name in him?

The plurality of God and descriptions of Jesus as God and Messiah in the New Testament

  1. Mark 4:39-41
    He rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Silence! Shut up!”… Great fear came over them and they said to each other, “Who can this be, since the wind and the sea listen to him?"
  2. Luke 2:11
    For today in the City of David, a Savior was born to you: Christos the Kurios.
  3. John 4:42
    …this is truly the Savior of the world, the Christos.
  4. Acts 5:30-31
    Iesoun, whom you crucified, is the one that Theos, the Ruler and Savior, exaulted by his right hand to give repentance to Israel and the forgiveness of sins.
  5. Acts 13:23, Php. 3:20, Titus 2:13
    • God raised up the promised Seed: the Savior, Iesoun.
    • Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we await a Savior: the kurion Iesoun Christon
    • awaiting the blessed hope and grandeur of the glory of the great Theou and Savior of us, Iesou Christou.
  1. Mark 4:41
    Jesus rebuked the storm in his own name and power; he did not first pray to the Father or give him glory, in contrast to any time the disciples did miracles in Jesus'— not the Father's— name. This power is shown in Psalm 89:8-9 as belonging to YHWH and YAH Almighty.
  2. Luke 2:11
    The context indicates that the one called Savior, Christ, and Lord is Jesus. Christ is the Greek word meaning "the Anointed One", which is also the meaning of the Hebrew word Messiah. This is stated explicitly in John 4:25-26, which says "Mesias comes, the one called Christos", and Jesus then responds, "I am that one speaking to you". So why does Isaiah 43:11 say that there is no savior besides YHWH?
  3. John 4:42
    Jesus the Christ is clearly called the Savior of the world.
  4. Acts 5:30-31
    Jesus, who as we've seen was called Savior of the World, is the one through whom God forgave sins. This cannot be said of any mere human. Why do the other verses have Jesus instead of God being called Savior, if Jesus is not God?
  5. Acts 13:23, Php. 3:20, Titus 2:13
    Jesus is not only called the Savior but also the promised Seed [of Abraham]. In that last reference we see a very clear equivalence between Jesus and God. The Greek grammatical rule called the TSKS construction states that whenever we see the pattern the-noun-and-noun in Greek, and the nouns are both singular, both nouns refer to the same person. If there were a second “the”, as in “the power and the glory”, the rule wouldn't apply. So the Greek phrase “the great God and Savior of us” (ὁ μεγα θεος και σωτηρ) matches the pattern, so the rule applies, and this is not merely my opinion. Further, it's followed immediately by the statement that this Jesus would redeem us from every lawless deed, which is something only God can do.
  1. Mat. 3:16-17
    As soon as Iesous was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened and he saw the Pneuma tou Theou descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love…
  2. Mat. 28:19-20
    Go and make disciples of all the nations, immersing them in the name (singular) of the Patros, and of the Huiou, and of the Hagiou Pneumatos, and teach them to hold tightly to everything I’ve commanded you. Rest assured I will be with you always, until the very end of the age.
  3. 2 Cor. 13:14
    May the grace of the Kuriou Iesou Christou and the love of Theou and the fellowship of the Hagiou Pneumatos be with you all.
  4. Mat. 22:41-46
    Jesus asked the Pharisees, "Whose son is the Christ?" "David's", they replied. "Then how can David call him Kurion? 'The YHWH said to my Adonai/Kurio, "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."'' (quoting Ps. 110:1) If David called him Kurion, how can he be his son?"
  5. Gen. 18:27, Deut. 11:4
    • Abraham answered, 'See, I have taken it upon myself to speak to Adonai…'
    • They didn't experience what he did to Egypt's army, horses, and chariots, how Adonai overwhelmed them…
  6. Psalm 110:4
    YHWH has sworn and will not relent: You [Adonai] are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.
  1. Mat. 3:13-17
    The Father, Son, and Spirit are all distinct and present at once.
  2. Mat. 28:19-20
    Three entities, one name. The same holds true for Rev. 22:1,3; one throne of God and the Lamb. But how can a mere man be with everyone for the entire age?
  3. 2 Cor. 13:14
    Jesus is listed with God and the Holy Spirit, so it's very clear that he's given the same divine status, since only God could be with everyone. To be non-trinitarian the verse would have to read, “May the grace, the love, and the spirit of God be with you all.” But why doesn't it say “Father” there instead of God? Keep that in mind, because we will see where the Father is specified.
  4. Mat. 22:41-46
    Jesus asks the Pharisees how the Messiah could merely be a descendant of David when David calls him Lord, and they were stumped. There are many other places where we see the name Adonai; if this means Adonai is Messiah, which Jesus pointed out is the case, then we could substitute Messiah for every instance.
  5. Gen. 18:27, Deut. 11:4
    These are just two of many instances where Adonai is clearly the one true God, yet Adonai is also the Messiah.
  6. Psalm 110:4
    Adonai [vs. 1] is identified as an eternal priest in the order of Melchizedek, a priesthood not part of the line of Aaron and Levi, and thus outside of the law of Moses. For those interested in more detail, this priesthood is first mentioned in Gen. 14:18-20, and covered in depth in Heb. ch. 5-7. But being an eternal priest indicates someone much more than human.

Who made, enforced, or enacted the Covenants?

  1. Heb. 8:7-13
    If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to seek another. In his indictment against them he says this: "'Look, the days are coming,' says the YHWH, 'when I will confirm a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the old one I made with their ancestors… which they didn't keep…'" (quoting Jer. 11:10,31:31). In calling it 'new', he has called the first one 'old', and that which is growing old is near extinction.
  2. Heb. 9:15-17, 26-28
    For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant… now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so also Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many. And he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
  1. Heb. 8:7-13
    Since Israel and Judah broke the covenant that YHWH made with their ancestors, he would make a new one not like the first one, which was conditioned upon Israel's faithfulness. A fundamental change of contract is not a renewal, and remember as we keep reading that it is God who made the covenant.
  2. Heb. 9:15-17, 26-28
    Jesus enacted the new covenant. He said this verbatim at the Last Supper in Luke 22:20 and quoted again in 1 Cor. 11:25. That this new covenant would be in his blood indicates that his sacrificial death— the piercing— would confirm it and make it active.

So who made the old covenant and promised to make a new one? God. And who died to enact the new one? Jesus. So we have a clear, valid, undeniable syllogism for the deity of Christ:


P1 Only God’s death could enact the New Covenant

P2 Jesus’ death enacted the New Covenant

∴   Jesus is God

Creator, Forgiver of Sins, Messiah, God

  1. Col. 1:15-20
    [The Son (vs. 13)] is the image of the unseen God. He is the first-born of all creation for in him everything was created. Things in the heavens, on the earth, the visible, the invisible, thrones, lordships, sovereignties, and authorities— it was all made through him and in him. He is before everything; it is all combined in him. He is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, so he would be supreme in everything. For in him all the fullness lives, and through him it is all reconciled to himself…
  2. Mark 2:5-11, 14:61-64, John 2:19-21, 8:23-24 & 58-59, 10:28-33, 14:6-9, Rev. 1:7-8, 21:5-6, 22:12-16
    • "Your sins are forgiven"… [They said,] "Who but God can forgive sins?"
    • "Are you the Christ…?" "I am," said Jesus.
    • "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up"
    • "I give them eternal life""
    • "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."
  3. Mat. 1:23, John 1:1-5,14,29-30,45, 17:5, 20:28, Php. 2:6-7, Heb. 1:2-10
    • "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."
    • Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
    • "He did not jealously cling to being in the form of God, but emptied himself and took on the form of a slave, becoming human."
  1. Col. 1:15-20
    Notice that Jesus being first-born of creation is defined immediately: Everything was created in him; it does not mean he himself was created. So Jesus is in fact the Creator. As for "the fullness lives", most translations say “the fullness of God”, but “of God” is not in the Greek text. However, omission of that phrase makes Jesus encompass absolutely everyone and everything, so it doesn't help the anti-divinity argument. And of course, verse 20 says that he is the way everyone could be reconciled to himself. To whom did the world need to be reconciled? And this reconciliation could only be done by one who fully represents both parties.
  2. Mark 2:5-11 etc.
    These statements made by Jesus Himself show him forgiving sins and being called Messiah, having the attributes of deity, and being the Alpha and Omega just as God is. Could Jesus be a mere man, especially a good man, having said these things? And if anyone claims that this refers to Jesus being ascended to divinity, notice that most of it was said before he was "lifted up" on the cross.
  3. Mat. 1:23 etc.
    These statements by others show that Jesus is God With Us, the Word from eternity past, the one who set aside divine privileges to become human (not a human becoming God), and the Son through whom God has spoken. Could these passages describe any mere mortal, or even an angel? Who alone can set others free from their sins or bring eternal salvation of the soul?

God in the Flesh

  1. 1 John 1:1, John 1:14, Heb. 1:2, John 14:6, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 3:16
    • This is about the Word of Life— that which was from the beginning, which we have heard and seen and touched.
    • The Word became flesh and made his home among us…
    • But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…
    • Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father (not "God") except through me."
    • The Son is the image of the invisible God…
    • He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
  2. John 8:58-59, John 10:33, John 17:5, 1 John 5:20, John 1:1
    • “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him…”
    • "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God!"
    • [Jesus praying] Glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began…
    • Yet we also know that the Son of God is coming, and he has given us understanding so we may know the True One. We are united with the True One, his Son Jesus Christ. He is the True God and eternal life.
    • In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  1. 1 John 1:1 etc.
    These passages define the Word not as a metaphor or personification, but as a literal, physical person through whom God expresses himself.
  2. John 8:58-59 etc.
    These explicit statements of divinity are proved by the reaction of Jesus' enemies, who serve as a strong hostile witness to his claim. This is the charge that would ultimately get him crucified, as shown at his sham trial in Mat. 26:65. Does a mere man of sound mind, let alone a good man, claim to be God, and do his enemies charge him with blasphemy if he made no such claim? Remember that the words "I am" (ego eimi) are the same words by which God identified himself to Abraham in Ex. 3:14-15 (YHWH).
    Finally, we will examine John 1:1 in detail.
    • John 1:1 interlinear with parsing
      We must understand that every word has a semantic range, which is taken from all the contexts in which the word appears. Take the English word “trunk” for example: Is it an elephant's nose, the stem of a tree, a box with a lid, the storage compartment of a car, a person's torso, or male swimwear? All those meanings are derived from the contexts in which the word appears. The reason this is an issue is because those who deny Christ's deity claim that the phrase “with God” means “belonging to God”, but neither this context nor its grammar can support such an interpretation.
      With Greek, the particular meaning is made clear by the grammatical case of the words around it; that's how inflected languages work. "προς τον θεον" (toward the God) is a prepositional phrase, so we need to know the case of τον θεον, which is accusative.
    • G4314 προς
      Again, it's a preposition of direction with accusative, the destination of the proximity, the location relative to someone or something else. So we see that "with" is a legitimate English equivalent here for προς, and more descriptive than other words or prefixes such as μετα, συν, or παρα. Finally, the phrase "and the Word was God" removes all ambiguity.
      The burden of proof is on those who would claim that "belonged to" was ever part of the semantic range of this phrase.
    • Not even the version preferred by the Messianic Judaism movement, the Peshitta Aramaic text, says "belonged to": Peshitta NT Interlinear
    • The version of the Peshitta by George Lamsa likewise says the Word was with, not belonged to, God: Lamsa Peshitta

So John 1, esp. vs. 1, clearly indicates both the unity and the diversity of God and the Word.

Closing Remarks

Though time did not permit a more thorough and detailed presentation, it has been adequately demonstrated that the only way to deny the deity of Christ would be to ignore, twist, or discard the many passages that portray him as above any human or angel. Further, the plurality of God even long before the time of Jesus' incarnation can only be dismissed by spiritualizing or making nonsense of many passages. But remembering the opening quotations of Prov. 18, it's unwise to jump to conclusions without making sure we've searched dilligently for all pertinent facts and heard all sides of the disputed claim. Many false teachings have arisen from half a Bible study.

I leave you with this quote from The Incomparable Christ by J. Oswald Sanders: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

If Jesus is not God, then there is no Christianity, and we who worship Him are nothing more than idolaters. Conversely, if He is God, those who say he was merely a good man, or even the best of men, are blasphemers. More serious still, if He is not God, then He is a blasphemer in the fullest sense of the word. If He is not God, He is not even good.

…The deity of Christ is the key doctrine of Scripture. Reject it, and the Bible becomes a confused jumble of words devoid of any unifying theme. Accept it, and the Bible becomes an intelligible and ordered revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the center of Christianity, and the conception we form of Christianity is therefore the conception we have of Him. He must be acknowledged in his rightful place.

Our belief in the deity of Christ is, in the final analysis, based on our faith in the Scriptures. We believe Him to be the Son of God because we accept the teaching of Holy Scripture and its statements about Him. When we assert belief in the deity of Christ we mean that the person known to history as Jesus of Nazareth existed in eternity before he became man, as the infinite and eternal God, the second Person of the Trinity.

The very basis of Christianity is that Jesus was God appearing in the flesh… If that assertion can be overthrown, then the whole superstructure of Christianity crashes to the ground, and we are bound to assume that Jesus was either a shameless impostor or that He suffered from a delusion.

Was Jesus a liar, a lunatic, or the divine Lord? Let the facts persuade you.

References and Resources

Scripture Passages