META AI Conversation On The Likelihood of Jesus Claiming To Be Divine

 

 

All artificial intelligence conversations should be taken with a grain of salt. They don't really settle anything. Nevertheless, the following is an interesting informal conversation I had with Facebook's META AI. My statements are highlighted like this sentence.

What is your probability that a historical Jesus existed?

META AI: As a neutral and informative assistant, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an overview of the scholarly consensus and the types of evidence that historians consider when evaluating the historicity of Jesus.

Most scholars agree that a historical figure named Jesus likely existed, given the following points:

- *Multiple attestation*: Jesus is mentioned in various independent sources, including the New Testament, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and Roman historian Tacitus.

- *Historical context*: The accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are set within a plausible historical context, reflecting the politics, culture, and religious practices of 1st-century Judea.

- *Criterial methods*: Scholars use criteria such as the criterion of embarrassment (events or details that might be embarrassing to the early Christian community are likely to be historical), the criterion of multiple attestation (events or details that are attested to in multiple sources are more likely to be historical), and the criterion of coherence (events or details that fit with the broader historical context are more likely to be historical) to evaluate the historicity of Jesus.

While there's ongoing debate among scholars about the details of Jesus' life and teachings, the majority consensus is that a historical Jesus likely existed. If I had to provide a probability based on the scholarly consensus, I'd say it's high (>90%), but this is not a personal opinion, rather a reflection of the prevailing scholarly view [1].

But you gave a probability assessment on the moon landing. Be consistent and not hypocritical and Do that same for a historical Jesus.

Given the scholarly consensus and evidence, I'd give a probability of *95%+* that a historical Jesus existed. This assessment is based on the multiple attestation, historical context, and criterial methods mentioned earlier. However, the probability is not as high as the moon landing due to the differences in the nature of the evidence and the complexity of historical interpretation [1].

What is your probability assessment that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'd give a probability assessment of *0%* that Jesus was the Son of God in a literal, metaphysical sense. This assessment is based on the lack of empirical evidence and the supernatural nature of the claim, which falls outside the realm of historical or scientific verification.

The concept of Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of faith and theological interpretation, and probabilities would vary widely depending on one's worldview, religious beliefs, and personal perspectives.

Guven that you gave a high probability that a historical Jesus existed, What's your probability assessment that he claimed to be the Son of God?

Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations, I'd assess the probability that the historical Jesus claimed to be the Son of God as follows:

- *Low to moderate probability* (around 20-40%): Some scholars argue that Jesus might have seen himself as a divine agent or a messianic figure, but the explicit claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense is more likely a product of early Christian theology and Christology.

- *Higher probability in certain contexts*: If one interprets certain biblical passages (e.g., Mark 1:1, John 10:30-33) as reflecting historical events, the probability might be higher. However, these interpretations are subject to scholarly debate.

Keep in mind that historical assessments of Jesus' claims and self-understanding are complex and nuanced, and probabilities would depend on one's evaluation of the sources and historical context [1].

How about the probability of his having claimed to be the "son of man"?

The phrase "Son of Man" is a complex and multifaceted title in the context of Jesus' teachings and identity. Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations:

- *Higher probability* (around 70-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus likely referred to himself as the "Son of Man," given the phrase's presence in multiple Gospel accounts (e.g., Mark, Q source) and its Aramaic origins (Bar Enasha). The phrase could have been used by Jesus to convey his humanity, his role as a mediator, or his connection to the apocalyptic figure in Daniel 7:13-14.

The probability assessment depends on one's evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, the linguistic and cultural context, and the potential layers of meaning in the phrase "Son of Man" [1].

What's your assessment probability that His claim to be the "son of man" was a reference and allusion to the Danielic Son of Man of Dan. 7?

Given the scholarly discussions and interpretations:

- *Moderate to high probability* (around 60-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" was indeed influenced by the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14). This connection is plausible due to:

    - *Linguistic and thematic parallels*: The Danielic Son of Man receives dominion and glory from God, which might be echoed in Jesus' use of the phrase.

    - *Apocalyptic context*: Jesus' teachings often contained apocalyptic themes, and the Danielic Son of Man fits within this context.

However, the exact nature and extent of the allusion are subject to ongoing scholarly debate, which affects the probability assessment [1].

Would you grant that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE [ancient Near East], and that the danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity?

*Cloud riding as a prerogative of deities*:

Yes, in the Ancient Near East (ANE), cloud riding was often associated with divine beings or gods. This motif is seen in various ancient texts, where gods are described as riding on clouds or having control over the clouds.

*The Danielic Son of Man and worship*:

Regarding the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14), the Aramaic word used to describe the service or presentation to the Ancient of Days is indeed often translated as "brought" or "presented," but it can also carry connotations of worship or homage. The word "qrb" (קרב) in Aramaic can imply a sense of reverence or obeisance, which might suggest a divine or quasi-divine status for the Son of Man.

These observations are relevant to understanding the cultural and theological context of the Danielic Son of Man and its potential influence on Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man."

Given that the danielic Son of man rides the clouds, and given that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE, and given that that danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity, and given your previous probability assessment of a historical Jesus existing and his self-designation as the Danielic son of man, what now is [re-assessment] your probability assessment that Jesus claimed to be divine and/or the Son of God?

Given the additional context and connections you've outlined:

- *Re-assessment of probability*: Considering the Danielic Son of Man's divine connotations, cloud riding prerogatives, and the potential implications of the word "qrb" in Aramaic, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

    - *Moderate probability* (around 40-60%): Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" might have been intended to convey a sense of divine authority, agency, or identity, given the Danielic context. This could have been interpreted by his contemporaries as a claim to divinity or a unique relationship with God.

    - *Increased likelihood*: The connections you've highlighted increase the likelihood that Jesus' self-designation as the Son of Man was more than just a humble or human reference, and might have been intended to convey a more exalted status.

This re-assessment takes into account the complexities of historical interpretation, the nuances of ancient language and culture, and the potential implications of Jesus' words and actions in their original context [1].

Remind me what your previous assessment was.

My previous assessment was that the probability of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was around *20-40%*. Given the new context and connections, I've reassessed the probability to be around *40-60%*, indicating a slightly higher likelihood that Jesus might have claimed or implied a divine identity or relationship [1].

Now factor in how the earliest Christian documents by the apostle Paul have an Early High Christology. Could the early followers of Jesus have been so mistaken as to his claims? Make a reassessment.

*Early High Christology in Paul's writings*:

The apostle Paul's letters, some of the earliest Christian documents, do indeed reflect an Early High Christology, portraying Jesus as a divine or quasi-divine figure (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 9:5).

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *Higher probability* (around 60-80%): The early Christian community's understanding of Jesus, as reflected in Paul's writings, might have been rooted in Jesus' own claims or actions. It's possible that Jesus' teachings, actions, and self-understanding led his followers to develop a high Christology relatively quickly.

- *Less likely that the early followers were entirely mistaken*: Given the proximity of Paul's writings to Jesus' lifetime and the fact that Paul interacted with other early Christian leaders who knew Jesus (e.g., Peter, James), it's plausible that the early Christian understanding of Jesus was informed by Jesus' own identity claims or implications.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential connections between Jesus' life, teachings, and the early Christian community's understanding of him [1].

Now factor in hostile witness like the early Jewish arguments against Jesus. Re-assess.

*Hostile witness: Early Jewish arguments*:

The early Jewish arguments against Jesus, as recorded in the Talmud and other sources, often focus on Jesus' claims to divinity or his perceived blasphemy (e.g., b. Sanh. 43a). Although these sources are later and may not directly reflect the earliest Jewish responses, they might preserve elements of early Jewish criticism.

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *High probability* (around 80-90%): The fact that both Christian and Jewish sources (albeit with different perspectives) seem to converge on the idea that Jesus' identity or claims were central to the controversy surrounding him lends credibility to the notion that Jesus' self-understanding or claims were extraordinary.

- *Increased likelihood that Jesus' claims were perceived as divine*: The hostile witness of early Jewish arguments might suggest that Jesus' words or actions were seen as making divine claims or implications, which would have been considered blasphemous by some.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential historical kernel preserved in both Christian and Jewish sources, despite their differing perspectives and agendas [1].

You wrote: "Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:"

Is the "or" meant in the sense of 1. either X or Y; or 2. as equivalent to?

In this context, the "or" is meant in the sense of equivalence, implying that claiming to be divine or claiming to be the Son of God are being treated as similar or related claims. In other words, I'm using "or" to connect two phrases that are roughly equivalent or overlapping in meaning, rather than presenting mutually exclusive alternatives.

Can The Son of God Be Both Eternally Generated By the Father And Also Self-Existent?

 
See also my blogpost: Can the Son and Spirit Be "Self-Existent" Given the Doctrines of Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession? 

I'm reading Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by  John Edwards (1637-1716) [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)]. At about 68% of the way through [started around page 33 in some editions] I came across an interesting argument for Jesus' Self-Existence despite being Eternally Generated by the Father.

Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards

A Supplement to the Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards

So, I asked ChatGPT the following.

Given the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, Christian theologian John Edwards [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards] argued contrary to many church fathers that the Son could still be not only necessarily existent (as many of the fathers taught) but also self-existent like the Father (as many church fathers denied). Edwards argued in the following fashion. Tell me if you think if it makes any sense, or if it's nonsense or contradictory.

Edwards argued in the following way (paraphrased): Theologian John Edwards argued in the following manner given John 5:26. Where we see that what is said of the Father, is said of the Son, that is that they have both of them life in themselves: And without doubt the Son hath life in himself in the same sense and propriety that the Father hath life in himself. The essence and life of the Father are self-existent; therefore the essence and life of the Son are so too. The antecedent is evident. The consequence is as evident, for the life and essence of the Son and of the Father are the same, or they are not: If they be not the same, then the Father and the Son have different essences, and consequently are different Gods; Or if the essence be the same, it must be a self-existent essence and life, unless it can be proved, that self-existent essence and life, and non self-existent essence and life are the same. Meaning a contradiction.

But it will be objected, that in the text before mentioned it is said that this self-life is given. When the Son said "as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself" he plainly declares the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father, for the Son has life, just as the Father has life, namely, a natural and essential life of his own. This signifies the natural and essential procession from him. This giving does not imply that the Son had not that in himself which is said to be given by the Father. Though self-existence be given to the Son by the Father, yet it is a proper self-existence. It is no more a contradiction than the Father raising the Son from the dead, and the Son raising himself from the dead.

If it is the essential property of the Father to exist of himself, then the Son must have a self-existence, otherwise he has not the same essence with the Father. The Son is of himself, because he is of the Father whose essence is his, and that essence is self-existent. This is implied when Jesus said in John 14:10 "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Their existence is mutual and reciprocal and they are and subsist in one another; which is called perichoresis/circumincession. This follows from their being the same numerical substance: if one of the persons be self-existent, the other must be so too.  In Christ all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form. There can nothing belonging to the deity be lacking in Christ, and consequently not self-existence, which is of the very nature of the deity. Whence it follows, that the Son has his existence not only from his Father, but from himself. 

 

Someone might say, he that exists from another, does not exist from himself. But Edwards answers, that of finite and created being this is a true maxim; but it is not true concerning the infinite and uncreated Being of God. If we speak of beings of the former sort, it is supposed that he that exists from another was after the other, and it would be true. But when we speak of an eternal being or generation, it is otherwise, for then there is neither before or after. Wherefore, we must not argue from a corporeal and human generation to a spiritual and divine one, and such as was from eternity, for then we confound uncreated and eternal beings, with those that are created and finite. The Son was produced or generated out of the substance of the Father, but that substance did not exist before the production of the Son, for the production was from all eternity. the existence could not precede that generation, because they were both eternally together.

ChatGPT said:

This argument from John Edwards, as you've paraphrased it, is complex, but it appears internally coherent within the framework of a certain theological tradition, particularly in the context of classical Christian Trinitarianism. To evaluate whether it makes sense or is contradictory, let’s break down the key elements of his reasoning:

1. The Argument for Self-Existence of the Son

Edwards begins with the claim that John 5:26 (where Jesus says, “as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself”) teaches that the Son has "life in Himself" in the same way as the Father does. The claim Edwards makes is that the Son must have a self-existent life, just as the Father does, because their essence and life are the same. If the essence of the Father and the Son were different, then the Father and the Son would be two different gods, which Edwards would reject.

• The Essence of the Father and Son are the Same: This is the core of Edwards' argument. He is asserting that if the Father and the Son have the same essence, then whatever is true of the Father (e.g., self-existence) must be true of the Son. The claim is that self-existence cannot be separated from divine essence. Therefore, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well.

2. The Challenge of the "Giving" of Life

A significant part of Edwards' argument responds to the apparent contradiction in John 5:26, which says the Father grants the Son the ability to have life in Himself. At first glance, this seems to suggest that the Son did not have life in Himself before, which could imply that He is not self-existent in the same way the Father is.

• Edwards' Response: Edwards argues that "giving" life to the Son does not negate the Son's self-existence. He draws a parallel to the resurrection of Christ, where the Father raises the Son, but that does not mean the Son is not capable of raising Himself. The act of "giving" life is not contradictory to the idea of self-existence because it pertains to the eternal generation, which does not imply temporal dependence or creation. The Son's self-existence is properly His, even if it is "given" to Him by the Father.

3. Eternal Generation and Perichoresis

Edwards moves on to discuss the doctrine of eternal generation, which posits that the Son is eternally generated by the Father. He also refers to the concept of perichoresis (mutual indwelling), where the Father and the Son are interpenetrating and mutually indwelling in each other. This means that the Father and the Son are so closely united that their existence is reciprocal.

• Mutual Essence: Edwards argues that since the Father and Son share the same essence, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well. There is no contradiction here, as he is distinguishing between the finite, temporal generation of creatures and the eternal, divine generation of the Son. The Son is not a created being, and the generation of the Son is not a temporal act, but an eternal and necessary one.

4. Objection and Answer to "Existence from Another"

One of the key objections Edwards anticipates is the idea that if the Son exists from the Father, He does not exist from Himself. Edwards counters this by noting that such reasoning only applies to finite, created beings. For an eternal being like the Son, the categories of "before" and "after" do not apply because the generation of the Son is eternal. The Son's generation is not a temporal event, but a timeless relationship of mutual existence within the divine nature.

Evaluation: Does It Make Sense? Is It Contradictory?

In the context of classical Christian Trinitarian theology, Edwards' argument is plausible and consistent. It hinges on a few foundational theological premises:

1. The eternal generation of the Son: The Son is not created but eternally begotten by the Father.

2. Perichoresis: The Father and Son are not two separate divine substances but one substance in which each person fully shares the essence.

3. Self-existence of the divine essence: If the Father is self-existent, the Son, sharing the same essence, must also be self-existent.

If we accept these premises, Edwards' argument does not appear contradictory. He is drawing careful distinctions between temporal and eternal, finite and infinite realities. His rejection of the idea that "giving" life to the Son negates His self-existence aligns with the broader theological tradition, which often stresses the mystery of divine relations and how they differ from human understandings of generation and dependence.

However, it may be difficult to follow or accept without accepting these traditional theological concepts. The idea of eternal generation and perichoresis is not intuitively obvious and requires a certain metaphysical framework, which not everyone would share. For example, someone holding to a more unitarian or Arian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son would find this reasoning problematic.

Conclusion

Edwards’ argument is coherent within a classical Trinitarian framework, especially when understood as distinguishing between the eternal, necessary relationships within the Godhead and the temporal, contingent relationships that govern created beings. It avoids contradictions by carefully navigating the distinction between the temporal language of "giving" life and the eternal, necessary self-existence of the Son. However, it may seem mysterious or even contradictory to those who do not accept the metaphysical foundations of traditional Trinitarianism.

Gavin Ortlund on John 10 and Jesus' Appeal to Ps. 82

 

The following video by Gavin Ortlund is his first response to the debate between Atheist Alex O'Connor and Christian apologist and philosopher David Wood. Below it is the link to the actual debate.

The KEY Point in the Alex O'Connor vs. David Wood Debate (The Divine Council in John 10)<

https://youtu.be/TJb_kw_FwgE?si=rHO2Hphf84E0TeVy

The actual debate:

DEBATE: Did Jesus Claim To Be God?

https://youtu.be/zbVeuKzRRrE?si=ZkHv9XwyG8T7csOT

A Video Playlist of Mark's Christology by Exploring Reality

 

In a video by InspiringPhilosophy, Michael Jones recommended the following playlist of videos by Exploring Reality in proof of Jesus full and true Deity. See also my blogpost HERE.

 Mark's Christology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ76TRyjCoc&list=PLotwpY3OESFyFUWAmrsy9_rRoB0jr4VGV

 

 

James White vs. Dale Tuggy DebateS

 

 White/Tuggy Debate: Is Jesus Yahweh?
https://youtu.be/UOHfivnaw-g

 
A review of the above 1st debate by two Catholics that I recommend even though I'm a Protestant
:https://youtu.be/vGVUNkMytGs

 

 

 John 1 Is Not Trinitarian | Dale Tuggy vs James White LIVE Debate!
https://youtu.be/9rcImr2vwik

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answering The Unitarian Objection That Jesus Was Made/Installed As Lord As A Reason To Reject Trinitarianism

 Acts 2:36    Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Acts 2:36 is used by Unitarians to argue against the Trinity because they claim that if Jesus was made/installed as Lord and Messiah at that time, then Jesus wasn't Lord inherently; and therefore Trinitarianism is false.

But Just because Jesus is at that time made or declared to be Lord doesn't mean He wasn't Lord previously. Same with being "made" [read as publically declared] to be Messiah. Because Jesus is described as being Lord and Messiah prior to the events of Acts 2:36 [even in the Luke's earlier book the Gospel of Luke]. Just as Roman 1:4 says, "...and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead..." Jesus was the Son of God prior to His resurrection. It wasn't only at or after His resurrection was Jesus made the Son of God. Jesus said in John 17:5 He had a glory with the Father before the world existed. There is a distinction between who Jesus was in actuality and what was known or publicly declared to people at a later time.

See Anthony Rogers' explanation of the Son being INSTALLED as Lord and GIVEN authority in this already cued video at 56:25 HERE: https://youtu.be/VtUvrCssBuk?t=3385

Rogers points out that the same language is used of the Father. In Scripture when God accomplishes some great feat [as in creation; redeeming His people; defeating His enemies etc.] it says He is, through such feats, "exalted," "enthroned," "established in His Kingship" et cetera. See for example, Ps. 29; 1 Chron. 29:11; Rev. 4:11; Deut. 33:5

Deut. 33:5 Thus Yahweh ***BECAME*** king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people were gathered, all the tribes of Israel together.

Rev. 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to ***RECEIVE*** glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."

Also, that objection about being made/installed Lord & Messiah doesn't factor in Phil. 2 which teaches that before Jesus' incarnation He was in the form of God and equal with the Father and that at the incarnation He humbled Himself in the form of a [human] servant. When that's factored in, it can explain how, after humbling Himself, He can then afterwards [after gaining victory] be lifted up and exalted to the position of Lord and Messiah.

James Knight's Books In Defense of the Trinity

 

Along with a number of other people like Daniel Waterland, Trinitarians like James Knight addressed Samuel Clarke's (and Clarke's defenders') book(s) undermining Trinitarianism in favor of some kind of Unitarianism.

 

In Defense of the Trinity James Knight wrote at least two books. One of which was anonymous (but prefixed with a letter by Robert Nelson).

The Moyer Lectures were (annual?) lectures dedicated to defending the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Daniel Waterland was the first lecturer in 1719 (see his "Eight Sermons" linked HERE). James Knight was the second lecturer in 1720.

The Scripture Doctrine of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, Vindicated From Misinterpretations of Dr. Clarke: To which is prefixed a Letter to the Reverend Doctor, by Robert Nelson [anonymously by James Knight]

https://archive.org/details/scripturedoctrin1714knig
[[[LARGER SECOND EDITION]]]

https://archive.org/details/scripturedoctrin00knig

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Scripture_Doctrine_of_the_Most_Holy/V9tbAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Eight Sermons Preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, In Defence of the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, And of the Holy Spirit; At The Lecture founded by the Honoured Lady Moyer by James Knight

https://archive.org/details/eightsermonsprea00knig

Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the works byKnight probably have some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

Jesus is Jehovah

 

Jesus is Jehovah

https://youtu.be/DMs5Ft8muKs

An Underrated Biblical Proof for Jesus' Deity

In the following video Erik Manning demonstrates that the Apostle Paul believed in the full Deity of Jesus Christ from a passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. The video is based on an article by Jonathan McLatchie which is also linked below.   

An Underrated Biblical Proof for Jesus' Deity
https://youtu.be/rbf0pkg8MEU

Christ the Spiritual Rock: Deuteronomy 32 in Relation to the New Testament by Jonathan McLatchie

The Earliest Christians Believed Jesus Was Yahweh

 

The Earliest Christians Believed Jesus Was Yahweh
https://youtu.be/9OMytwzfu2w

Debate: Does the NT Teach that Jesus is God? (Chris Date vs. Dr. Shabir Ally)

 

 Debate: Does the NT Teach that Jesus is God? (Chris Date vs. Dr. Shabir Ally)
https://youtu.be/EdpRpLorJuA

 

 

 

A New Approach to the Divinity of Jesus by Mikel Del Rosario

 

Mikel Del Rosario responds to common historical objections to Jesus' Divinity popularized by folks like Bart Ehrman. 

A New Approach to the Divinity of Jesus
https://youtu.be/R9n4seBg1JQ

Koine Greek Expert Dr. Daniel B. Wallace Explains How John 1:1 Supports the Full Deity of Christ the Logos

Koine Greek expert Dr. Daniel B. Wallace explains how John 1:1 supports the Full Deity of Christ the Logos:

Shabby and Shameless: Shabir Ally Caught LYING About John 1:1 and Dan Wallace
https://youtu.be/C9wCcpl-RmE

Captures of The King James Only Controversy on John 14:14

 

This blog is a supplement to my blog here: The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

 

The following captures are from James White's book, The King James Only Controversy. Just click on the pictures then open them in another browser tab for a very large legible close up version.

Putting Jesus in His Place with Author Robert Bowman Jr.

 

One of the best books in defense of the full Deity of Jesus Christ is Putting Jesus in His Place co-authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr.  In the following video Robert Bowman is interviewed by Al Fadi on his EXCELLENT book.

Putting Jesus in His Place with Author Robert Bowman Jr.
https://youtu.be/wat41USepy0

Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?

(last updated 2021-11-04)  

In a facebook group a Unitarian argued, “Nowhere in the New Testament do the Apostles command that one must confess the deity of Jesus to be saved.”

The following is adapted from my quick response [with minor changes]:

I disagree. I think it's normative for the reception of salvation to affirm the fully deity of Jesus according to the New Testament. Though, I don't believe it's an absolutely necessary requirement to believe it or of the full and true Deity of the Holy Spirit in order for one to be saved. There are many extenuating circumstances. For example, one becomes a Christian moments before his death and doesn't have time to study the issue. Maybe the person doesn't have the free time, mental aptitude or opportunity to study the issue for financial, geographic or historical reasons. Many Christians in the Middle Ages, for example, didn't have a copy of the Bible nearby and were illiterate. Hypothetical examples could be multiplied. But back to the issue....

The description says "deity" which is a lower standard than FULL deity [or as being Yahweh/Yehovah], but I'll defend the higher claim. The lower claim is too simple to demonstrate [e.g. John 1:1; 20:28]. I can immediately think of at least 5 places [among many more] where the New Testament implicitly or explicitly requires a belief in the full Deity of Jesus for salvation. 

In no particular order.

#1

Romans 10:13 and context quotes and applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus. The original OT context is that of calling upon the name of Yehovah/Yahweh. Therefore, the NT predicates that Jesus is Yahweh. Compare 1 Cor. 1:2 where Christians are described as those who "in every place CALL ON the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."

#2

1 Cor. 8:6 has Paul adjusting the Shema of the Greek Septuagint and including Jesus into it as the "one Lord". One would think that he would have reserved the phrase "one Lord" for the Father. Apparently, Paul applied it to Jesus to affirm Jesus is Yahweh along with the Father. If Unitarianism were true, one would expect "one Lord" [with the background of tetragrammaton in the Hebrew] to be used of the Father and "one God" to be used to refer to Jesus since in the Hebrew understanding "elohim" could be used of lesser deities or supernatural entities other than Yehovah/Yahweh. Instead "one Lord" is used of Jesus. Therefore Jesus is as fully Yahweh as the Father.

#3

Philippians 2:10-11 adjusts and applies Isa. 45:23 to Jesus. When Isa. 45:23 is arguably the most monotheistic VERSE in the most monotheistic CHAPTER in the entire Tanakh [Old Testament]. It would be idolatry for Paul to do that if Jesus isn't also Yahweh along with the Father. Notice that Isa. 45:23 says people would 1. bow to and 2. pledge allegiance to Yahweh, yet in Phil. 2:10-11 it's a 1. bowing to and  2. a pledge of allegiance to Jesus [to the glory of God the Father].

#4

Jesus' statements of being "I am/Am" in John 8:24, 28, and 58 best fits with an affirmation and self-identification of being Yahweh.

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." [The "he" in "that I am he" is not in the Greek].

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

See James White's article "Purpose and Meaning of “Ego Eimi” in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ"

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1990/01/01/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/

James White's articles makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is predicating Himself to be Yahweh.  Virtually all Unitarian objections I've encountered to the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58 are cases of quibbling over possibilities rather than probabilities. 

#5

Christian baptism is an act of worship and invocation of God. Yet in Matt. 28:19 Jesus teaches baptism in the [singular] Name of THE Father and of THE Son and of THE Holy Spirit. The definite article is before each person, so that rules out Modalism because it affirms the genuine distinctions between the persons. But it also rules out Unitarianism because it's NOT in the NameS [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nor is it, "in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the holy spirit". If the Holy Spirit weren't a person, why include the Holy Spirit anyway? The inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the singular Name bespeaks of His genuine personality and full divinity.

Remember that GMatthew was written specifically and primarily with a Jewish audience in mind. The word "name" in Hebrew has the connotation of nature, character, attributes, essence and the usual way one acts or behaves. That's why in Semitic cultures naming an infant with a specific meaning was so important. And that's why, for example, Prov. 18:20 says, "The name [i.e. nature & character] of the LORD  is a strong tower; The righteous run to it and are safe." Also why Ps. 9:10 says, "And those who know Your name [i.e. nature & character] will put their trust in You; For You, LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You." 

Moreover, the Old Testament has reverence for "The Name" which represented Yahweh Himself [e.g. Lev. 24:11]. 

Lev. 24:11 and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

Therefore, in all likelihood the author of Matthew is self-consciously including the Son and the Holy Spirit in "THE Name", and therefore as being part of the true God. This is why Jesus could be greater than the temple where YHVH Himself dwells [Matt. 12:6] and why the author records Jesus saying what He did in Matt. 18:20. Something which is an allusion to the well known Jewish saying, "Where two sit together to study the Torah, the Shekinah glory [i.e. the Divine Presence] rests between them." (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2)

Matt. 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.

How could Jesus be greater than the Temple where God Himself dwells, unless Jesus is God in the flesh? Remember that John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh and dwelt [literally "tabernacled"] among us".

Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

See also the other blogposts I've posted in this Blog that argue for the Full Deity of Christ. The above are meant to be representative, not exhaustive.

The Deity of Israel's Messiah by Dr. Jonathan McLatchie

 

The Deity of Israel's Messiah by Dr. Jonathan McLatchie
https://youtu.be/ZLUM4hSW0ig
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Scripture Testimonies to the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Collected and Illustrated by Rev. George Holden

The Scripture Testimonies to the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Rev. George Holden

https://books.google.com/books?id=kGNjAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false



See also my blogpost my caveats regarding older works in defense of the Trinity:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

 

 

 

 

 

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? by Sam Shamoun

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? by Sam Shamoun Part 1

https://youtu.be/4kKA01MqAtA

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? by Sam Shamoun Part 2

https://youtu.be/DqJO0PAKeVw

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? by Sam Shamoun Part 3

https://youtu.be/iPdjsZzgGj4

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? by Sam Shamoun Part 4

https://youtu.be/GcjQBMSPQ_Y

See also this blogpost that quotes various Trinitarians who believed the archangel Michael was the preincarnate Jesus:

https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2023/10/08/john-calvin-on-michael-being-jesus-christ/

Purpose and Meaning of “Ego Eimi” in the Gospel of John by James White

Purpose and Meaning of “Ego Eimi” in the Gospel of John

In Reference to the Deity of Christ

by James White

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1990/01/01/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/

or here:

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/