The basic argument for the deity of Christ: a response

ABSTRACT: The basic argument for the deity of Christ is as follows. The New Testament says things about Jesus which normally only can be said about God. Therefore, Jesus is God (or at least divine). In this video, I read from my refutation of this argument from my book, Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology (Cascade, 2023).
You can buy a copy of my book here:
a.co/d/0j6yevTl
Dr. Steven Nemes has a BA in Philosophy from Arizona State University with a minor in Religious Studies (2013), and an MDiv and PhD in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary (2016, 2021). The author of a number of articles, chapters, and books on diverse subjects in theology and philosophy, he teaches Latin at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy in Phoenix, Arizona.

[@Jano342000]

Thanks for putting these videos out. I’ve been reading through your Trinity and Incarnation book for the last few months and it’s been great to have these arguments in an audio/video format. Do you plan on doing any lectures on phenomenology like your last channel?

[@drstevennemes]

@@Jano342000 Thank you for your comment. I’m glad you’re appreciating the videos. I don’t have concrete plans for the channel yet. For now, it’s just something to do during my son’s nap times during the summer vacation. 😅

[@alananimus9145]

Okay so giving a more full review of the section presented here there are a number of problems we need to address. I am taking as established that Mark puts forward an adoptionist theology. I am also taking as established that the trinity is a later invention. My goal here is not to "refute" your argument, rather it is to point out things you might be over looking, help you strengthen weak arguments, or point out where you are in error. I should also state upfront that those you are responding to seem to be ignorant of "Divine Authority" and how "Divine Authority" works. They fail to recognize both in the Hebrew and the wider near east (and arguably in greek) culture individuals could be and were deputized to speak in the name of and with the full authority of divine entities. Yeshu then would not be Yahweh but would be his agent imbued with the full power and authority of Yahweh. They fundamentally misunderstand what it means to be "Given the name". -"Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus” in the Journal of Early Christian History 2022 -On the Confusion of Tongues 146 -On the Migration of Abraham 6 -De Somniis, I, 157 You say "On the one hand Jesus is born". This is by no means a problem as it was not uncommon for divine entities to be ensouled into mortal bodies. This was on the contrary common. The assumption in Mark is that an archangel was ensouled into a mortal frame. The two deaths are the death of the mortal body, and the descent of the divine soul into the realm of the dead (souls were believed to be immortal). The death of a soul did not mean the soul ceased existing, it meant the soul went to the "realm" of the dead. Part of the problem you are having here is you seem to want to make a universal argument when such a thing is not possible. Your argument does work if the assumption is that resurrection bodies are earthly bodies. If however resurrection bodies are more Pauline (divine matter) your argument doesn't work. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="750">12:30</a> "The Racovian Catechism makes an important argument in this matter. It says that admitting the legitimacy of partitive exegesis implies allowing that one say things like that Christ did not suffer, did not die, and was not raised from the dead, since these things could be truely said of him in virtue of his divine nature, as well as that he was not divine, since this could be true of him in virtue of the human." To reach this conclusion requires anachronstic projection. It assumes that the divine cannot suffer, cannot die, and cannot be raised from the dead. This is contrary to the theology expressly conveyed in Paul. What the Racovian catechism fails to engage with is what exactly it means for divinity to die. This failure is ultimately the source of a non-contradiction being turned into a contradiction. Souls be they human or divine do not cease existing. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1180">19:40</a> The issue here is that if Christ was a pre-existent divine being who was granted godhood by Yahweh, then yes he can in fact be empowered again. If by becoming mortal he took off his "Divine Authority" he would be required to be empowered a second time. This does in fact appear to be the theology in Mark. He doesn't cease being divine in becoming mortal, but he does cease having "Divine Authority". "If X is already F then one cannot be made F. One cannot be given what one already has." If Christ is Divine he cannot be given divinity. No problem. If Christ is the "Son of Yahweh" and granted "Divine Authority", and if he is ensouled into a human body and that entails giving up "Divine Authority", the human part can be adopted (the divine soul is already adopted) and he can be granted "Divine Authority". Cloth which is already wet cannot be made more wet. True. But cloth which is wet and then dries can be made more wet. The question here is not a loss of divinity but a loss of "Divine Authority". Where your argument seems to fall apart is the assumption that "Divine Authority" and "Divinity" are the same thing in the NT. And also that someone cannot loose a quality and regain that quality later. I do not know if you address these things elsewhere. I ask you to remember that I am someone who agrees with you in principle.

[@matrixlone]

Ridiculous Human soul and body are properties of the same nature human... Saying the divine person is present in hades is almost like the apollonarian heresy..replacing the divine person with his human soul/mind. Only the soul of a man descended to hades through the experience of death. Jesus regaining divine qualities / authority is also ridiculous since the fullness of God dwells bodily losing nothing not even authority if he was God in the sane sense as the father. He also wouldn't need to divest himself of anything divine,attribute, glory, authority since it never proves by doing this it will make him a man. You basically believe in a divine being with no divine authority assumed to human nature... still not a human being So everyone knows the day and hour? Are angels omniscient too? Only the Father is said to know..its not mutual knowledge one can have even if they all had the same divinity they are not the same person.

[@idris_haris_al-kalima]

Have you considered that it is possible that the one nature of Christ is divine only in so far as he is the Word of God, rather than the very person of God? This would imply that God's Word only receives its authourity from the very person of God and its power from the very Spirit of God which is Wisdom. What is a word without he who speaks it, could it ever be heard? But Christ is always connected to God. What is a word without any wisdom, it is not but sharp blade in hands of child cannot be wielded to any great effect? Even if the child could wield it, it wouldn't be to great effect. Thus was Christ without the Spirit, so what if he could have in theory done miracles without the Spirit, raise dead, create life from clay, those are nothing compared to truly changing a person's heart. Now about the of side of Christ. His same one nature is only human in so far as he is the very image and likeness of God physical and finite form. For what is written of God's creation of man has been read, 'So God created man in his image, in the image of God created He him; ...' but the same could be read as, 'So God created man by his image, by the image of God created He him; ...' Thus it is theorically possible that even if Christ has power of God in and of himself, it would be improper for him use it without permission from God, for he being the Word of God cannot usurp equality with God, as although he is God, but also a faithful servant of God. Kabbalah has a name for such a man, and he is Adam Kadmon. Christ being in flesh means he can die, for only flesh dies, and while the spirit in death moves to either paradise or the grave, the spirit is still very much alive, yet when one died, just be a part him lives, doesn't mean he lives, thus I can say, "The LORD my God died for me, and yet He lives forevermore, amin." The spirit of men is immortal, yet death terrifies even the spirit of men, for the spirit wills to be in its body. So what is the difference in the natures spirit of God and that of men? Nothing that make a human being who has the spirit of God any less human, in fact I would argue it would make Christ more human than other humans because to be human is to be a living image of God Himself, yet we are barely human, we fall short of His Glory, even of the gloy which by nature we ought to have, yet we failed for we sought to become gods without having the Wissdom of God, how foolish are we?

[@alananimus9145]

Okay wow there's some major errors here not the least of which is the assumption of canon. Going to make a longer post breaking down the problems here but wow. You are making some very serious assumptions that don't hold.

[@drstevennemes]

Thank you for your comment. The only assumptions I make in this video are those which believers in the deity of Christ would take for granted. My point is to prove that the New Testament does not teach that Christ is by nature God.

[@JamesAsp]

@@drstevennemes You mean this? Philippians 2:7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. In other words Jesus was by nature God, but made Himself to be also in nature human. So are your argument that while walking on Earth, he was by nature only human? In other words argumenting against the catholics at 13:24? I think they are correct in this, that will say Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. It was his Earthly body that died and needed to live a sinless life to save us. The death alone was not the sacrifice, but the whole life Jesus came and lived was, as He completed the sinless life which no other human has been able to do. Hence only his human body needed to die while Jesus (aka the God nature was living on after his body died on the cross, as God is spirit and can not die.)

[@drstevennemes]

@@JamesAsp I address that passage in the next section of the chapter from which I was reading in this video.

[@JamesAsp]

@@drstevennemes Okay, because at 15:43 when they mentioned Jesus is ignorant of His second coming, I think that is a false understanding of scripture. Jesus relate to a wedding before saying it. I have been told that in Jewish tradition only the father know the specific time of a marriage (not literally but as respect for the father). Others had also to know the time, as they needed to travel and prepare for the feast. Because not even the Holy Spirit is said to know if only the Father knows...

[@drstevennemes]

@@JamesAsp I think that explanation about the wedding is made up. I don’t know where it came from, nor do I know of any sources that document it.

[@Dizerner]

*12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:* 1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God. 2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world. 3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness. 4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it. 5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself. 6. A mere creation cannot receive praise and devotion from every created thing. 7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth. 8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it. 9. A mere creation cannot potentially directly live inside of all human beings. 10. A mere creation would not ever be directly associated with anything divine. 11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry. 12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth. At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is God to you whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father is just an order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes and this corresponds to Trinitarian theology. I believe we can find ample Scriptural evidence to support the above 12 points in both Paul and the rest of Scripture. Also when certain verses began to make me feel unsure of this, I have prayed about this directly to God for many years and received personal confirmation that this is the truth. So the question may well then be asked, "Why isn't it stated more clearly?" That's a good questions and I give a couple of reasons. 1. It is not a doctrine essential to salvation. It is very clear the 12 disciples during Christ's earthly minister did not at all fully realize who he was, and simply had a bare faith that he was a Savior, yet Jesus clearly says they were currently saved with their names written in heaven. 2. Doctrines are not required to be written out in the clearest way possible, but only to be written out in an essentially deducible way. We know the Bible condemns pedophilia without a verse that says "Thou shalt not molest children." 3. It is the "glory of kings to search out a matter" and all doctrine doesn't come by intellectually parsing the words of Scripture, but by direct revelation from God, as Jesus said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you Peter." In light of this, I invite anyone to continue on their journey with a sincere heart towards God and fervent prayer, and am confident that in the end, if we continue and do not quit with a true humble and teachable heart, the Spirit of God will always eventually get us to true beliefs.