Apologetics · FaithLogic
Every Argument Against the Deity of Christ — Answered
This section works through a full set of arguments used against the deity of Christ — seven specific verses commonly raised to argue Jesus is not God — together with three counter-arguments that answer them decisively. Every argument is catalogued here with the complete counter-response — so you are never surprised by any of these in a real conversation.
Seven Verses Commonly Raised
Verse 1 — John 8:40 — "I am a man who has told you the truth"
The argument:
"Jesus says in John 8:40: 'But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.' Jesus calls himself a man who heard from God. If Jesus were God himself, he would not say 'I heard from God' — God does not hear from God."
The complete response:
This argument confuses the incarnation with the nature of the Son. The doctrine of the Trinity does not say Jesus is the Father. It says the Son of God became human. In his human nature, the Son hears from the Father — this is the whole point of the incarnation: God in human form, relating to the Father as a human does.
More precisely: John 8:40 says Jesus is a man who told the truth "which I heard from God." Notice Jesus does not say "which I learned from God" — he says "which I heard." This is the same word used in John 15:15 — "everything I heard from my Father I have made known to you." Jesus's relationship with the Father is eternal — not a prophet receiving information, but the eternal Son in relationship with the eternal Father.
The decisive point: in the same Gospel, the same author has Jesus say "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58), and "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). John 8:40 is not evidence that Jesus is less than God — it is evidence that God the Son became genuinely human. The Incarnation means both are true simultaneously: he is a man, and he is God.
"Jesus says in John 8:40: 'But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.' Jesus calls himself a man who heard from God. If Jesus were God himself, he would not say 'I heard from God' — God does not hear from God."
The complete response:
This argument confuses the incarnation with the nature of the Son. The doctrine of the Trinity does not say Jesus is the Father. It says the Son of God became human. In his human nature, the Son hears from the Father — this is the whole point of the incarnation: God in human form, relating to the Father as a human does.
More precisely: John 8:40 says Jesus is a man who told the truth "which I heard from God." Notice Jesus does not say "which I learned from God" — he says "which I heard." This is the same word used in John 15:15 — "everything I heard from my Father I have made known to you." Jesus's relationship with the Father is eternal — not a prophet receiving information, but the eternal Son in relationship with the eternal Father.
The decisive point: in the same Gospel, the same author has Jesus say "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58), and "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). John 8:40 is not evidence that Jesus is less than God — it is evidence that God the Son became genuinely human. The Incarnation means both are true simultaneously: he is a man, and he is God.
Verse 2 — John 17:3 — "The only true God... and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"
The argument:
"Jesus says in John 17:3: 'This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.' Jesus here separates himself from the only true God — he is the one sent, not the sender. He is not the only true God."
The complete response:
This verse describes the relationship between the Father and the Son — it does not exclude the Son from divinity. The Father is "the only true God" — which excludes false gods (Baal, Zeus, etc.) not the eternal Son who shares the divine nature.
The same Gospel that has this verse also has Thomas call Jesus "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28) — and Jesus accepts it. The same Gospel has John 1:1 — "the Word was God." The same Gospel has Jesus say "Before Abraham was, I AM" (Exodus 3:14 — the divine name). John 17:3 is not saying the Son is excluded from divinity — it is saying the Father is the source of divinity within the Trinity. The Son is God from the Father, not God independent of the Father.
The Trinitarian formula: the Father is the only true God, and the Son is God from the Father, and the Spirit is God from the Father through the Son. None of them are false gods. John 17:3 rules out false gods — it does not rule out the eternal Son who said in the same prayer: "Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world existed" (John 17:5). Pre-world shared glory = divine nature.
"Jesus says in John 17:3: 'This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.' Jesus here separates himself from the only true God — he is the one sent, not the sender. He is not the only true God."
The complete response:
This verse describes the relationship between the Father and the Son — it does not exclude the Son from divinity. The Father is "the only true God" — which excludes false gods (Baal, Zeus, etc.) not the eternal Son who shares the divine nature.
The same Gospel that has this verse also has Thomas call Jesus "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28) — and Jesus accepts it. The same Gospel has John 1:1 — "the Word was God." The same Gospel has Jesus say "Before Abraham was, I AM" (Exodus 3:14 — the divine name). John 17:3 is not saying the Son is excluded from divinity — it is saying the Father is the source of divinity within the Trinity. The Son is God from the Father, not God independent of the Father.
The Trinitarian formula: the Father is the only true God, and the Son is God from the Father, and the Spirit is God from the Father through the Son. None of them are false gods. John 17:3 rules out false gods — it does not rule out the eternal Son who said in the same prayer: "Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world existed" (John 17:5). Pre-world shared glory = divine nature.
Verse 3 — John 20:17 — "My God and your God" — Post-Resurrection
The argument:
"After the resurrection, post-heaven, Jesus says 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' Jesus says 'my God' four times in Revelation 3:12 — even post-resurrection, post-glorification, exalted in heaven — Jesus still has a God above him. God does not have a God."
The complete response:
This is where the Psalm 22 incipit argument matters. When Jesus says "my God" from the cross (Matthew 27:46) he is quoting Psalm 22:1 — a deliberate prophetic declaration. But even apart from that: the Son in his human nature has the Father as his God. The incarnation did not end at the resurrection. Jesus remains the God-man permanently — his human nature does not disappear after the resurrection.
Hebrews 4:15 — "we have a high priest who has passed through the heavens" — post-ascension Jesus is still our high priest in his human nature, interceding for us. If the incarnation is permanent (which the NT teaches), then the Son's human relationship to the Father is also permanent. Saying "my God" is entirely consistent with being the divine Son in human nature.
The decisive counter: Thomas in the same post-resurrection context calls Jesus "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28) — and Jesus does not correct him. If Jesus is not God, why does he accept the address "my God" directed at himself, while also saying "my God" to the Father? Because both are true — the Son is God, and the Son in his human nature has the Father as his God. Two-natures Christology explains both simultaneously.
"After the resurrection, post-heaven, Jesus says 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' Jesus says 'my God' four times in Revelation 3:12 — even post-resurrection, post-glorification, exalted in heaven — Jesus still has a God above him. God does not have a God."
The complete response:
This is where the Psalm 22 incipit argument matters. When Jesus says "my God" from the cross (Matthew 27:46) he is quoting Psalm 22:1 — a deliberate prophetic declaration. But even apart from that: the Son in his human nature has the Father as his God. The incarnation did not end at the resurrection. Jesus remains the God-man permanently — his human nature does not disappear after the resurrection.
Hebrews 4:15 — "we have a high priest who has passed through the heavens" — post-ascension Jesus is still our high priest in his human nature, interceding for us. If the incarnation is permanent (which the NT teaches), then the Son's human relationship to the Father is also permanent. Saying "my God" is entirely consistent with being the divine Son in human nature.
The decisive counter: Thomas in the same post-resurrection context calls Jesus "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28) — and Jesus does not correct him. If Jesus is not God, why does he accept the address "my God" directed at himself, while also saying "my God" to the Father? Because both are true — the Son is God, and the Son in his human nature has the Father as his God. Two-natures Christology explains both simultaneously.
Verse 4 — Acts 3:13 — "God glorified his servant Jesus"
The argument:
"Acts 3:13 says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 'glorified his servant Jesus.' If God glorified Jesus — Jesus cannot be God himself. God glorifies his servants."
The complete response:
The word "servant" (Greek: pais) in Acts 3:13 is a direct quotation of Isaiah 52:13 — the opening verse of the Suffering Servant passage. The full Isaiah 52:13 reads: "Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up and shall be exalted." Peter is identifying Jesus as the Servant of Isaiah 52–53 — the very passage that describes the Servant bearing the sins of many, being pierced for our transgressions, and seeing the light of life after the anguish of his soul.
The Isaiah Servant is never described as a mere prophet. Isaiah 53:4–6 describes him bearing the sins of all — something only God can do (Isaiah 43:25 — "I, I am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake"). Isaiah 53:9–12 describes his resurrection and receiving the reward of the many — Peter is saying: this is who was glorified.
Furthermore: Acts 3:13 says the God of Abraham glorified Jesus. Compare Isaiah 6:1–5 (Isaiah sees YHWH glorified on his throne) with John 12:41 (John says Isaiah saw Jesus's glory). The one being glorified in Acts 3 is the same one whose glory Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6 — which John says was Jesus's glory. The glorification of the servant confirms the identity, not denies the divinity.
"Acts 3:13 says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 'glorified his servant Jesus.' If God glorified Jesus — Jesus cannot be God himself. God glorifies his servants."
The complete response:
The word "servant" (Greek: pais) in Acts 3:13 is a direct quotation of Isaiah 52:13 — the opening verse of the Suffering Servant passage. The full Isaiah 52:13 reads: "Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up and shall be exalted." Peter is identifying Jesus as the Servant of Isaiah 52–53 — the very passage that describes the Servant bearing the sins of many, being pierced for our transgressions, and seeing the light of life after the anguish of his soul.
The Isaiah Servant is never described as a mere prophet. Isaiah 53:4–6 describes him bearing the sins of all — something only God can do (Isaiah 43:25 — "I, I am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake"). Isaiah 53:9–12 describes his resurrection and receiving the reward of the many — Peter is saying: this is who was glorified.
Furthermore: Acts 3:13 says the God of Abraham glorified Jesus. Compare Isaiah 6:1–5 (Isaiah sees YHWH glorified on his throne) with John 12:41 (John says Isaiah saw Jesus's glory). The one being glorified in Acts 3 is the same one whose glory Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6 — which John says was Jesus's glory. The glorification of the servant confirms the identity, not denies the divinity.
Verse 5 — Revelation 3:12 — "My God" Four Times
The argument:
"In Revelation 3:12, after being raised, exalted, and glorified in heaven, Jesus says four times 'my God' — 'the name of my God, the city of my God, which comes down from heaven from my God.' Four times. Post-resurrection. God does not have a God."
The complete response:
This is the same two-natures answer as John 20:17. The Son in his permanent human nature has the Father as his God. This is not a limitation on his divinity — it is the nature of the incarnation, which is permanent.
But notice what the same chapter of Revelation says: Revelation 1:17–18 — Jesus says (in red letters, the Muslim's own standard) — "I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore." First and the last is YHWH's exclusive title in Isaiah 44:6 — "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God." Jesus uses YHWH's title for himself in the same book where he says "my God." Both are true simultaneously. The one who says "my God" also says "I am the first and the last" — both are in Revelation. Accepting one and ignoring the other is selective reading.
"In Revelation 3:12, after being raised, exalted, and glorified in heaven, Jesus says four times 'my God' — 'the name of my God, the city of my God, which comes down from heaven from my God.' Four times. Post-resurrection. God does not have a God."
The complete response:
This is the same two-natures answer as John 20:17. The Son in his permanent human nature has the Father as his God. This is not a limitation on his divinity — it is the nature of the incarnation, which is permanent.
But notice what the same chapter of Revelation says: Revelation 1:17–18 — Jesus says (in red letters, the Muslim's own standard) — "I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore." First and the last is YHWH's exclusive title in Isaiah 44:6 — "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God." Jesus uses YHWH's title for himself in the same book where he says "my God." Both are true simultaneously. The one who says "my God" also says "I am the first and the last" — both are in Revelation. Accepting one and ignoring the other is selective reading.
The Strongest Counter-Arguments — Build These Into Your Case
Counter-Argument 1 — "First and Last" — The Tawhid Trap — The Strongest Argument in the Debate
Setting it up:
He established a principle from the Muslim's own theology first — before going to the Bible. He asked: "According to Islam, can anyone claim the titles of Allah unqualified — 'the first and the last' — and it not be shirk (associating a partner with Allah)?"
The relevant concession: in Arabic, unqualified — only Allah can be called first and last without qualification.
Then the Christian opened Revelation 22:13 — in red letters (Jesus speaking): "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Asked: "Does Jesus qualify it?" The Muslim had to admit: "He does not."
The conclusion: "By your own standard — unqualified 'first and last' belongs only to God. Jesus claims it unqualified. Therefore by your own standard, Jesus claims to be God."
A common objection — and why it fails:
The reply given: "The Arabic and Greek are different languages. What is unique to Allah in Arabic is not the same in Greek."
The decisive counter: "The Arabic Bible uses the same title in Revelation 22:13. Look it up. And you already conceded that 'begotten' cannot be used for Allah in ANY language — not Arabic, not Greek, not Spanish — because it is the concept that is wrong, not the language. You cannot now say language makes the difference for 'first and last' when you did not accept language as an excuse for 'begotten.'"
The additional move the Christians did not fully make:
Isaiah 44:6 — YHWH says in Hebrew: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God." The Hebrew Bible already uses this title — in Hebrew — as the exclusive divine title. Jesus in Revelation uses the Greek equivalent of the same Hebrew title. Same concept. Same exclusivity. Different language — same claim.
He established a principle from the Muslim's own theology first — before going to the Bible. He asked: "According to Islam, can anyone claim the titles of Allah unqualified — 'the first and the last' — and it not be shirk (associating a partner with Allah)?"
The relevant concession: in Arabic, unqualified — only Allah can be called first and last without qualification.
Then the Christian opened Revelation 22:13 — in red letters (Jesus speaking): "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Asked: "Does Jesus qualify it?" The Muslim had to admit: "He does not."
The conclusion: "By your own standard — unqualified 'first and last' belongs only to God. Jesus claims it unqualified. Therefore by your own standard, Jesus claims to be God."
A common objection — and why it fails:
The reply given: "The Arabic and Greek are different languages. What is unique to Allah in Arabic is not the same in Greek."
The decisive counter: "The Arabic Bible uses the same title in Revelation 22:13. Look it up. And you already conceded that 'begotten' cannot be used for Allah in ANY language — not Arabic, not Greek, not Spanish — because it is the concept that is wrong, not the language. You cannot now say language makes the difference for 'first and last' when you did not accept language as an excuse for 'begotten.'"
The additional move the Christians did not fully make:
Isaiah 44:6 — YHWH says in Hebrew: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God." The Hebrew Bible already uses this title — in Hebrew — as the exclusive divine title. Jesus in Revelation uses the Greek equivalent of the same Hebrew title. Same concept. Same exclusivity. Different language — same claim.
Counter-Argument 2 — Jeremiah 23:5–6 — The Messiah Is Called Yahweh
Setting it up:
He used a four-step kal vahomer argument:
Step 1: Established that YHWH (LORD in all caps) alone is the Most High God — Psalm 83:18: "that they may know that you, whose name alone is YHWH, are the Most High over all the earth."
Step 2: Got the Muslim to agree that Jesus is the Messiah — the Muslim accepted this.
Step 3: Showed Jeremiah 23:5–6 — YHWH says "I will raise to David a righteous Branch, a King shall reign and prosper... And this is his name by which he will be called: YHWH our Righteousness." The Messiah is named YHWH.
Step 4: Connected the chain: Psalm 83:18 says YHWH alone is Most High. Jeremiah 23:6 calls the Messiah YHWH. The Muslim agreed Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore by the Bible's own testimony, Jesus = YHWH = Most High God.
This argument holds under pressure. He tried to say "Judah being saved and Israel dwelling safely was never fulfilled" — but that is a separate question about the timing of fulfillment, not about the name given to the Messiah in the verse. The name YHWH applied to the Messiah stands regardless of the fulfillment timing debate.
How to use this in your own debates:
This is one of the cleanest arguments in the entire Bible for the deity of the Messiah because it uses YHWH's own exclusive title (Psalm 83:18) and then applies it directly to the Messiah (Jeremiah 23:6) — from within the Hebrew OT. No NT required. The Muslim cannot say this is a Christian invention — it is in the Hebrew prophets.
He used a four-step kal vahomer argument:
Step 1: Established that YHWH (LORD in all caps) alone is the Most High God — Psalm 83:18: "that they may know that you, whose name alone is YHWH, are the Most High over all the earth."
Step 2: Got the Muslim to agree that Jesus is the Messiah — the Muslim accepted this.
Step 3: Showed Jeremiah 23:5–6 — YHWH says "I will raise to David a righteous Branch, a King shall reign and prosper... And this is his name by which he will be called: YHWH our Righteousness." The Messiah is named YHWH.
Step 4: Connected the chain: Psalm 83:18 says YHWH alone is Most High. Jeremiah 23:6 calls the Messiah YHWH. The Muslim agreed Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore by the Bible's own testimony, Jesus = YHWH = Most High God.
This argument holds under pressure. He tried to say "Judah being saved and Israel dwelling safely was never fulfilled" — but that is a separate question about the timing of fulfillment, not about the name given to the Messiah in the verse. The name YHWH applied to the Messiah stands regardless of the fulfillment timing debate.
How to use this in your own debates:
This is one of the cleanest arguments in the entire Bible for the deity of the Messiah because it uses YHWH's own exclusive title (Psalm 83:18) and then applies it directly to the Messiah (Jeremiah 23:6) — from within the Hebrew OT. No NT required. The Muslim cannot say this is a Christian invention — it is in the Hebrew prophets.
Counter-Argument 3 — Revelation 1:8 — Jesus Says "I Am the Almighty" in Red Letters
Setting it up:
The Muslim had been quoting red-letter verses (Jesus's words) throughout the debate. The same standard applies in reply:
"You have been quoting red letters all day. I am going to use red letters now. Open Revelation 1:8."
Revelation 1:8: "I am the Alpha and Omega, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty (pantokrator)."
Establish that pantokrator (Almighty) in Greek means absolute sovereign power over all things — it has never been used for any creature in the entire Greek Bible. He also established that the Muslim had said "I am the Almighty" would be a claim to be God.
One reply attempts to argue Revelation 1:8 is a shorter manuscript reading and the verse might be a later addition. The response: "You were quoting red letters all day. Now when the red letters say something you don't like, you want to question the manuscript? Are we accepting the Bible or not?"
The Greek grammar point the Christian added:
Pantokrator in Greek — from pan (all) + kratos (might) = one who has might over absolutely everything conceivably existing. This word has never been applied to any creature in the Greek OT (LXX) or NT. It is exclusively divine. When Jesus says it in red letters in Revelation 1:8 — he is claiming absolute divine sovereignty.
The Muslim had been quoting red-letter verses (Jesus's words) throughout the debate. The same standard applies in reply:
"You have been quoting red letters all day. I am going to use red letters now. Open Revelation 1:8."
Revelation 1:8: "I am the Alpha and Omega, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty (pantokrator)."
Establish that pantokrator (Almighty) in Greek means absolute sovereign power over all things — it has never been used for any creature in the entire Greek Bible. He also established that the Muslim had said "I am the Almighty" would be a claim to be God.
One reply attempts to argue Revelation 1:8 is a shorter manuscript reading and the verse might be a later addition. The response: "You were quoting red letters all day. Now when the red letters say something you don't like, you want to question the manuscript? Are we accepting the Bible or not?"
The Greek grammar point the Christian added:
Pantokrator in Greek — from pan (all) + kratos (might) = one who has might over absolutely everything conceivably existing. This word has never been applied to any creature in the Greek OT (LXX) or NT. It is exclusively divine. When Jesus says it in red letters in Revelation 1:8 — he is claiming absolute divine sovereignty.
Arguments That Were Incomplete — What to Add
Four Arguments Worth Adding
Missing Argument 1 — Luke 24:44 was used but not completed:
one strong line quotes Luke 24:44 — Jesus says "everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled." This was good — it established that Jesus is the fulfillment of all three sections of the Hebrew Bible. But the Christian did not then connect this to the specific texts that call the Messiah divine. He should have immediately gone to:
— Isaiah 9:6: The coming child is called El Gibbor (Mighty God) and Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father)
— Psalm 110:1: YHWH says to David's Lord "sit at my right hand" — Jesus uses this at his trial
— Daniel 7:13–14: The Son of Man receives latreia (divine worship)
Missing Argument 2 — The 1 John 5:7 exchange should have ended differently:
The Muslim brought up 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) as a later addition. He is correct that this verse has textual issues. It is worth noting that Church Fathers cited it in the 200s AD — which predates the manuscripts the Muslim was citing. The argument the stronger line is:
"I do not need 1 John 5:7. Remove it entirely. I still have John 1:1 (the Word was God), John 10:30 (I and the Father are one), John 20:28 (Thomas: my Lord and my God), Revelation 22:13 (I am the first and the last), Jeremiah 23:6 (the Messiah is called YHWH), Isaiah 9:6 (El Gibbor), Daniel 7:14 (divine worship to the Son of Man). My case does not depend on any single verse."
Missing Argument 3 — The "my God" objection was never fully answered:
The Muslim repeatedly used Jesus saying "my God" post-resurrection as his strongest point. The full two-natures response is often left unstated. The complete answer is:
"The incarnation is permanent. The Son of God took on human nature — not temporarily for 33 years but permanently. After the resurrection, Jesus's body is still a human body (Luke 24:39 — 'touch me and see, a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have'). He still has two natures. In his human nature, the Father is his God. In his divine nature, he is one being with the Father. 'My God' reflects the human nature. 'I and the Father are one' reflects the divine nature. Both are always simultaneously true."
Missing Argument 4 — The "different languages" escape route should have been closed immediately:
The Muslim's "Arabic and Greek are different languages" escape was clever but easily closed. The response:
"The concept of shirk in Islam is not language-dependent — it is about the act of associating a partner with Allah. If I said in Amharic 'Allah has a son,' I have committed shirk — not because of the language but because of the concept. You already proved this yourself: you said 'begotten' cannot be used for Allah in any language. Same logic applies. The concept of 'first and last' as an exclusive divine title is in the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 44:6), the Greek NT (Revelation 22:13), and the Arabic Bible (same verse translated). The concept is the same in all three languages."
one strong line quotes Luke 24:44 — Jesus says "everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled." This was good — it established that Jesus is the fulfillment of all three sections of the Hebrew Bible. But the Christian did not then connect this to the specific texts that call the Messiah divine. He should have immediately gone to:
— Isaiah 9:6: The coming child is called El Gibbor (Mighty God) and Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father)
— Psalm 110:1: YHWH says to David's Lord "sit at my right hand" — Jesus uses this at his trial
— Daniel 7:13–14: The Son of Man receives latreia (divine worship)
Missing Argument 2 — The 1 John 5:7 exchange should have ended differently:
The Muslim brought up 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) as a later addition. He is correct that this verse has textual issues. It is worth noting that Church Fathers cited it in the 200s AD — which predates the manuscripts the Muslim was citing. The argument the stronger line is:
"I do not need 1 John 5:7. Remove it entirely. I still have John 1:1 (the Word was God), John 10:30 (I and the Father are one), John 20:28 (Thomas: my Lord and my God), Revelation 22:13 (I am the first and the last), Jeremiah 23:6 (the Messiah is called YHWH), Isaiah 9:6 (El Gibbor), Daniel 7:14 (divine worship to the Son of Man). My case does not depend on any single verse."
Missing Argument 3 — The "my God" objection was never fully answered:
The Muslim repeatedly used Jesus saying "my God" post-resurrection as his strongest point. The full two-natures response is often left unstated. The complete answer is:
"The incarnation is permanent. The Son of God took on human nature — not temporarily for 33 years but permanently. After the resurrection, Jesus's body is still a human body (Luke 24:39 — 'touch me and see, a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have'). He still has two natures. In his human nature, the Father is his God. In his divine nature, he is one being with the Father. 'My God' reflects the human nature. 'I and the Father are one' reflects the divine nature. Both are always simultaneously true."
Missing Argument 4 — The "different languages" escape route should have been closed immediately:
The Muslim's "Arabic and Greek are different languages" escape was clever but easily closed. The response:
"The concept of shirk in Islam is not language-dependent — it is about the act of associating a partner with Allah. If I said in Amharic 'Allah has a son,' I have committed shirk — not because of the language but because of the concept. You already proved this yourself: you said 'begotten' cannot be used for Allah in any language. Same logic applies. The concept of 'first and last' as an exclusive divine title is in the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 44:6), the Greek NT (Revelation 22:13), and the Arabic Bible (same verse translated). The concept is the same in all three languages."
Complete Verse-by-Verse Arsenal for This Debate Format
When Someone Uses John 8:40 ("I am a man")
"Jesus does not say he is only a man. He says he is a man who told you truth heard from God. Two verses later in John 8:58 he says 'Before Abraham was, I AM' — the divine name of Exodus 3:14. In John 8, the same chapter, Jesus is both a man hearing from God AND the eternal I AM. The incarnation means both are true simultaneously. The doctrine has never been 'Jesus is not human' — it has always been 'Jesus is fully human AND fully divine.' John 8:40 proves the human nature. John 8:58 proves the divine nature. You cannot use one and ignore the other in the same chapter."
When Someone Uses John 17:3 ("The only true God... and Jesus Christ whom you sent")
"John 17:3 says eternal life is knowing the Father (the only true God) and Jesus Christ whom he sent. Notice: eternal life comes through knowing Jesus — not just through knowing God. If Jesus were merely a prophet, eternal life would come through knowing God and following Jesus's teachings — not through knowing Jesus himself. The verse places knowing Jesus as a condition of eternal life coordinate with knowing the Father. That is not what you say about a prophet. And in the same prayer, verse 5, Jesus says 'Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world existed.' Pre-world shared glory between Father and Son is not the language of a prophet. It is the language of divine co-existence."
When Someone Uses Acts 3:13 ("God glorified his servant Jesus")
"'Servant' in Acts 3:13 is the Greek word pais — and Peter is quoting Isaiah 52:13 directly: 'Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up and shall be exalted.' This is the opening verse of the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 52–53. Peter is identifying Jesus as the Isaiah Servant — the one who bears sins of many, is pierced for our transgressions, and is raised after the anguish of his soul. The Isaiah Servant is not a mere prophet. Isaiah 53:4 says he 'has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows' — which in Hebrew is nasa (to bear/lift up sin), the same word used in Leviticus 16:22 for the scapegoat bearing Israel's sins on the Day of Atonement. Only God can bear the sins of all humanity. And Isaiah 6 — the same book — shows YHWH on his throne being glorified. John 12:41 says Isaiah saw Jesus's glory in Isaiah 6. The one glorified in Acts 3 is the same one whose glory Isaiah saw."
💡 The Complete Closing Argument for This Debate Format"You came with seven verses showing Jesus in his human nature relating to the Father as a human does — hearing from God, calling God his God, being sent by God, being glorified by God. I accept all seven verses. None of them contradict the Trinity — they all describe the incarnate Son in his human nature. The doctrine has never been that Jesus's humanity disappeared. It says he is fully human AND fully divine. Now here is what you cannot answer: Isaiah 44:6 — YHWH says 'I am the first and the last; besides me there is no God.' Revelation 22:13 — Jesus says in red letters 'I am the first and the last.' Jeremiah 23:6 — the Messiah is named YHWH. Isaiah 9:6 — the coming child is called El Gibbor, the same title used for YHWH in Jeremiah 32:18. Daniel 7:14 — the Son of Man receives latreia — divine worship — the Greek word the Septuagint uses for worship due to God alone. Revelation 1:8 — Jesus says in red letters 'I am the Almighty' using pantokrator — a word never applied to any creature in the entire Greek Bible. John 20:28 — Thomas calls Jesus 'my Lord and my God' and Jesus accepts it without correction. By your own standard, when Jesus claims the unqualified title 'first and last' without qualification, he is claiming to be God. He does. By your own standard. The case is closed."
This is part of the FaithLogic study library — the biblical, historical and manuscript case that Jesus is God, with every claim linked to its source. Open the interactive version for search, cross-references, read-aloud, and the full library.