The Sean McDowell Show - David Wood Reacts to His Debate with Alex O’Connor

Episode Date: May 20, 2025

Christian apologist David Wood joins Sean McDowell to reflect on his recent debate with Alex O’Connor (aka Cosmic Skeptic). In this candid conversation, David watches back a few key clips, gives honest thoughts on his performance, and shares what he wishes he had said differently.*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://x.com/Sean_McDowellTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sean_mcdowell?lang=enInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

This was the topic for the recent epic debate between David Wood and Alex O'Connor, the cosmic skeptic. David Wood is here with us today for the first time to speak. Now that it's kind of been a week, looking back on the debate, giving us your feedback. First off, congratulations on blowing up the Christian and skeptical internet because it's been the topic of conversation. But I'm eager to get your reflections and thoughts about the debate. Thanks for flying all the way out here Southern California to sit down

with me. Well you have a fine show Sean so. Good start. Alright so I've got a few backstories we have some clips that we're gonna we're gonna walk through I want to get your reaction to but I have a few kind of 30,000 foot view just questions because you've done a lot of debates like this What do you think is the value of a debate like this today? Because I'm torn because a lot of people watch this they like the drama But I look at the comments like my guy won your guy won and I'm like is anybody really concerned with truth here What do you think the value is? Yeah, I think a lot of people think that debates

are significantly more important than I do. Like, I think of them as like kind of introducing your arguments, seeing how your arguments stand up to criticism. And then you go back and reformulate your arguments based on the criticism. And then you go to the next debate. And it's similar to what you did in your research on the deaths of the apostles and so on.

You do your research, you put it out there and then people criticize it and then you say, oh, okay, well, if they've got a point, then I need to take that into consideration. And then you adapt. But it's the same thing, my background is in philosophy. Like all philosophers do is you put out an argument and then you get your criticisms back and then you either modify it or eventually have to reject it if you think no the criticisms are actually stronger than my argument and therefore I need to drop it. So why this debate? Well this was his idea and he wanted to debate it and we originally scheduled to debate it at DebateCon. But I thought it was interesting

in that normally this is a topic you debate with Muslims. I've had a number of debates with atheists that's usually on the existence of God or some argument for the existence of God or the problem of evil, something, an argument against the existence of God. So there are- Makes sense.

There are arguments with atheists are usually along those lines. Whereas Muslims, you're not arguing whether God exists or something like that, or whether there's a supernatural or anything like that. You're debating, did Jesus claim to be God? Did he rise from the dead? Is the New Testament reliable? And so on.

So you have a different collection of interests there. But here you had an atheist who's interested in what Jesus claimed. So yeah, that is fascinating. I atheist who's interested in what Jesus claimed. Yeah, that is fascinating. I guess he's been spending a good amount of his time thinking about this very topic. Maybe sum up for us your basic case that you took and why you took, you gave the case and the approach that you took. There are obviously a bunch of different ways you can argue that Jesus is claiming to be God in the New Testament. I use the argument I use just because I think it's kind of overlooked and I think it's pretty

obvious what's going on once you understand what's going on in the first century. So going back, and we have this in Philo of Alexandria who was first century BC to first century AD AD but he starts talking about these he's talking about these two powers in heaven and you had in the in the Targums the Targums were basically translations from Hebrew into Aramaic and but they would add commentaries they would add some commentaries in there and they give some very interesting commentaries on how they're interpreting certain Old Testament texts

and it just kept coming up that there are all these passages where it seems like there are two powers in heaven and Alan Siegel wrote his book that brought this to light. He's Jewish by the way, not Christian. Yeah, uh-huh, and he brought this out there that in the first century you have this fairly common belief that there are somehow two powers in heaven and they're trying to figure out how you reconcile that with monotheism because they don't want to compromise monotheism and yet they can't ignore what some of these passages really sound like they're saying. So they try to deal with this in different ways and eventually,

eventually it gets deemed heretical within Judaism but this is afterwards. In the first century, it's fairly common. And people wouldn't have had really a problem with saying, hey, this passage looks like there are two powers in heaven. What they would have a problem with is saying, this guy from Nazareth is one of them. But once you understand that, all these passages fall into place of what's going on. We see Jesus doing it multiple times and in multiple ways, with the father-son language, with him trying to modify their idea of the Messiah, saying, hey, whose son is the Messiah?

Oh, son of David. Actually, David calls him Lord, so what's going on there? And then, of course, at his trial, are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And he said, yes, and he said, I am, and you will see the Son of Man coming, seated at the right hand of power coming with the clouds of heaven.

But all these passages are doing the same thing. It's Father, Son, Lord, Lord, Ancient of Days, and Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. It seems in all these cases, he's saying, hey, yeah, there are these two powers that you guys are familiar with, and I'm one of them. But then you just see everyone else doing the same thing. With John, it's in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, strong

a distinction between the Word and God, and yet calling the Word God. You've got it, and you have the same thing in the Philippians' creed or hymn, whatever it happens to be, but it's he's in nature God or in the form of God, but he humbles himself and then later he's exalted by God to the highest, to have the highest name, which would be Yahweh. And so what's going on? He's in nature God, he humbles himself, but there's God who exalts him after he humbles himself. What's going on here? You just see this over and over again. It's, they keep referring to these two powers

and saying that Jesus is one of them. And then Alex actually brought up the stoning of Stephen, but as soon as he did, I pointed out at the end there, what really causes the Jewish leaders and the people there to flip out. The violence, so to speak. Yeah, it's, I mean, he is, Stephen is brutally rebuking them. It's like, your ancestors killed the prophets and look what you did to the out. The violence. Yeah, it's, I mean, he is, Stephen is brutally rebuking them. It's like your ancestors killed the prophets and look what you did to the Messiah. And they're sitting,

they're taking it. They're mad, but they're taking it until he says, hey, I see God and I see Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. That's when they close their ears and they rush at him. And it's, this is clearly something that's enraging them. And again, it wouldn't have been terribly controversial to say two powers in heaven. The idea was we're still wrestling with this. We have to figure out how this is still monotheistic. So they're still wrestling with it. Again, the problem would be that the carpenter from Nazareth, the guy who built your cousin Ezra's table in Nazareth, that guy's one of those two powers. That's what really sets people off.

And so it's just a situation where everyone seems to be doing the same thing. And it's not in one source or in one later source or something like that. It's you go Mark, it's in there multiple times. You go Q, it's in there. You go Matthew, you go, whether you're just going through the Gospels or you're you know going to the sources behind the sources that are the scholars are

talking about, it's just everywhere and everyone is kind of doing the same thing but they're all doing it in different ways. Again, it's you know Ancient of Days, Son of Man, Father, Son, Lord, Lord, in nature God but also exalted by God, God and the Word who was God and it just seems everyone's doing the exact same thing. It's like it's in too many places in too many different ways. Let me put it this way, since it's in different places in so many different ways, it seems like it's people independently doing it, but they're all doing the same thing. I didn't expect you to take that route, going back to the Old Testament and laying it out,

which was helpful rather than just jump into the New Testament. Two questions that I got, four clips I want you to react to. It's been a week since this debate. Do you have any reflections back now that you've had time for it to settle? There's been a ton of activity online. You probably haven't even watched that would be my guess. But looking back on over a week, what are your thoughts now? Pretty much the same, maybe a little better

than when I walked out. Okay. I know people have been commenting. I haven't paid attention to any of it except for when people are just asking me something directly in a live stream or something like that. But while we're debating, I loved my opening argument. I like that argument.

Rebuttals, I thought went pretty well. He seemed like he came in prepared to argue against certain positions that I didn't even make. And then he just kind of stuck with him. It looked like he expected me to come in there and start arguing from John. And then he just starts in his opening statement

going after John. And it's like, I brought in John as like a supplementary point, but my main argument was from the earlier material. Which is, that's normally what atheists demand. That's why I was doing it. Right? They normally say you can't go to John because that's... Yeah, that surprised me.

That's a later source. So you have to go to the earliest material. So I just come out arguing from the earliest material and then he comes out arguing John. And so I thought that was interesting. So I was fine with the opening statements and rebuttals. The discussion period, the discussion period, I just had a, I can tell you what I was planning as soon as we sat down, because he was given a second rebuttal. And so he kept harping on the proskeneo, even though, like I'd already explained it, so yes, that can mean in a totally normal human sense

that you're just bowing to someone to show respect or something like that. There are other places where it's clearly a religious context, and that's when it would mean worship and that's why it's translated as worship. So I said that quickly but then in his second rebuttal he just kept going with it like he prepared for it. Like he just he prepared a bunch of arguments that oh if you're saying proskeneo only means worship look at all these people

worshiping us. No one said that ever. But anyway it was fine with all that. Then in the discussion period, kind of just, I don't know, had a massive energy crash. And I thought it was, I thought I looked way, I mean, like physically thought I looked way worse than people said that. Because when I was describing it, when I was describing it, people told me later after they watched it, like, oh, I thought you like fell over stage, the way you were describing it. But no, basically, I normally stay up at night and then sleep during the day. And so when I traveled, I stayed up all night. And then instead of going to sleep, I traveled to California. And then you get to California, and you

have to do things during the day. And then you try to sleep at night. But I can't sleep at night, because I'm not used to sleeping at night. And so anyway, that's what was going on. And so I drank a bunch of energy drinks before the debate. And then while he's giving his opening statement, I started zoning out.

I started going, well, he's not talking about anything that's related to me right now, so I could just kind of not pay attention to this right now until he gets to something I'm talking about. And then I start realizing, no, he's sticking with this. He's actually sticking with all these points that I don't think are actually related to what I said. But if I don't pay attention right now,

then I'm not going to have anything to say during my, I have to give a 12 minute rebuttal. So I have to be responding to what he's saying. And then, yeah, same thing in the first rebuttal and second rebuttal, but then like during the discussion period, it was, I don't know if you've ever fallen asleep while driving. That's exactly what it felt like.

And I didn't realize until I got home, I was like, I don't get, I mean, yeah, I was massively sleep deprived. He probably was too, because he traveled across the ocean. So we're in the same boat. And I'm like, I'm used to it. I'm used to being massively sleep deprived. And I told my son, I said, I had a bunch of caffeine right beforehand.

He goes, did you take caffeine pills or energy drinks? I go, energy drinks. And he goes, the kind with tons of sugar in them? And I go, yeah. And he goes, I always crash after those. And it didn't even hit me, because I don't normally drink the sugary ones. I just figure, oh, I'll get a bunch of sugar in me.

Anyways, I felt really low energy. And I felt like I wasn't comprehending and so I thought I just looked like I was falling asleep on stage. I didn't think you physically looked that way. Well, that's what other people said. I didn't even know that, that's news to me. That's why I said I felt a little better about that

afterwards, because I assumed that I looked like I was ready to fall over and people said, no, you look normal. Fair enough. All right. So I've got four clips for you and these may or may not be the ones that you would pick and there's a lot we're going to leave out and just not address cause you guys covered a lot of ground, but these kind of seem to be illustrative and people online were wrestling with these kinds of passages.

So this first clip has to deal with whether, you know, Jesus could have risen Lazarus by his own accord, which is a question that Alex asked to you. Let's take a look at the clip and then I want your reaction. Right. Could Jesus have risen Lazarus from the dead of his own accord on his own authority? I suppose, yeah. You suppose? Because that whole authority has been given to him.

It's been given to him by God, right, which the way that I read that is that the Father has delegated the authority that is rightfully his to Jesus. And it's often said to me that Jesus raising people from the dead of his own authority is actually an indication of his divinity. Because we have Old Testament passages of people raising people from the dead, like Elijah and Elisha, and the point is always made that, well, they pray before they rise from the dead. Jesus doesn't pray. But before he raises Lazarus in John chapter 11,

he looks upward and says, Father, I thank you for having heard me. I know that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so they may believe that you have sent me." And when he says this, he cries out with a loud voice, Lazarus, come out. So Jesus is not only praying before raising Lazarus, but also saying that I always do this, it's just I'm doing it right now publicly so there's no confusion that you're the one

who sent me to do this. And so even in instances where Jesus appears to perform miracles of his own accord such as calming the storm or indeed Raising other people from the dead like the the widow's child he tells us here in John's gospel that he Always is in communication with God beforehand But right now he's saying so publicly so that people will know that he sent him Why does Jesus need to pray before he raises as a risk from the dead? Now what your reaction to this and I've had the chance to think about this watch the debate a couple times

Obviously you're thinking on the spot But it seems like he's getting at the distinction that you know Peter and Paul and Elijah raised people from the dead Mm-hmm, and apologists typically say, well, they had to pray for the power to do so. Jesus did from his own authority. And Alex is like, wait a second, in John 15, Jesus also prayed and says, he always prays. Your thoughts, expansion on that clip in your response. It's another situation where he seemed prepared for certain arguments that I wasn't using.

And so he's pointing out, Christians have argued this and so on. And then he kind of sticks with it. Where notice, I wasn't, that wasn't my argument. That wasn't my argument. He's responding to a different point and just saying some people. So again, it seems like he showed up with a list of responses to arguments and then kind of rolled with the ones he kind of brought with him even if I didn't bring them up. But as far as what this is actually saying, there's a couple of things involved.

So what Jesus actually says, he's just acknowledging the Father here, right? Like what's the part that he thinks is showing that Jesus like can't perform a miracle without I guess like getting permission or something like that? I think that's a fair question to ask of the text. I think he might be reading more into it that is there. I think that's fair. I have some thoughts on this. Anything else that you want to weigh into how you would say?

Because you, go ahead. I'm still not clear on what his point is, given what it's actually saying. Given what John 15 actually says. What do you mean? Are we talking about Lazarus? Or John 11? Yeah, sorry, John 11. Good point.

So here's, yeah exactly. The passage, so let me take a step back and I'll tell you what I think about this so you can tell me if you agree or disagree. I thought about this question, could Jesus do this by his own accord? I think your answer was if Jesus is God and being God means somebody has the ability to raise the dead, then Jesus would have such ability. So that's a long, I can break down, I can break down what I'm you know what I'm thinking along these lines. So as far as the actual passage, it says, then Jesus looked up and said, Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always

hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here that they may believe that you sent me. So he's saying that he's talking so that these people can hear him. I guess Alex is interpreting this as Jesus can't do anything without praying, or Jesus can't do anything without receiving the authority to do so. And there's just, there are multiple directions you can go with for a response there. You could be thinking in terms of like the eternal generation of the son, or you could just be thinking in terms of Jesus is incarnate. He, according to Philippians, is in a state of humbling himself, and he's not there to glorify himself.

It's the Father who exalts him after he has humbled himself. And so if you are in a state of humbling yourself, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness, it seems to fit perfectly well with Christian theology and not to be like, oh my goodness, Jesus is here as a human on Earth and he's speaking to the Father. So yeah, it's just a weird situation where it's like, okay, that's basic Christian theology. I don't know where you're going with this. Fair enough. For me, I think logically Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead

without, you know, the authority of the Father because he's been given all authority and if you are God and raising the dead is a part of being God and Jesus was, he has this authority. But metaphysically when we look at what John and the rest of the scriptures teach about the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct beings, but they are one and always act in unison, then the answer I think would be no. Well, then by the way, that's the exact point Jesus makes in John five. That's right.

When they kind of accuse him of like, you're some additional God. And then he clarified, and then when he's talking about it, he's no, I'm not. And Muslims actually use passages from John 5, I can of my own self do nothing. They say, see, Jesus can't do anything. It's no, separate from God, separate from the Father,

I don't do anything. He's pointing out that he's not some additional separate God, he's one with the Father. But as far as like on the issue of authority, can Jesus by his own power and authority do these things? I mean, I'm thinking in terms of like something that came up a bunch, the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven

from Daniel seven. You look at that and he comes with the clouds. So he's already Yahweh. Yahweh is the one in the Old Testament who comes with the clouds. So he's already Yahweh, but he approaches the ancient of days and he's given authority.

And so you look at that and it's like, wait, if he's already Yahweh, how is he then given authority? What sense does that make? Well, if you interpret that in light of things like the incarnation and so on, then I don't know, I think it all holds together really well. I think like impressively that you have Old Testament,

New Testament, you have multiple sources, you can actually put them together. I mean, if you got like, you know, John one, in the beginning was the word, word was with God, the word was God, word becomes flesh. You have the same thing in Philippians two, that being in very nature, God did not consider equality with God,

something to be used to his own advantage. Rather, he made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant. So he's lowering himself. And then he lives here and he's saying that he's been given authority to do these things. But when, his incarnate state, and then he dies and rises from the dead

and he comes back to his followers, all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. That sounds like you have in Daniel 7 13 to 14 like a miniature version of the entire basically chronology of the Christ that he's in nature God that he lowers himself and then that he's exalted. And so I don't know it's that seems to be everywhere as well. I think you're right to go to John 5 where 19 through 20 Owen says, truly, that seems to be everywhere as well. I think you're right to go to John 5, where 19 through 20, Owen says, truly, truly, I say to you,

the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. There's a necessary unity that's there because of their relationship, and of course the Holy Spirit is as well in patches I won't go into. The passage itself, to go to it, it it's interesting Jesus lifted up his eyes and

said this is back to the Lazarus passage in 11, Father I thank you that you have heard me I knew that you always hear me. Now he's saying thank you that you hear me he's not saying I always pray for your power when I do a miracle Which is how Alex it doesn't say that He says but I said this on account of the people standing around So he's modeling for them in one sense what it means to be the perfect human being in obedience to the father That they may believe that you sent me. So the miracle is a kind of sign to attest the identity that he's claimed

throughout John and beyond. So I think, and of course, in shortly before this in 25 through 26, he says, I am the resurrection in the life. You pointed that out. That's one of the, I am statements. I'll just contrast this and we'll go to the next one is I went this, maybe go back and look at some of the other miracle claims, Elijah, Peter, and Paul, and the one in acts three jumps out to me as a contrast because the, you have the apostles

in particular, Peter here who tells the layman from birth in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk that's very different than Jesus prayer saying I know you always hear me it's different in this sense I think it's clear the Apostles are instruments through whom Jesus is the one who really heals it's his name it's his power and Peter repeats this again in Acts 3 13 through 16. It says, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His servant Jesus whom you delivered over

and denied in the presence of Pilate when he had decided to release him. But then they say, but you denied the Holy and Righteous One. Who's the Holy and the Righteous One? It seems to be Jesus. and asked for murder to be granted to you. And you killed the author of life. Who's the author of life? This is Jesus. And then it says whom God raised from the dead. What's interesting about that is in John two, what does it tell us?

Jesus says, I lay down my life and I take it up again. So you have the father who told God, the father in this passage, raised the dead. Jesus raised that. Why we're back to them working in perfect. Unison much more could be said here, but I, I don't think the argument and objection that he's raising that Jesus is healing in the same manner as everybody else really holds when we compare this passage in John 11 with Acts 3 and the other healings. No, it doesn't, but I have to say one thing I point out. I love the approach. In what sense? Tell me why.

In the sense that it's just a reversal of the way things normally go, right? So notice where... The normal apists argument. The normal way the entire debate would go. Normally it would be Christians arguing, taking passages about Jesus being God and then the skeptics saying, I don't trust any of those sources. Those were later made up and those were embellished and that was legendary development and things like that. Whereas I come out arguing from our earliest material and then he goes to the gospel of John to interpret the earlier material

in light of the gospel of John. I mean, think about it. It's like, isn't that much better than like Jesus? So you got Alex isn't a Jesus myth-er, but then you have the skeptics and they're saying, you can't trust the later material and so on. Isn't it, wouldn't it be interesting if the new atheist thing became arguing by wrestling

with the meanings of various claims in the gospel of John and using those to interpret the earlier material. If they're going that road, I say stick with that for a while. Go with that. Roll with that for like five years. Christians don't even bother like flipping out about it. Let these guys focus on John and saying this is where we're gonna get our Christology from and that's a great shit. I agree that. Well said. Now the other discussion we had Let these guys focus on John and saying, this is where we're gonna get our Christology from. And see where that goes. That's a great shift. I agree with that, well said.

Now the other discussion we had is on John 32 to 34, in which Jesus cites Psalms 82, which is probably one of the most debated and contestant passages in the New Testament. Let's watch this clip and then I'll get your take. There's one place in the gospels where Jesus is directly accused of claiming to be God. Do you know where it is? It's in John chapter 10. In John chapter 10, his Jewish opponents come to him and say, if you're the Messiah, tell us plainly. And Jesus responds by saying, I and the Father

are one. I'm told by Christians this is a direct Christological claim. Who can claim to be identical to the Father except for someone who is God? And there was no confusion about this. The Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him to death for making this claim. Now how does Jesus respond? Does he agree with them?

Or does he correct them? He says, in response to the Jews, is it not written in your law, I have said you are gods? Quoting, as you'll probably realize, the psalm that I just quoted and explained briefly a moment ago. So, directly asked about his Christological status, Jesus decides to quote a psalm

which is explicitly talking about beings who are not in fact Yahweh and yet are called gods. Why would he pick that psalm if the message he wanted to convey was that he is in fact in some sense God, that is identical to Yahweh? Jesus continues, if he called them gods why wouldn't he call me God, the one who the father has sent and set aside? So why then do you accuse me of blasphemy? Because I said I am God's son. Like in the divine council, you shall be cool gods, that is sons of the most high." So it's a misunderstanding. Jesus immediately afterwards clarifies further and says, believe the works, that is the works of my father through me, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. Another pretty intense Christological claim.

What does it mean? Let's turn to the most important Christological chapter in John's Gospel, which is of course chapter 17. Jesus is praying first for his disciples, then for all of his believers. Remember, in John chapter 10 so far, Jesus has made two claims. I am the father of one, and I am in the father, and the father is in me. Addressing the relationship that he has to his father, which David thinks is the two powers in heaven. What does Jesus say in his own words?

John chapter 17, verse 20, onwards. My prayer is not for them alone, the disciples. I pray also for those who believe in me through their message, that is all of you, that all of them may be one. Hen, H-E-N, the same Greek word used in John 10. Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us. This is crucial, this is pivotal. When Jesus is asked to clarify his Christological status. What is his relationship to the father? He says I'm in the father and the fathers in me

He then later prays that all of us will one day be in God in the same way just as Cathos in the Greek which doesn't just mean as it means in the same way as just as If this is supposed to indicate that Jesus is claiming to be identical to Yahweh. What does that make the rest of us and that Jesus is claiming to be identical to Yahweh. What does that make the rest of us? And how I'm interested in knowing, is David going to interpret these verses where Jesus is specifically asked to clarify his relationship to the Father and tells us that he is only in relationship with him in such a way that everybody else can be in relationship with them too.

Alright, so there's a lot in this clip. John 32 goes to Psalm 82, but then brings back John 17, arguing that what he means by, you know, the Father and I are one now means something different that includes us in John 17. Your takeaway. So, yeah, a couple of issues. As far as the Jesus saying, you are God's, I responded to that and that's my take on it is. So Jesus calls himself the son of God.

They interpret that as claiming to be God. He's not using a metaphor. If you're claiming to be the son of God, it is in a divine, they're interpreting him as claiming this in a divine sense. And so they object to this and they're ready to kill him for it. And he responds, isn't it written in your law?

You are gods. And you look and in the Old Testament, so that's Elohim there in the Psalm, that is a broader term than our term for God. So it's used of like ours, like our term it can be used of God or of false gods. It's also used of angels and in 82, I know there are other people who interpret it as like a heavenly counselor or something false gods. It's also used of angels and in 82, I know there are other people who interpret it

as like a heavenly counselor or something like that. I just interpret it as like heavenly judges who are the representatives of God. But regardless, you've got someone who's called Elohim. And Jesus points out, wait a minute. So they're saying, hey, you made this claim about yourself and we're supposed to execute you for making this claim. And he responds, what are you talking about?

It's in the law that God has called these people Elohim. Therefore, just because you say that someone has this divine title does not mean you execute them. You have to figure out whether this actually comes from God or if it's just this person making things up about himself. And so it's like a loophole in their law as far as what they're trying to do to him. He's saying, no, you have to determine

whether this title comes from God, otherwise you can't execute me. So that's how I interpret it, not that he's saying, one, you're God's, or that you guys are just as much God's as I am or something like that. All that sounds weird. I mean, just, I don't know, reading the passage just sounds like he's saying, you can't execute

me for this. No, you can't. There's another take on this that I think is really interesting. This comes from Ed Komashevsky and Rob Bowman in their recent book on the incarnate Christ. And they point out for most of church history, the gods were viewed as human rulers. That's how people interpreted Psalm 82. Today, most view the gods as kind of deities

worshiped by other nations. But if you look in the Psalm itself, he announces that they will die like men. So his point is that they're not real gods at all, which makes sense. And he's criticizing them. They judge unjustly show partiality to the wicked Don't give the right justice to the weak and the fatherless They neither have knowledge nor understanding verse 5 and of course in verse 6

I said you were God's sons of the most high all of you. Nevertheless like men you shall die and fall like princes Now what's interesting is the way what they give on this passage is they point towards 1035 and John Says scripture cannot be broken Now this comes right after obviously verse 34. They would argue it's best understood as causing it to be obviously verse 34. They would argue it's best understood as causing it to be unfulfilled is what it means for scripture to be broken. You see the same interpretation in John 7 23. So this text in Psalm 82 is pointing forward

towards positive fulfillment so to speak. So they judge unjustly but the scriptures can't be broken. Jesus is the one who judges justly. They walk in darkness. Jesus was sinless. So they pick up stones to kill him. Now I don't know if I can fully settle which of those two I land on, but I think they're both possible interpretations of this passage, but they both make sense of them picking up stones and him clearly claiming to be God and their plausible readings.

And I think if the point was to say, oh, no, no, I'm not God, Jesus easily could have said, oh, I'm not making myself out to be God and clarify this point, but he doesn't do that. Yeah, and that's kind of the point. That's why in the debate I was talking about, it basically sounds like Alex was arguing that Jesus is just a terrible communicator, because think if Jesus here is saying, what? You guys are interpreting, what? That's what you think I'm saying? No, I'm not saying that. No one seems to have gotten that message. I mean, he's eventually No one seems to have gotten that message. I mean, he's eventually executed and all his followers walk away

thinking that he's claiming to be divine. And so like by the end, it's basically two categories. There are people who are rejecting him as a blasphemer and there are followers who are praying to him and worshiping him. And so it's like, did people just miss this? Did people just miss it? Because it sounds like Alex's view is Jesus saying this claims and people interpret it. And he's like, no people just miss this? Did people just miss it? Because it sounds like Alex's view is Jesus saying

this claims and people interpret it and he's like, no, no, no, no, I'm gonna clarify for you, come on. You're gods, why would you interpret me as like seriously, like I'm seriously claiming to be divine when you have things like that? And she's like, if that's, the entire gospel of John makes no sense. I mean, it starts off in the beginning,

it was the word, words with God, the word was God, and you have the incarnation, and then all the claims of Jesus, and then, you know, towards the end, you have Thomas answered in my Lord and my God. You're basically stuck with, if you think Alex is right that Jesus was saying, one, I'd be interested,

do you think this actually happened? Do you think this stuff in the Gospel of John, this conversation is accurately recorded and so on. Do you believe this happened when we're assessing the claims of Jesus? If you do, and if that's your theory, I don't know why you'd go with the theory that doesn't make sense of the entire rest of the book instead of the views that we're talking about, which would make sense in light of the rest of the book. But it kind of forces you to say Jesus is a bad communicator. He did say early on in the debate

that he thinks John is the least reliable gospel. Actually would push back on that. And yet it's the one he focused on. Not here, but he's just saying for the sake of conversation, given that these are true, considered to be true by Christians, does he claim to be God? But that's, I actually have a problem with that.

If we're saying, if we're asking the question, did Jesus claim to be God? Oh, not just within the text, did he actually claim to be God? Yeah, I mean if we're asking a historical question, did this person who lived at this time make a claim about himself? That's a historical question. Agreed. If you're going to text that you don't believe and you don't even believe he said these things, because keep in mind I'm sure Alex believes that

there are certain claims in the New Testament that Jesus actually made. Do you believe he said this? And if you're just saying well for argument's sake you Christians believe it, well the question isn't do Christians believe that he's that he claimed to be God, it's did he make this claim? And so it's just it's just weird to me to be making a historical claim and then to go to sources that you don't even believe in. So you don't believe they actually answer the question. You just believe, well, if you're a Christian,

you have a problem in your theology or something like that. Well, if he watches this and wants to clarify, it would be helpful to know. That's fair. I'd be surprised if he actually believes that Jesus said these things. I think so too. I think you're right about that.

And that would kind of be an issue. If you don't it then it's like I don't know kind of What do you really think like what do you really think he said like I'd be more interested in that okay fair enough No, I do think when he goes to John 17. I think John 17 is making a different point Definitely then John 10 is he makes himself out to be God So the oneness there is in terms of his nature and his being. John 17, the whole point is he says in verse 20, he says,

I do not ask these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one just as you, Father, on me and I in you, that they may also be in us. The question is in what sense will they be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. In other words that there's this unity and this oneness that the world will see as a testimony backing up the claims of who Jesus is. Verse 26 says, I made known to them your name. Back up one verse, so going to verse 25. Because if you're interpreting this as, hey,

the disciples are basically just going to be like me. I'm just kind of further along than them, but they're going to be exactly like me. I mean, look at what this actually says in the same passage that Alex is pulling up. He says, righteous father, though the world does not know you, I know you and they know that you have sent me. Think about how that ties in with Matthew 11 27, which is also in Luke.

So this is Q, this is early material. But Jesus says, all authority has been given to me, but he says, no one knows the son except the father, and no one knows the father except the son and anyone to whom the son chooses to reveal him. But think about this, I'm the only one who really knows the father. The son is the only one who really knows the father,

but I can introduce you to him. It sounds like he has a special relationship. He's the one, it's like you've got father and son eternally, and then he's bringing other people into the relationship with them. And I don't know how you would avoid that in the passage, but look what Jesus says right here. This is lining up really well with Matthew 11 27,

that no one knows the father except the son and anyone to whom the son chooses to reveal him. What's he say? Righteous father, though the world does not know you, I know you and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them,

and that I myself may be in them. How you're interpreting this as Jesus is just claiming to be like his followers in, you know, I don't know, it just seems. Which again, I'm happy if you wanna go this route with John. Fair enough. Keep going with it. I do not believe it's gonna be successful. You invite it. I mean, verse, it just seems. Which again, I'm happy if you want to go this route with John. Keep going with it. I do not believe it's going to be successful.

You invite it. I mean, verse five it says, and now father glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Says it twice in this passage. So there's a certain kind of unity that pre-exist that's not the same.

They're being brought into a oneness with them. In verse 26, Alan in this will look at the next clip he says, and I made known to them your name and I will continue to make it known that the love which you have loved me may be in them and I in them. How will they know us? By our love. That's the kind of unity he's talking about here. Not the same kind of unity that God, the Father has with Jesus. So I don't think you can just jump from chapter 10 to chapter 17 without the context. But with that said, a big issue that came up was on the question of the worship of Jesus.

Now this wasn't a part of your initial case, but it came up. A lot of people were talking about it. So let's watch this about two and a half minute clip, and I'll get your take. We're told that Jesus only rightly accepts worship. This is interesting by the way. David flashed on a few passages of Jesus accepting worship in the gospels.

The word most commonly translated as worship in the New Testament is proskeneo, which means to bow down or prostrate before a higher authority. And of course Jesus received this proskeneo worship, therefore he must be God. If that is the case, then we have to consider the fact that David in the Septuagint, for example, bows down proskeneo before Esau. That Joseph's brothers, Proskeneo before him when he's governor of Egypt. That the entire nation of Israel offers Proskeneo worship to King David as well.

That locked Proskeneo before two angels. Proskeneo is littered throughout the Old and also the New Testament by the way. In the parable of the unmerciful servant when one of the servants returns he offers proskeneo to his master. And this is a story that Jesus is saying. Also let's not forget that in Revelation Jesus promises that his true followers, their enemies will proskeneo worship before them. Jesus their enemies will proskeneo worship before them. Jesus himself in Revelation is saying that human beings will receive proskeneo worship. If proskeneo worship is something

that only God can receive, then all of these people sinned, all of them. The entire assembly of Israel sinned when they bowed down before David. I don't think that's a good interpretation. There is another word that sometimes translated as worship, which is latruo. This is religious cultic worship that is only offered to God. Nowhere in the gospels is this offered to Jesus. How many times is proskeneo worship, how many times is any kind of worship accepted by Jesus in Luke's gospel? Does anybody know? Zero.

The word comes up three times. Twice in the Temptation of the Desert where it's discussed and once at the end after Jesus has ascended so he can say nothing about it and in a verse that's contested in our manuscript editions. How many times in Mark does Jesus accept worship? This time the answer is two, but one of those is the demon lesion. It's usually translated as throws himself at his feet before Jesus. And the other is when the Roman soldiers mockingly worship Jesus, they offer proskeneo. Why? Because he's the king of the Jews. Because proskeneo worship is something offered to kings, higher authorities.

I'll keep going perhaps in my further rebuttal, but if worship is something that is only due to God, then there are a lot more sinners in the Bible than we think. He had a little smirk. He liked the point that he was making. Give me your reaction to this. Well, I responded to it, but then he made a much kind of bigger deal out of it. And I don't know if people caught it because it's actually pretty simple. So proskeneo is like prostrating or bowing down. And it can be used in a purely human sense of one person bowing down to show be used in a purely human sense of one person bowing down to show humility before another person. If it's in a religious context, it's the word for worship. That's how you refer to worshiping someone. And so this is actually what I was going to, when he was giving his second rebuttal,

because then he just kept going on and on with it. When I actually explained that, I said, no, if it's in a merely human context, here's what it would mean. If it's in a religious context, it means worship, and that I quoted a passage from Matthew where it's clearly a religious context. But then in his second rebuttal, he just kept going with it, more examples of, oh, this would mean that this person's worshiping this,

like, I don't know if you missed what I said, but I acknowledged that, because everyone would acknowledge that proskeneo can just mean one person bowing down to another but just I mean let me let me give you an example of it and so this is this is what I when he's giving a second rebuttal and I knew that we were having a discussion period I was like okay we can discuss this and all I did was pull up the passages of proskeneo and I was just gonna go does this sound like a religious context or merely just bowing down to a person?

By the time we got to the point where it was mine, I was, I was, I was. You were spent. I was. Sugar was kicking in. But yeah, so quick passage. This is Jesus walking on the water. Immediately Jesus made the disciples to get into the boat and so on.

Shortly before dawn, Jesus went out to them walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. It's a ghost, they said and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them, take courage, it is I, don't be afraid. Lord, if it's you, Peter replied, tell me to come to you on the water. Come, he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and beginning to sink, cried out, Lord, save me.

So he's sinking. Jesus is walking on the water, he's sinking, Lord save me. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. You of little faith, he said, why did you doubt? And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him saying, truly you are the son of God. So you've got, he's walking on the water, sounds divine. Peter cries out,

Lord save me. Jesus saves him. He calms the storm in the sea. And it says what? That they sort of bowed down to him out of humility and called him the son of God. It sounds like, all of that sounds like a religious context. And so you have passages like that, and it's just, it's just you go, the meaning of proskeneo is determined by context, whether it's worship or whether it's a merely, merely human. And I would just say you have multiple passages where it's, I would say, clearly religious. I agree that. I think probably most times, I think it's about 16 times if I'm not mistaken Proskineos used in the New Testament towards Jesus Probably most of those are not worshiping him as the eternal uncreated Yahweh they're not aware of that

But sometimes the context like you said it seems pretty clear that much more is going on that leans towards that direction I think the example you gave is a good one. And by the way, just side note, even here, I don't think it's clear that the disciples really understand like divine nature type issues. It's more like they're terrified into just, we're hitting the deck here because there's something very, very different about this guy. But the context seems to be significantly more than you're asking a favor from someone. And so you bow down to show your humility. I think you're right about that.

I think you have an example in Mark, where the demoniac, they kind of prostrate themselves. Well, is he aware that Jesus fully God? Well, he's more powerful than a legion of 2,000 demons and has fear of him. So we're certainly moving in that direction early in Mark. And I agree with you, it's not tell really the end of Mark when you get to Mark 14, when he makes it clear that he's the son of man, that it comes full circle. We understand exactly who Jesus claims to be. I think in Matthew 28, another example that's interesting is that the great

commission where it says some disciples doubted. Now, again, in Bowman and Komoshevsky's book, they make a really interesting take on this based on looking at the Greek, the original language. He said, it may mean the disciples worshiped him at the same time, having some doubt. But Bowman says Jesus responds to their doubt by assuring them of his universal authority. Evidently, Jesus was assuring them that the act of worship was quite appropriate. So it's not that they doubt that they're still trying to figure out what does it mean that this human being is Yahweh in human flesh and he's like, all authority has been given to me let me

assure you this worship is correct I think that's a really interesting take Luke I think there's a little more to Luke what or good I just wanted to add one quick thing because I always think in terms of how this stuff ties together so that passage right there where Jesus dies he rises and then he appears to his followers they worshiped him but some rises, and then he appears to his followers. They worshiped him, but some doubted. And then he says, all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.

But if you're interpreting that in light of, which I don't know how you wouldn't, Daniel 7, 13 to 14, where the Son of Man coming on the clouds approaches the Ancient of Days and he's given, he's given authority and sovereign power. And then it says, and he would be, peoples of all nations will worship him. And so he's given the authority.

And what does Jesus say? All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me and they're worshiping him, exactly as this says. Oh, and by the way, since Alex was talking about Le Truo there, he's saying that that's the worship of the one true God. Latruo is kind of a broader term, it's like a kind of religious service which would include worship. But it is interesting since he's granting that Latruo means worship of the one true God. The word used in Daniel seven

of what the son of man coming with the clouds receives is letruo there. So what's that mean? If Jesus in Matthew is claiming to receive that worship that the son of man is to be given, you've got letruo and proskeneo there. That's that's an interesting connection. I not not thought of that. I think the Luke passage is telling to he's right, it

appears three times proskeneo and Luke twice in the temptation narrative, which just think about this. Luke chapter four, seven through eight is the temptation narrative right after that, you know, the title is the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. So it's capping off his ministry. And, and then the second one is following his resurrection appearances at the Ascension Luke 24 at the end. So proskino appears when the devil tempts Jesus and Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6 13.

You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve. That response from Deuteronomy 6 is worship only to God in person. Then it occurs at the Ascension when the disciples watch him, he leaves and it worships and it says while he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried out up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And we see the same thing at the end of Matthew. So there's multiple attestation there. It's interesting that what Jesus refused to give the devil, he seems to welcome from the disciples.

And the point at the end is we're supposed to take this as a model. They're telling us how to make disciples go to the ends of the earth. So I think again Bowman and Komyshevsky conclude they say although the Bible does not contain statements that unambiguously present Jesus as the object of the verb latreo, and I point this out because none of the arguments that Alex made are new. I'm not sure he would say that they're new. He was quoting other scholars. They might be new to people hearing this for the first time, but people have been

responding to this back in many ways to the early church fathers wrestling with these questions, he says they don't unobjectionally present Jesus as the object of the Virgilio trail, but it does closely associate Jesus with God in receiving religious service that verb expresses. That's exactly right. Debate is not about the word. The debate is about are they actually worshipping Him as God? I think there's at least enough clear times where He does even though most are more of a kind of prostration. Yeah and by the way this is an example of saying you know like for me in a debate you prostration. Yeah, and by the way, this is this is a this is an example of saying, you know

like for me in a debate you put an argument out there and now you've got sort of the first volley of criticism so He objected to this which I think I only mentioned for like two seconds in my opening statement I just I gave a list of yeah things that they're doing Towards Jesus that you're supposed to be doing towards God and so they're're praying to Him, they're worshiping Him, they're, you know, singing hymns to Him and about Him. He becomes part of the church worship and so on. So anyway, I just, I mentioned that and he dedicated a lot of time to it. So what that tells me is when I'm coming up with, you know, revised version of the argument, actually spend like two minutes going kind of through,

expanding upon a little more and looking at a couple of passages. It's a good lesson, by the way, it's easier for people and myself included a week after this to kind of Monday morning quarterback and go, well, you can make this and here's numbers. Well, you're there in the moment trying to do this. So, kudos to you, kudos to Alex for having this conversation

with a lot of people watching. I think on both sides, we're learning a lot clarifying the arguments Last clip and before I show it. This is not meant to be a gotcha moment I think this you know, there's a lot of other clips you could show but I think the point raised by god logic was really significant And it leads me into kind of a few last points that I want to make as well. So let's watch this Final clip you mentioned in hebra in Hebrews 1, where God is speaking, God spoke to our through prophets. Now he speaks to us through his Son.

And you're saying, where was Jesus then? Back then, he should have been active. And so regarding Hebrews, I just want to read you this and get your thoughts on this. It's Hebrews 11. Regarding Moses, it says, by Hebrews, I just want to read you this and get your thoughts on this, okay? It's Hebrews 11. Regarding Moses, it says, by faith, Moses, and I'm gonna just skip down to 25 and 26 for time. Choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God

than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin, he considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. So how is it that Moses can be considering Christ's disapproval if Christ wasn't around for him to disapprove? Yeah that is a great question. So Christ there he regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as greater value than the treasure of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward.

Now that's something which I think, yeah, I think it's a good point. I mean, of course, I can offer a Christological interpretation of this which sort of says that Christ is promised as the redeemer of mankind and we're looking at this in retro, where has he gone? Oh, there you are. And we're looking at this in retro…where has he gone? Oh, there you are. And we're looking at him just dropped in left. And I suppose we're looking at this in retrospect and he regarded this grace for the sake of Christ.

Yeah, I do think that in this instance Hebrews is probably presenting Jesus as…I don't know about the angel of Yahweh, but certainly we're looking at a high Christology in Hebrews. Yeah. So close. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I see what you're saying. All right. Let's go to the next question because we only got three.

He's so close, guys. I have no… For what it's worth, I have no problem saying that Hebrews has a high Christology. That's kind of not an issue to me, but I think it is interesting to suggest that as a retort to the idea of the angel of Yahweh me, but I think it is interesting to suggest that as a retort to the idea of the angel of Yahweh being Jesus, I think that is an excellent point, yeah. Well, I wonder your thoughts, but first off,

Alex took that completely in stride. He took it well. We've all been on our stage going, you know what, maybe I would take this point back, but I'm really curious your takeaway for this and why you think that it was a significant moment. It was interesting because I wasn't even thinking of Hebrews 11 when he brought up Hebrews.

But that I was just thinking, you're going to Hebrews 1? Are you joking? Right, I mean, let me just open Hebrews 1. In the past, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by his son. So that's what he's quoting to respond to what I was pointing out about the angel of the Lord,

which I only brought that up to show what led to the two powers in heaven. You have an angel of the Lord who's speaking as if he's the Lord. What's going on here? So he quotes that to basically argue that Jesus wasn't around back then because now he's speaking, it's in the last days

that he's speaking by his son. So obviously he's not the angel Lord who would have been speaking through him back then as well. But I mean just keep reading, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom also he made the universe. Look at how many times these things come up. He appointed heir of all things.

So he's appointing him an air. So there's a distinction there and yet through whom he made the universe. So it's the same thing you find in like in John one that all things are created through Jesus. And so it's like, I mean, and even a couple just a few verses later in verse six, God commands the angels to worship him,

commands the angels to worship Jesus. So if you put all the worship passages together, he's worshiped by men, he's worshiped by women, in Matthew, I think 28 and nine, he's worshiped by the women, he's worshiped by demons. You pointed out that demon is terrified of him and bows down. And then according to Hebrews 1, the angels worship him. And so it's like, who is this guy? And is it just saying that, hey, you can be like this too. You can be this great guy like

Jesus too. But yeah, I wasn't even thinking about going to like Hebrews 11. It was still in my mind, you can't talk about Hebrews because they'll just say, you don't even know who wrote it. Right? So I kind of adopted their skeptical approach. And I had to think like, should I do this or should I just go with just the New Testament as a whole? You gotta make those decisions like on the spot. No, no, even before we debated when I'm deciding to focus on the earlier material, I'm thinking, okay, focus on the earlier material

and it's like, should you do that as a Christian? And the example that popped into my head was when Jesus is talking to the Sadducees who didn't believe in the resurrection And it's easy to show the resurrection from like the prophets and so on but they don't believe in though They don't the Sadducees didn't believe in the prophets only believe in the first five books So I'm thinking jeep. What did Jesus quote? He quoted the first five books He said this is what you will this is what you will grant

You're not gonna grant if I quote Daniel or Ezekiel or something like this So I'll quote I'll quote what you actually believe in. So in my head it's like, okay, if they're more inclined to believe in Mark and in Q, because that's what their scholars tell them, then I'll use that sort of material. So when he brings up Hebrews, I'm just thinking Hebrews one, seriously?

I wasn't gonna return to it, it was just okay. But then God logic points out, no, even according to Hebrews, it's not just that Jesus is clearly described as like creating the universe, it's later on he's there during the time of Moses. So he was there, so he was there. So you can't say that just because in the last days

he speaks by his son, therefore the son wasn't around back then. So yeah, I didn't enter my head. God logic brought it up and God logic's a beast. I think it was brilliant. What came to my mind is it says long, long ago, many times in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in his last days he's spoken to us by his son. Now does that mean he's still not speaking by prophets today in any fashion? We also know God speaks through creation. Is he not speaking through

creation anymore? I think the answer is no. It's talking about the primary way that God speaks. I agree with you. I agree with you. And so if that's true that he primarily speaks now, it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't speak as the angel of the Lord or the second Yahweh in the Old Testament. It just means now this is the clarifying primary voice.

I think Alex does a really good job of raising these apparent contradictions and tensions, and a lot can't go addressed in a debate like this. But I think you go back one by one, and I think what he said earlier is right, there's good answers to this and it makes sense in the text if we probe in the depth and look at it. I want to end by- I just wanted to add one point there. What you just saw with God logic, it's kind of a, when we started off, I was pointing

out that like my view of a debate, you put out your arguments and you see how people are going to respond to them and so on. People coming up with something and then maybe it slides throughout the debate, my view is I like, I don't know, I trust the body of Christ. I trust Christians. You saw in the debate right there where God logic steps up and jumps into the point. But I already know if you offer a bad argument and I don't give an effective response to it or I miss it or something like that, or I'm focusing on other things and arguing other things, and this point makes it through the debate and doesn't get responded to.

We're in the age of the internet. Christians are going to respond to it. And skeptics will on the other side. It's going to ongoing conversation. In my mind, I believe my core argument is good. And I think it will stand the test of time even as people respond to it. In other words, as people respond to it, I will say, oh, OK, they think this point is weak. I will tweak that point. They think that they think I didn't offer enough evidence

for this point. I will strengthen that point. But the idea is, at the end of the day, I don't think skepticism responds to that basic argument that Jesus is clearly claiming to be one of the powers in heaven. And that Jesus claims this in multiple ways, his followers claim this in multiple ways.

It's in so many places that apart from just being like a mythicist or just saying, I don't believe in any of this stuff, I don't think you can avoid it. As long as you grant that we have some kind of reliable records that are talking about Jesus' claims. And even if you dismissed all the gospels, I think you could put this together

just from what you read about Paul talking about the early church and their beliefs. I think something caused all these people to believe this very early on. What was it? Seems like something big if you're gonna convince a a bunch of first-century Jews that now they can pray to this guy. Seems like it would have to be something big. One, it's got to be he's got to be making some serious claims and two, something needs to

happen where they say, okay even though this sounds really really strange to us we have to be on board. So I think all that stands the test of time. Responding by going to the Gospel of John and saying what does this mean? What does that mean? What does that mean? What does this mean? It may work for the purposes of the debate. I don't think it stands like the test of time. And so we can actually test this right here.

We can revisit this like five years from now and say, okay, how has one argument done and how has other? Because again, people are gonna be arguing about this. You're pointing out Christians are gonna be arguing this. Skeptics is gonna be arguing about this you're pointing out Christians are going to be arguing this skeptics are going to be arguing about this uh alex even as he's even as his arguments are criticized you know like next time he has to take god what god logic said into account and he can't just use heber's one to try and dismiss something

and people will be responding to other things so he's also going to tweak his arguments and seems like he wants to go in a direction of using John to interpret Jesus as claiming something, something other, something else that we're just missing. We're misunderstanding him. And so again, I think, hey, great, go, go to the gospel of John, really, really do a deep dive into the gospel of John and see how well that works out. If he comes up with a really effective argument that stands the test of criticism and time Then you've just got a good argument. I don't I don't think it I don't think it will though You know the title did Jesus claim to be God is somewhat narrow

It almost could be just like did Jesus claim to be God and John that almost could be a debate now Of course even that there's so many passages and nuances But I think the basic argument that you made, like what Jesus said and did, what his enemies said and did, the breadth of the claim for the deity of Jesus is what convinces me. Growing up, I really thought it was just a few passages like John 20, 28, and, you know, some other passages, maybe in Romans, the more I've started to study, I see it quite literally everywhere.

And you can only make sense historically about the beginning of the Christian faith, but also the text when you unlock that Jesus really did see himself as God in human flesh. A few passages I just want to read because it reminded me of this and we'll wrap up if you have any other thoughts I definitely want to make sure you get them out there. I got one more. But since the Hebrews passage came up you know Hebrews 1 8 is where theos is used there's probably seven times where theos usually reserved for God in the Old Testament God the Father is specifically applied to Jesus usually as you know a different term is used.

And, and some of these are a little bit contested, but I think these interpretations are the most reasonable, historically speaking, Hebrews 1,8, but of the son, he says, your throne, oh God, is forever and ever. John 1,1, this whole debate about John is framed by, in the beginning, Oh God is forever and ever. John 1, 1, this whole debate about John is framed by, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. And the word was God, theos. John 20, 28, arguably the climax of the book, Thomas answered him, my Lord and my God, Theos.

And he's not saying, oh my God, that is not what he is saying. Not a Jewish saying. No chance, he's calling him that. Romans 9, five, Christ, who is God, Theos, overall. Titus 2, 13, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. He's not saying God and the Savior Jesus Christ, he's saying Jesus is God and Savior,

by Sharpe's rule. 2 Peter 1 1, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God, Theos and Savior, Jesus Christ. And the last one, we know that the Son of God has come and given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true.

In His Son, Jesus Christ, He is the true God and eternal life. David, I don't know about you, but I gave a message a few months ago on the name of God. It's crazy. I hadn't... There's been different seasons in my life. But when I really got into the name of Jesus and looking at Exodus 3, like when I just stop and think about the name of God, I mean, I can literally be moved to tears.

Understanding that Jesus claimed to be God to me is the most powerful theological truth that literally, like in John, is it John 17? Where Jesus is the I Am and the people just fall down because of the power. There's power in the name of Christ. So people watch this, I would just plead with them. Rather than reading the New Testament saying, I'm gonna find contradictions here, I'm gonna find holes here, this can't be true.

What if you just read the gospel of John or Mark and say, who did Jesus really claim to be? Is it possible that he claimed to be God? That would be my last challenge for any skeptic who's watched this with us. Your final thoughts. Yeah, two things. One, when you're pointing out that, you know, if you look at what Hebrews actually says, if you look at what the Gospel of John actually says, what are the bookends on that book? There's a sort of a

fundamental principle of interpretation. Interpre interpreting scripture is don't interpret the clear in light of the unclear, interpret the unclear in light of the clear. And so if you're going to a claim of Jesus and saying, oh, is this Jesus saying that they're gods and so that's all he's claiming or something, is he just claiming that you're going to be, you're going to have the same relationship with God that I have. So we're basically all the same or something like that.

If you're saying, if you're interpreting something like that and there are other interpretations of the exact same passage, it seems like you should be going to the clearest, in the beginning was the word, the word is with God, the word was God, my Lord and my God, and saying, okay, these are clearly affirming Jesus as God. Therefore, when we go and we look at these passages,

we need to make sure that our interpretations of passages that can be interpreted and that even Christians have interpreted in multiple ways, that the interpretation lines up with the rest of what the book is saying. And I'm saying this because it's normally a thing that you see a lot from Muslims. They'll go to a verse and

Give it a meaning which is completely contradicted by all the rest of the text But which they can interpret in light of Islam and they're just in the long term It comes across as kind of disingenuous if you keep going to that method and that's why I said I don't think this would actually It's not going to last it's not going to last again check back in a couple years and couple years and see if this approach has lasted. I guarantee you Alex will be arguing in a completely different direction by then. This is on film, so we'll revisit it in five years. And the other thing was, as far as pointing out that if you want to know what Jesus claimed, there are different things you can look at. What Jesus said, what Jesus did, what his friends said, what his friends did, what

his enemies said, what his enemies did. These are all giving you historical information about a person and how people were reacting to him. That came from Nabeel. That was actually Nabeel. I stole it. I modified it a little bit because he just said, this is after he became a Christian, he said he realized that if he wants to know

what Jesus is claiming, you know, Islam is saying one thing, Christians are saying something else. He said, if I want to actually look historically at Jesus, you know, Islam is saying one thing, Christians are saying something else. He said, if I want to actually look historically at Jesus, there are four things I can look at. He said, I can look at what Jesus said, I can look at what Jesus did, I could look at what others said about him,

and I can look at what others did about him. And he said, I looked at those four things and all of them pointed towards this guy making claims that do not make sense from Islam. And so he concluded that Jesus was making these claims about himself. And interestingly, he used that approach for about a year, and then he shifted his approach to where he just focuses on the ending of the Gospel of Mark, Mark 14, and argued based on that.

But I always liked that original approach after he became a Christian. He told me that's what he was thinking. I was like, I actually like that. I'm going to use that someday so well you ended your debate with a quote by CS Lewis I'll take a quote by Nabil any day like you miss him a lot well thanks for doing the debate thanks for coming all about here to sit down with me this is a lot of fun I would love to know from you watching if this is helpful to you I don't do a lot of weighing in and

reaction videos like this but if this is helpful to you. I don't do a lot of weighing in and reaction videos like this, but if this is helpful, this is insightful. If you'd like to see more also doing conversations like this in person, there's a price and cost to setting this up and sitting down together. We live on different coasts. Uh, let me know. We really want to up our game on this channel and, uh, serve you as well as we can. Make sure you hit subscribe.

And if you thought about studying apologetics, we'd love to have you at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. David, always fun. Thanks. ["Dreams of a New World"]