That's curious. Where does John say that? His Gospel is the only one that doesn't mention anything about Jesus being asked if He is the Son of God. The previous three Gospels do, and only one (Mark 14:62) "quotes" Jesus as saying "Yes I am." The other two "quote" Him as saying "You said it" (Mat 26:64) and "You say that I am" (Luke (22:70).
Of these thour Matthew and John were witnesses. Their testimony does not match. For being such an important question, John, doesn't even mention it.
But "Son of God" in Judaism never meant "equivalent with God" as you claim. It was a title given to angels and kings. And messiah (mesiyah in Hebrew or christos in Greek, which means anointed) would certainly have that title, being a favorite of God, but "equivalent with God." Why would God pray to God? Why would God have Himself tempted?
Now I’m sure we can expect you to respond with some atheistic Bible criticism claiming that was not the case
To you, it seems, anything that doesn't agree with "official truth" is "atheist Bible criticism." Do you believe that bats are birds? The bible says they are. It must be true. It's in the bible.
***That’s curious. Where does John say that?***
Beside being strewn throughout the book by implication through Jewish notions of God and Christ’s claiming to have those qualities, the most explicit claim by Christ that he was God was when he we told the Jews he was the “I am” of the shema (John 8:58). Why do you suppose they wanted to stone him after he made the claim?
Your entire program against Scripture is the old enlightenment screed that claims one can be neutral in assessing the text by using source, form, and redaction criticism and thus come to the “true” meaning in the text. The Enlightenment edifice came crashing down more than forty years ago and found to be nothing more than a circular argument of academic elites.
***Do you believe that bats are birds? The bible says they are. It must be true. It’s in the bible.***
Is that your best argument against the authority of Scripture? Were the authors of Scripture scientists? The Church has always held that the inspiration of Scripture included both divine and human agency. When God condescended to reveal himself to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles he did so in a way that those who received the revelation could comprehend according to the categories available to them as they knew the world. Sometimes those revelations were not completely clear to the author themselves but to be revealed over time. Hebrews 11 shows how the many men and women of the Old Testament believed in a promise that may have not been completely understood in all its details yet they knew a better “country” awaited them through the Messiah. Thus revelation was progessive through time and what began as a kernel of knowledge grew to the full revelation in Christ. Because Christ is the full revelation of God there is no need for further revelation although our understanding of that revelation can continue to grow as we look at Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit and grow in knowledge of what has been revealed.
In conclusion, while the authors may not have been scientists in the way we think of objects and things today that does not make the Scriptures fallible or errant. Different authors revealing God according to their histories gives us a fuller meaning of God that otherwise would limit our understanding. What appears to be contradiction is actually different authors understanding that revelation according to their histories and the emphasis’ that they place on that revelation. Since God is not an object of this world it makes no sense to use empirical methods to try and interpret his revelation.