Is this circular reasoning?

Interesting that the question tries to turn a theological argument into a matter of logic. That's not really the point.

Notice that many people give commandments: army officers, parents, police officers, domineering spouses, etc.

I assume that the major premise is intended to say something like "Only God can make morally binding commandments."

In any case, Bo's analysis is right on the money logic-wise.

I would not say it is circular. Circular would be

1) Only God gives Commandments.
2) Therefore, Commandments can only be given by God.

For a good syllogism, make sure the language is consistent.

1) Only God gives Commandments (plural).
2) Jesus gave us a new Commandment (singular), therefore
3) Jesus is God

This would be invalid. But

1) Only God can give us a Commandment.
2) Jesus gave us a Commandment.
3) Therefore, Jesus is God

Would be valid. Of course, the first premise is a major claim that is unsupported and unfalsifiable so this could never be demonstrated to be a sound argument.

Maybe. But it's definitely a non sequitur and contradicts its own theology. If you assume for sake of argument that the phrase "only God gives commandments" is true. Then we accept, based on the theology it is speaking about, that Jesus simply might be telling us via "spiritual inspiration" another commandment from God. Therefore, Jesus not being God but speaking and saying what God wants him to say is possible also. Not just Jesus is God.

Hey Doc,

How is this not a Fallacy of Division?

1) Only God can give us a Commandment.
2) Jesus gave us a Commandment.
3) Therefore, Jesus is God

A is part of B.
B has property X.
Therefore, A has property X.

It's not circular reasoning, since circular reasoning requires there to be a premise the same as what the reasoner is trying to prove (i.e. the conclusion).

In your example, the reasoner ended with "Jesus is God" and that's not used in a premise, therefore it's not circular reasoning.