The Instigator
Dave.Carter
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BTW
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 81620
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Dave.Carter

Pro

Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
(Mark 12:28-32)

Jesus is giving us clear instructions that he is not God, only the Creator is God and we should never think that anyone else can be God. If we do so then we will be breaking the first and most important commandment of all.
How can Christians possibly justify breaking God's first and most important commandment of all?

Please base your justification on Biblical scripture.
BTW

Con

I accept this challenge.

My opponent has declared that the very foundations of Christianity are intentionally blasphemous, and Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus Christ) is not the Son of G-d; therefore could not possibly be a product of the One True G-d the Ten Commandments reflect.

The burden of proof lies on my opponent (in theology and scripture) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity's perception of the Christ in the New Testament is in fact NOT the Son of G-d.


Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Terms & Definitions

Round 3: Arguments

Round 4: Rebuttals

Round 5: Counter rebuttals


Will my opponent agree with my proposed structure of debate?
Debate Round No. 1
Dave.Carter

Pro

The terms and conditions are that we have five rounds to provide arguments and counter arguments to the debate which topic I have made clear. I have in round one given direct instructions from Jesus that the most important commandment to obey is the first commandment. According to Jesus based on the Biblical evidence that I have shown only the Creator is God and we should never think that anyone else can be God.
If I were you I would have used my first round to provide a counter argument as to why Jesus did not actually mean what he is clearly stating rather than try to define what should take place in each and every round. So please BTW, don't waste any more rounds.

Jesus is not exclusive in being described as 'God's son' .

Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Psalm 2:7 Defines King David as God's begotten Son.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

There are many other examples of people being described as 'Son's of God' within the Bible so we have no justification to believe that any of them (including Jesus) could possibly be God.

I have and I will address each and every one of your points that counter my argument. If you want to debate me then please do the same.
BTW

Con

So be it. My opponent has listed several examples indicating that the Bible lists multiple persons as being "sons of G-d". I will now refute the statement quoted below as it is the best generalized representation of all of his examples.


[Con: "Jesus is not exclusive in being described as 'God's son'".]

You are right. According to both Jewish and Christian traditions; there have been many historical "Christs" that G-d has chosen to carry out His works. King Solomon, his father David, and Saul of Tarsus are only but three examples that give credence to that statement. But on the other hand, there exists just as many (not if more) antichrists that oppose the works of G-d.

[1]The term Christ, as I tried to identify with other terms prior to jumping into this complex question, identifies in Old Hebrew as meshiach (מָשִׁ֫יחַ), or "anointed". As such, the term "Christ" is subjective to us. THE MESHIACH, or promised Messiah, from the covenant G-d made with Israel in Horeb (Deut 4:23) is exclusive to G-d alone as He deems it appropriate to choose His anointed.

The hereditary title of "son of G-d" is used so much in Abrahamic record keeping as a means to identify a person or nation as being directly descended from first man, Adam, as He was created by G-d. This fact is not exclusive to only Christianity. This being the case, all males would all have the title "son of G-d" after "son of Adam", because we all descended from the children of Adam and Eve.

But separating ourselves from that for a little bit, let's use Enoch's paternal side as an example stepping backwards to the time of Adam;

[Enoch > which was the son of Jared > which was the son of Mahalalel > which was the son of Mualeleth > which was the son of Enosh > which was the son of Seth > which was the son of Adam > who was the son of G-d.

[2]Yeshua ben Yosef is commonly referred to as being the "Second and Last Adam". (1 Corinthians 15:45)


Luke used the very same method of recording Yeshua's paternal line in his account of the Gospel as the Christ descended from Joseph (Yosef) and Mary.
(Luke 3:23-38)


And since Jesus was a direct descendant from Joseph's line, as prophesied, that would then make Yeshua ben Yosef THE Son Of G-d, or the Second and Last Adam and the promised Meshiach.


Sources:


[1] Strong's Hebrew @BibleHub: http://biblehub.com...
[2] Second Adam:
https://www.blueletterbible.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Dave.Carter

Pro

I appreciate you conceding that the term 'son of God' is no indication of being God. Your claim that being the son of God plus the prophesied Messiah is what actually made Jesus God is an assumption because it is not based on any Biblical evidence. The prophesied Messiah was never expected to be God. The Bible explicitly states that God cannot be a man.

'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man' (Numbers 23:19)

'for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee:' Hosea 11:9

We learn from the Old Testament that no one can even see God and live;

'Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.' Exodus 33:20

Even in the New Testament during the time when Jesus existed in the flesh John writes;

'No man hath seen God at any time;' John 1:1

If you want to make bold statements asserting that the prophesied Messiah will be God then you simply must back it up with Biblical evidence. If you do not then your argument has no substance whatsoever. So far you have provided no Biblical evidence at all that counters my argument.
BTW

Con

[Con: "We learn from the Old Testament that no one can even see God and live.]

[Exodus 33:20, "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."]


That is not entirely accurate. We can see from the following passages in Moses's time
with G-d that more people than just himself saw the LORD face to face.
This priviledge, however, was eventually retracted assumingly as a punishment for
Israel's disobedience.

[Exodus 24:9-11, "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy
of the elders of Israel: And they saw the G-d of Israel: and there was under his feet
as it were a pved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness."]

[Exodus 33:11, "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speatheth unto his friend.
And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man,
departed not out of the tabernacle.]

Or even if we go further back in time to the exchange between G-d and Abraham concerning
the inevitable destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, this conversation also alludes to the fact
that Abraham was speaking with G-d as if He materialized;

[Genesis 18:22,23, "And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom:
but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. And Abraham drew near, and said, "Wilt thou also destroy
the righteous with the wicked?"]

The only thing that separates Abraham and Moses from the rest of us is the fact that they both were G-d's anointed prophets, or two Christs if you will. They have a special place in Biblical History as being Patriarchs; or those anointed persons who are responsible for entire generations of people. I hate to be presumptous about the LORD's intentions, but this is the best explanation I can come up with in regards to WHY He allowed both men, to include the band of Levite priests, to witness His Glory when normally doing so would have cost them their lives.

[Con: If you want to make bold statements asserting that the prophesied Messiah will be God then you simply must back it up with Biblical evidence. If you do not then your argument has no substance whatsoever. So far you have provided no Biblical evidence at all that counters my argument.]

Bold statements? I have provided my opponent with a substantial preliminary explanation as to how and why terms are used as they are used, and now I will move into the New Testament...which oddly enough my opponent is quoting despite his assertion that Yeshua ben Yosef is NOT The Messiah. Trying to use the Gospel of Christ as a reason to refute Yeshua seems contrary to logic, but nevertheless...

[Luke 1:27, "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.]

Joseph decended down from the accursed line of Jeconiah, which is in line with Davidic prophecy and the coming of the Last Adam. But this point could have been a show stopper. If Yeshua had been biologically conceived by Joseph rather than that of G-d, then this would have completely voided out Yeshua ben Yosef as the promised Messiah. But from what we can see in 2 Samuel 7:13,14, G-d claims Jesus as HIS son while indicating towards his future at the hands of men. Technically, Christ had human parents. All those around the area knew for a fact that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but wasn't made evident until much later in his life that G-d had much bigger plans for his foster child;

[2 Samuel 7:13,14, "He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him by a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands."

But since Joseph is Yeshua's foster father, proof of his residence upon taking Joseph's trade as a carpenter is sufficient proof that the Christ both directly (through Mary), and indirectly (through the revelation made to Joseph) was handpicked by G-d to be involved in the rearing of Jesus.



Debate Round No. 3
Dave.Carter

Pro

In my previous post I made the point that Jesus is not God therefore supporting my main argument that Christians are breaking the first commandment by believing that he is. I did so by offering two points which I backed up with Biblical evidence.

1. The Bible states that no one has ever seen God.

2. The Bible states that God cannot be a man.

So far throughout our debate you have only provided a counter argument to point 1. 'The Bible states that no one has ever seen God' with supporting Biblical evidence. According to your explanation of this Biblical evidence, only 'G-d's anointed prophets' can see God. Now this may dispel my literal interpretation of the Bible verses that I gave in support of point 1. but it does nothing to counter my main argument nor my supporting arguments that Jesus is not God. Allow me to restate the two points I made in the previous round taking your contribution into account.

1. The Bible states that 'only Gods anointed prophets' have ever seen God.

2. The Bible states that God cannot be a man.

I have taken your contribution onboard and implemented it into my above two points. Following this amendment these points remain consistent in proving that Jesus is not God because according to you only Gods anointed prophets have ever seen God. Was it only possible for Gods anointed prophets to see Jesus? No, of course not.

Your 'substantial preliminary explanation as to how and why terms are used as they are used' is worthless and meaningless if it does not offer a counter argument to what we are debating. As you can see so far you have failed miserably to offer any counter argument to the main topic of debate whatsoever.

If you want to debate me then please at the very least pay attention and read what I have written. At no point did I ever state what you accuse me of.

'...which oddly enough my opponent is quoting despite his assertion that Yeshua ben Yosef is NOT The Messiah.'

Nonsense! I did not write any such thing. I wrote that the prophesied messiah was never expected to be God. 2 Samuel 7 does not state that the prophesied messiah will be God, it states that he will be God's son. I previously demonstrated with Biblical evidence that being Gods son does not make you God. I refer you back to point 2 mentioned above, God cannot be a man.

We have only two rounds remaining. Thus far you have given no counter argument to the fact that Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God. Let me try and simplify this for you so that this entire debate does not end up being a complete waste of time.

You state that Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) is God's son. I agree with you. The Bible makes it clear that he is. The Bible does not state anywhere that being God's son is the same as being God. So now you need to provide Biblical evidence that the Bible does state that being God's son is the same as being God.

You state that Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) is the prophesied messiah. I agree with you. The Bible makes it clear that he is. The Bible does not state anywhere that the prophesied messiah will be God. So now you need to provide Biblical evidence that the Bible does state that the prophesied messiah will be God.

I assume that we are in agreement that Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) was a man so you must also acknowledge the Biblical evidence that I submitted clearly stating that God cannot be a man.
BTW

Con

[Pro: "In my previous post I made the point that Jesus is not God therefore supporting my main argument that Christians are breaking the first commandment by believing that he is. I did so by offering two points which I backed up with Biblical evidence."

You state that Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) is the prophesied messiah. I agree with you. The Bible makes it clear that he is. The Bible does not state anywhere that the prophesied messiah will be God. So now you need to provide Biblical evidence that the Bible does state that the prophesied messiah will be God.

I assume that we are in agreement that Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) was a man so you must also acknowledge the Biblical evidence that I submitted clearly stating that God cannot be a man.]


(Luke 17:21; "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of G-d is within you."

(1 Corinthians 2:15,16; "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.")

(John 3:6; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.")

(John 3:16; "For G-d so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.")


[1]The term "Son" in this case is used as a accusative noun, or proper noun, meaning that the Greek work for "Son", ΥO85;P56;ν, would be in direct reference to Yeshua ben Yosef as John was describing him within the context of the block of text.

Furthermore, John is alluding to the fact that since Yeshua was born of the Spirit, and not a product of natural conception and despite being human, was the physical manifestation of the Spirit of G-d.


[Isaiah 9:6; "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."]


The final nail in the coffin is the Resurrection account.


[1 Peter 3:18; "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to G-d, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"]

[1 Corinthian 5:14; "[...]and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,[...]"]


The Son was Fathered by G-d THROUGH the SPIRIT, the same Spirit that existed with G-d before we were born to this world (Jeremiah 1:5). Jesus came into this world as a physical manifestation of flesh, a human being, but his Spirit was that of G-d's; born free from a consequence of original sin (intercourse).

THIS would make Yeshu ben Yosef, a human being, but living the life of a man who was guided by His Father, G-d, to establish the foundations of His Kingdom here on earth, like building blocks to form a Spiritual Temple: we are the stones and the teachings of Yeshua, the one and only begotten Son of G-d is the Temple's foundation.

Therefore, Christians are not breaking the first commandment by believe Yeshua is G-d, because He, G-d and the Spirit are one in the same.


Sources:

[1] Greek|"Son": http://biblehub.com...




Debate Round No. 4
Dave.Carter

Pro

In Luke 17:21 Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God is within you. He is not telling them that he is God or that he, 'God and the Spirit are one in the same.'

In 1 Corinthians 2:16 Paul asks the rhetorical question, 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.' Assuming that when Paul writes 'the Lord' he means God, (in reference to Isaiah 40:13-14) can we positively assert that this verse is evidence that God and Jesus are one of the same? This verse is actually good evidence that God and Jesus are not one and the same. If Paul wanted to convey in this verse that God (the Lord) and Christ (Jesus) were one and the same then the verse would make no scenes; it would contradict its self. Allow me to replace 'the Lord' and 'Christ' with 'God' in order to illustrate my point.

'For who hath known the mind of God, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of God.'
I am sure we can agree that in the first instance Pauls rhetorical question is stated in order to demonstrate that we do not know the mind of God. If Paul then writes that we have the mind of God then clearly this would make no scenes and would completely contradict what he just said. Let us now gain clarification from other scriptures written by Paul to assert if he did actually believe that Jesus is God.

'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5)

'That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him' (Ephesians 1:17)

Interoperating 1 Corinthians 2:16 to mean that Jesus and God are one and the same is ambiguous at best. Personally I think it is an illogical and nonsensical interpretation. The two verses that I provided above written by Paul are unambiguous, they clearly state that Jesus and God are not one and the same and that Jesus is not God.

John 3 - You say that John was describing Jesus within the context of the block of text. The text is a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. In John 3:4 Nicodemus asks Jesus "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" In verse 6 Jesus explains to Nicodemus what it means to be born again through baptism/spirit rather than the physical birth/flesh. In verse 16 Jesus goes onto say "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He is telling Nicodemus that if he believes in him then he will not perish but have eternal life. What is Jesus asking him to believe other than what he just told him? Did Jesus just tell him that he is God? No. So why should Nicodemus, you or anyone else believe such a thing if it is not what Jesus said? John is not alluding to anything, you are. John is simply documenting the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.

Isaiah 9:6 - Christians do not believe that Jesus is the everlasting Father. Isaiah referred to Eliakim as 'a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah (Isaiah 22:21). Isaiah wrote this about Eliakim figuratively. When he writes that the Messiah will be called 'The everlasting Father' he clearly is writing this figuratively, referring to him representing the Father because the Messiah is never actually called 'The everlasting Father'. Yahweh is the Hebrew word used exclusively for God. El is not exclusively used for God it can also be attributed to men. Was Jesus a might man that represented the Father God? Yes, of course. The Hebrew speaking Rabbis never interpreted this verse to mean that the Messiah will be God. He was (and still is) expected to be human, not God.

The First Epistle of Peter is a letter addressed to various churches in Asia Minor suffering religious persecution. In chapter 3 verse 17 Peter writes 'For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.' In the following verse that you have provided Peter explains that Jesus also suffered, that he was put to death and his spirit was brought back to life. Peter writes that he did so to bring us closer to God, he does not write that Jesus is God.

In 1 Corinthians 5:14 Paul writes that Jesus 'was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures'. Verse 15 states that God raised up Christ. Nowhere in this chapter, any other chapter in Corinthians or any other book in the Bible does it state that the resurrection of Jesus was evidence of him being God.

Matthew 10:8 describes Jesus instructing his disciples to resurrect people and the Bible tells us of numerous people being resurrected. After Jesus was Resurrected he said "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." These words spoken by Jesus explicitly state that he is not God.

You assert that Jesus is God because his Mother is human but his Father is God. What about Adam and Eve? Their Mother and Father was God. If avoiding being conceived via intercourse renders one free from original sin then what about those born from In vitro fertilisation (IVF). According to your logic they too must be free from original sin.

You have still provided absolutely no Biblical evidence that Jesus, God and the Spirit are 'one in the same.'

Where is your acknowledgement of the Biblical evidence that I submitted clearly stating that God cannot be a man?

"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Mathew 4:10). If sufficient and unambiguous Biblical evidence cannot be provided of Jesus being God then Christians are guilty of breaking the first commandment. So far it is not looking good.
BTW

Con

That's the great question isn't it? Christianity interprets the Bible stating that Yeshua was Christ, the Messiah, or the Triune G-d incarnate. The Jews and Muslims on the other hand have an entirely different interpretation. Both Christians and Muslims claim Divine origin apart from actual purpose. You have the Jews who do not believe Yeshua was the Christ, Muslims who believe Yeshua (Isa) to be a prophet of G-d, born of a virgin, but not the Messiah. And then you have Chrisitianity, founded on Christ's teachings to his disciples...who also believed him to be the Son of G-d. Through Him and his work G-d could be seen. Christ acts as an embodiment of The Spirit. This makes him G-d. Three different interpretations, one person. Can you honestly say you irrefutably can claim that Christians are guilty of blasphemy? My opponent sounds just as the Pharisees did in the time of Christ.

In conclusion, there was only one man who has successfully defeated death, and ascended to heaven according to what was prophecied in scripture. His name was Joshua, son of Joseph. Or as we better know him to be -- Jesus Christ.

Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dave.Carter 1 year ago
Dave.Carter
Thank you for the debate. I really appreciate it. I wish I could have dedicated a bit more time to the final round to give a more thorough response. I look forward to your response and may challenge you to a new debate depending on your response.

Thanks again.
Posted by persianimmortal 1 year ago
persianimmortal
This is a great debate. Keep it clean and debate on boys!! #vivacleandebates :D
Posted by Dave.Carter 1 year ago
Dave.Carter
Dkice4 - 1 John 5:7 - There is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s. This has been proven to be a forgery. Now why do you think that such a verse would be added other than the concept of the Trinity being a lie?
Posted by Dkice4 1 year ago
Dkice4
True Christianity is Trinitarian. 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." The Christian doctrine that you speak of, which was refuted in the early years of the church, is called Arianism.
Posted by Nobodyknows2202 1 year ago
Nobodyknows2202
Never mind my first comment. You can obviously win this debate.
Posted by BTW 1 year ago
BTW
Thanks for letting me know, famousdebater. I'll keep that in mind for next time. :)
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
@BTW - Terms and definitions are usually provided in R1 but I guess that you could do that in a 5 round debate.
Posted by Nobodyknows2202 1 year ago
Nobodyknows2202
If BTW doesn't finish this, I'm taking over. This argument is so stupid, even I, a newbie, could destroy it.
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
Sorry, follow the teachings of Jesus*
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
Christians follow the teachings of God, and those teachings are to worship, the 'proclaimed, one, true God'.
No votes have been placed for this debate.