The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Christians, is Jesus the son of God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 65523
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




Christians claim that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is the son of God. They say that the Scriptures have told so. And they have accepted it blindly. But is there any proof that Jesus is the son of God?
Atheists do not believe in God, unless the existence of God is proved to them. They do not believe the Scriptures, because they think they has been written by humans. I believe the Bible has been corrupted. And I do not believe in Trinity unless someone proves it to me. Can you provide any proof of Sonship or Trinity?


I would like to thank con for bringing up such an important article of the faith. Con appears to believe the Muslim position that the Bible was corrupted and that Jesus was merely a prophet. This, however, doesn't fit historical evidence about who Jesus claimed to be.

It appears the BOP is on me. I will do my utmost to demonstrate the veracity of the scriptures and therefore that Jesus is God's son.

Before I begin the presentation of the evidence, let's take a brief look at con's initial arguments. Con claims the Bible has been corrupted. As he provides no evidence for this claim, it should be rejected as baseless. In addition, he cites an atheist objection to the Bible. Both Christians, atheists, and for that matter those of every religion agree that the Bible was written by humans. However, only Christians believe it to be divinely inspired. Whilst Mohammad, for example, claimed to accept the validity of the Bible as an earlier revelation, he denied Jesus' divinity, resurrection, and even death, contrary to the claims of the Bible. [1] [2] This brings us to another point: other religions acknowledge the existence and importance of Jesus whilst ignoring what he actually said. I make a simple proposition: if the resurrection happened and the Gospels were written by reliable authors, then Jesus is God's son.

For the moment, let's look at the authoritative source on what Jesus said: the four canonical gospels. These gospels are confirmed to have been written by two of Jesus' disciples and two early coverts, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [3] Whilst other "Gospels" such as the Protoevangelium of James claim to be written by disciples, recent research has shown that these Apocryphal books weren't written by apostles, demonstrating that the councils who assembled the New Testament knew what they were doing. [4] Because we have very old copies of the Gospels, we know they haven't been tampered with. [3]

Now, the next question is this: were the apostles telling the truth? The two things that all historians agree on are Jesus' existence and his death by crucifixion. [5] Why would Jesus' disciples have invented a religion when their leader had been killed and they knew any of them could be next? Indeed, many disciples were martyred because of their faith, yet even when they had a chance to deny the resurrection and live, they refused? [6] [7] The only logical explanation is that Christianity is not merely a lie but the Gospel truth (pun intended).

Now that we have provided significant evidence than the Gospels are accurate and truthful, we need only examine its teachings on Jesus.

In John 10:35-36, Jesus claims to be the son of god. "35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came - and Scripture cannot be broken - do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?"

In Matthew 16:16, after Jesus asked Peter who he was, "Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Clearly, the Gospels, documents which we have demonstrated to be truthful, proclaim Jesus the son of God.

Good luck to con.


Debate Round No. 1


Hi. Thanks for accepting my challenge. I wish you luck.
Ok, let's suppose the Bible is no corrupte. How many sons does God have? Is Jesus the only son of God?
One of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity is the literal sonship of Jesus Christ to God. This belief comes from the verse in John 3:16 "For God so loved"the world that he gave"his one and only Son,"that whoever believes"in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Also in 1 John 5:1" Everyone who believes"that Jesus is the Christ"is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well." these verses clearly state that Jesus is the only begotten, and born Son of God.
Let's look at other verses from the Bible to find out whether Jesus was the only begotten son of God, or that there were more than one. Also let's investigate whether Jesus was the only one born of God. Finally, let's investigate whether the word begotten is to be taken literally.

Was Jesus the only begotten son of God?
In the book of Psalms 2:7 we find " I will proclaim the"Lord"s decree: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your father." David, in this verse, is saying that God had told him he was the son of God and God has begotten him. Clearly Jesus is not the only begotten son of God.
Of course, one could say that although Jesus was not the only begotten son of God, he had no human father in contrast to David who had a human father. That is true! Since Jesus had no human father it makes the relationship between him and God a closer one. The question is what about Adam? Adam had no human father nor a human mother, and according to the Bible he too was the son of God. The Bible says, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry."He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," (Luke 3:23) The Bible goes on to mention the supposed genealogy of Jesus. At the end of this genealogy the Bible comes to Adam, and it says, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38). So Adam is also the son of God. According to the assumption: "because Jesus had no human father then he is closer to God than David who had a human father," we can safely conclude that Adam is better than Jesus because he didn't have a human father or mother.

Was Jesus the only born son of God or the only son of God?
The verse in 1 John 5:1 says, "...Jesus is the Christ is born of God." This indicates that Jesus was born of God, but was Jesus the only born son of God? Let's look at what Bible says:
God talking to Moses:" Then say to Pharaoh, "This is what the"Lord"says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go,"so he may worship"me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son."" (Exodus 4:22-23)
Also, God talking about David:" And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted"of the kings"of the earth. (Psalms 89:27)
In both Exodus 4:22-23 and Psalms 89:27 Israel and David, respectively, were regarded as the first born sons of God. This means that Jesus was not the only born son of God. This means that the word "born" does not mean conception. It"s just a form of expression God used to show the closeness of people to Him.
Finally, there were many other people mentioned in the bible as sons of God, and one of them was Solomon: " But you will have a son who will be a man of peace"and rest,"and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet"during his reign." (1 Chronicles 22:9)
" He is the one who will build a house for my Name."He will be my son,"and I will be his father. And I will establish"the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." (1 Chronicles 22:10)
Also, remember that some of these verses are taken from the Old Testament, and that this book was originally written in Hebrew. Had the word born or son meant born or son in a literal sense then the Jews would have been ahead of everyone else in claiming their literal sonship to God, or in claiming the literal sonship of Solomon to God. The Jews know their language, and they know what son means. They know that the word "son" should not be taken literally.

What does begotten mean?
If Jesus is not the only begotten son of God and not the only born son of God, then what does begotten or born mean? Should the two words be taken literally? The only way we can justify these words is by looking at the Bible again. In 1 Peter 1:3 the Bible says, "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"In his great mercy"he has given us new birthinto a living hope"through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." The word begotten is also used here. God can beget us unto lively hope. Does the word "begotten" here mean conception? No. It is a form of expression. This word means "gave rise to" or "brought".
Also in Job 38:28, the Bible says, " Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew?" Can the drops of dew be begotten? No. It's just a form of expression. Rain does not have a father nor are drops of dew begotten in a literal sense.
If we cannot take the word begotten in literal sense with David, the drops of dew, or "us unto a lively hope" then why should we take Jesus as the literal begotten son of God?
Finally, in the book Revelation 1:5 says, " and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness,"the firstborn from the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us"and has freed us from our sins by his blood." Why is it that when Jesus is mentioned as being begotten of God it is taken literally, and when he is mentioned that he is begotten from the dead it is not taken literally? The truth is because the word begotten here does not mean any one could be conceived of the dead; it is a form of expression. The same thing with God, He begets not, and this word "begotten" is only a form of expression.

Who was Jesus if not the literal son of God?
According to the Bible in Matthew 21:11 " The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet"from Nazareth in Galilee." This was Jesus. He was a prophet of God. He was sent like other prophets to deliver the message of his ONE and only ONE God (glory be to Him). Also, in Luke 24:19 the Bible says " 19""What things?""he asked, "About Jesus of Nazareth,""they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people."
Jesus was a true messenger of God. He was sent by Him to deliver His will. The Bible says in John 5:30 " By myself I can do nothing;"I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just,"for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." These are the true characteristics of a prophet. They do as they are commanded. They are sent to deliver a message, and the only difference between them and other humans is their utmost righteousness, "mighty in deed and word" (Luke 24:19). They are the best of all the people of their time. They are the only ones who could bear and act upon the commandments of God completely and fully. They are loved by God because of that, and their nearness to God comes from that."
The same applies to all other prophets. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, Jonah, Moses, Jesus, Jonas, Muhammad and all the other prophets shared the same qualities. The qualities of those who could withstand all forms of tribulations in God"s name. They all fully abided by what God has commanded them.

Again, let's suppose Bible is true. Why are there many contradictions in it? I just mention a few

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)

2. What was the name of King Abijah's mother?
a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
b)"Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20)
But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

3. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
b) Heli (Luke 3:23)

4. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?
a) Abiud (Matthew 1:13)
b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27)
But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i. Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v. Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (1 Chronicles 3:19, 20) The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anywhere.

5. Jesus descended from which son of David?
a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
b) Nathan (Luke 3:31)

6. Who was the father of Uzziah?
a) Joram (Matthew 1:8)
b)"Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

7. Who as the father of Jechoniah?
a) Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
b)"Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16)

8. How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?
a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17).
b)"But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1:12-16)

9. Who was the father of Shelah?
(a) """Cainan (Luke 3:35-36).
(b) """Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12).

10. Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
a)"Yes (Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13).
b) No (John 1:19-21)

11. Would Jesus inherit David's throne?
a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16)
And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David's throne (Jeremiah 36:30)."

12. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?
a) "One - a colt (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it."

b) "Two - a colt and a donkey (Matthew 21:7). They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on."

13. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew16:17)
b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)


Raistlin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Who wrote The Bible?

Friedman, Richard Elliott
Summit Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.) 1987

Artistry upon Artistry"
The redactor whom I identify as Ezra, has been the least appreciated of the contributors to the Five Books of Moses. Usually, more credit is given to the authors of the stories and the laws. That may be an error."
The redactor was as much an artist, in his own way, as the authors of J, E, P, and D were in theirs. His contribution was certainly as significant as theirs."
His task wasn't merely difficult, it was creative. It called for wisdom and literary sensitivity at each step, as well as a skill that's no less an art than storytelling.
In the end, he was the one who created the work that we have read all these years. He assembled the final form of the stories and laws that, in thousands of ways, have influenced millions.
Is that his influence? Or is it the influence of the authors of the sources? Or would it be better to speak of a literary partnership of all these contributors, a partnership that most of them never even knew would take place? How many ironies are contained in this partnership that was spread over centuries? How many new developments and ideas resulted from the combination of all their contributions?"
In short, the question for the last chapter of this book is: is the Bible more than the sum of its parts?
Pentateuch [First five books appearing in the Old Testament]:
Moses is the major figure through most of these books, and early Jewish and Christian tradition held that Moses himself wrote them, though nowhere in the Five Books of Moses themselves does the text say that he was the author.
[Deut. 31:9,24-26 describes Moses as writing a scroll of the Torah - but no claim that the scroll included all five books. Only later did torah come to mean the Pentateuch]
But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it would say that those same events happened in a different order. It would say that there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there were fourteen of those same things. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it. It would describe Moses as going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle."
People also noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth.
Objections largely met through various forms of explanation (including midrash). But in the medieval period, the objections began to be met with an acknowledgment that Moses may not have been the sole author:
In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses.The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer."
But the man who called him this, 12th century Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra added:" several passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and locale from those of Moses."
Friedman suggests that Ibn Ezra recognized that these passages confirmed ibn Yashush's claim, but advised silence.
The silence was broken in the 14th ct. by Bonfils in Damascus. Bonfils wrote:"And this is evidence that this verse was written in the Torah later, and Moses did not write it; rather one of the later prophets wrote it." Bonfils wasn't denying the revealed character of the text. He still thought that the passages in question were written by "one of the later prophets." He was only concluding that they were not written by Moses. Still, three and a half centuries later, his work was reprinted with the references to the subject deleted.
[Contrary to the old tradition that Joshua wrote the account of Moses' death] in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript."
In a second stage of the process, investigators suggested that Moses wrote the Five Books but that editors when over them later, adding an occasional word or phrase of their own. In the sixteenth century, Andreas van Maes, who was a Flemish Catholic, and two Jesuit scholars, Benedict Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, thus pictured an original text from the hand of Moses upon which later writers expanded. Van Maes suggested that a later editor inserted phrases or changed the name of a place to its more current name so that readers would understand it better. Van Maes' book was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books.
In the third stage of the investigation, investigators concluded outright that Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch.
Hobbes (17th ct.) - example: the use of the phrase "to this day," which is not a phrase used by someone describing a contemporary situation"
Four years later, Isaac de la Peyr"re (French Calvinist) - "across the Jordan" (Deut 1:1) which would place Moses in Israel, which otherwise contradicts the claim that Moses never entered Israel. (book was banned and burned; de la Peyr"re was arrested, forced to become a Catholic)
Roughly contemporary, Spinoza published a unified critical analysis demonstrating the problematic passages pervaded the text:
There were the third-person accounts of Moses, the statements that Moses was unlikely to have made (e.g. "humblest man on earth"), the report of Moses' death, the expression "to this day," the references to geographical locales by names that they acquired after Moses' lifetime, the treatment of matters that were subsequent to Moses (e.g., the list of Edomite kings), and various contradictions and problems in the text of the sort that earlier investigators had observed. He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses." Spinoza remarked that these sound like the words of someone who live a long time after Moses and had the opportunity to see other prophets and thus make the comparison (They also do not sound like the words of the humblest man on earth) Spinoza wrote:"It is clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses." Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism. Now his work was condemned by Catholics and Protestants as well. His book was placed on the Catholic Index, within six years thirty-seven edicts were issued against it, and an attempt was made on his life.
(Richard Simon, a Catholic priest who converted from Protestantism, wrote what he intended to be a critique of Spinoza, claimed that the core of the Pentateuch (the laws) was Mosaic but that there were some additions. The additions, he said, were by scribes who collected, arranged, and elaborated upon the old texts. These scribes, according to Simon, were prophets, guided by the divine spirit, and so he regarded his work as a defense of the sanctity of the biblical text.
But his contemporaries were not ready - he was attacked by Catholic clergy, expelled from his order, and his books were placed on the Index. Protestants wrote 40 refutations of his work. 1294 copies of his book were burned - 6 survived. An English translation landed the translator in the tower.
Eighteenth ct. - in response to doublets:
A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac, two stories of Abraham's claiming to a foreign king that his wife Sarah is his sister, two stories of Isaac's son Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamia, two stories of a revelation to Jacob at Beth-el, two stories of God's changing Jacob's name to Israel, two stories of Moses' getting water from a rock at a place called Meribah, and more.

- Three independent investigators (H. B. Witter, a German minister; Jean Astruc, a French medical doctor, and J. G. Eichhorn, a German professor) arrived at the same conclusion: two different sources for these stories, from writers who lived after Moses.
The sources:
J) Yahweh/Jehovah as the name of God
E) Elohim as the name of God
P) The largest: includes most of the legal sections, priestly matters
D) Only found in the book of Deuteronomy

opposition to the Documentary hypothesis in the 19th. but in the 20th, major turning point with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943, "the Magna Carta for biblical progress."
The Pope encouraged scholars to pursue knowledge about the biblical writers, for those writers were "the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit"


To start things off, I apologize for forfeiting last round. I didn't realize I had only two days to respond, and of course debates are ordered by the most recent argument from the opponent, so I thought I had one more day. Oh well. I will respond to both of my opponent's rounds now.

Let's look for a moment at my arguments from round 1. Pro has failed to dispute my evidence that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and that the Gospels were written by reliable sources. Therefore, these arguments may be considered dropped.

Now, let's look at con's arguments from round. Firstly, pro attempts to show that Jesus is not the only son of God in the Bible. Secondly, he attempts to show that whenever Jesus claimed to be God's son, he was being metaphorical. Thirdly, he lists some apparent contradictions in the Bible attempting to disprove its veracity.

Jesus is clearly the only son of God according to the Bible. Con attempts to discredit John 3:16, the verse which explicitly states Jesus is God's son, with other verses from the Bible. However, his attempts stem from selective reading of the Bible and misunderstanding of both it and standard Christian doctrine. Con attempts to show that because the Bible uses the word son metaphorically in certain passages, such as Psalms 2:7, it must use it metaphorically in John 3:16. This is not the case. John's use of extremely explicit language demonstrates the passage is meant to be taken literally, and the use of the word "only" signifies that there are NO other "begotten sons," showing that he is denoting a different category than the metaphorical sons such as David, Israel, and Adam. Ultimately, the verse uses clear and simple, literal language that cannot be misinterpreted. In fact, the word used in Greek means "one of a kind." [1] In addition, Jesus repeatedly claims to be God's only son, as I have shown in the last argument. Please note that these verses that show Jesus is God's son were also unanswered, and therefore are dropped arguments. There are several other verses in which Jesus explicitly claims to be God's son, such as One interesting point that con makes is comparing the Old Testament, written in Hebrew, to the New Testament, written in Greek. [2] He claims "the Jews know their language," but the New Testament wasn't written in their language. Therefore, this point is invalid. To sum up, Jesus repeatedly and explicitly claimed to be the son of God in the Bible. In order to discredit this fact, one would need to discredit the Bible. This is precisely what con will next try to do.

But before we go on to con's extensive list of contradictions, let's first thoroughly debunk the theory that Jesus was just a profit. This is a somewhat extensive but self explanatory quote from the Bible.

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:13-18, NIV

So Jesus looks at the theory that he is merely a prophet, and dismisses it handily, claiming to be the Son of God. This is another clear example of Jesus claiming to be not merely another prophet, as con mistakenly claims, but the literal Son of God.

Now, let's look at con's list of contradictions in the Bible. Whilst I believe the original manuscripts of the Bible were correct in their entirety, I recognize that, whilst God has clearly preserved the most important aspects of His word, some scribal errors have occurred, and most of the genealogical errors can be ascribed to minor scribal errors in a time where literacy was rare. [3] There are two major exception to this maxim: Luke and Matthew contain completely different genealogies of Jesus. Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary, his true Earthly parent, whilst Matthew traces it through Joseph, the customary way. [4] Also, the Gospels skip some generations. [5] This explains most of con's "contradictions." Con asks " Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?" The answer is that God used Satan to accomplish his purposes. [6] God wanted to teach David to trust in Him, not the size of his army, so he either allowed or ordered Satan to incite David to count his men. Note that the verse in Chronicles says the "anger of the Lord" moved against David and did the inciting, not God. This is clearly symbolic language. Con then asks "How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?" Matthew's supposed miscounting disappears when one includes Jeconiah, the oldest person in the line, as a generation. [7] Con then asks whether John the Baptist was Elijah or not. A careful reading of the scriptures reveals that John was the "Elijah that was to come" but NOT Elijah himself. In other words, John possessed the spirit of Elijah but was not himself Elijah. [8] Next, con asks how many animals the disciples brought to Jesus during the triumphal entry. Whilst Luke only mentions one, he never denied the existence of any other donkeys, thereby invalidating con's point. Finally, con asks how Peter found out Jesus was the Christ. The answer is that Peter learned Jesus was the Messiah from Andrew, but learned he was the Son from God. We have seen that, in light of a practical and historically based interpretation, all contradictions except a few minor genealogical errors vanish. Con has given me an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the consistency of the Bible against many attacks and supposed contradictions.

So, to summarize what should have been round 2, John 3:16 clearly states Jesus is the only literal Son of God, and Jesus says so himself in several places (none of which have been answered). Jesus is not a prophet but the Messiah and Son of God. Finally, the Bible is extremely consistent when properly interpreted in light of itself and historical evidence.

Now, let's look at con's argument from round three. Con attempts to disprove Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch through the Documentary Hypothesis. Firstly, note that this explanation claims only to be a hypothesis and doesn't claim to be infallibly correct, or even to be sufficiently supported by evidence as to be universally accepted. Secondly, nobody believes Moses wrote the entirety of the Pentateuch, as there are clearly passages written after his death. Thirdly, this hypothesis ignores the fact that over the diversity of the 5 books, many different styles of writing were required. [9] Everything from history to poetry to laws was included in these books. Fourth, the existence of artificial literary structures indicates only one author to the Pentateuch. Finally, the Documentary Hypothesis in no way is relevant to this debate as it makes no impact on the historical evidence of Jesus and his life, and the veracity of the Gospels. Even if the Documentary Hypothesis were true, there would still be overwhelming evidence in favor of the Gospels. Note that con cites no sources at all in the 3rd round for his argument except the quote from the Pope. Therefore, his arguments are baseless and plagiarized.

To sum up, con has dropped most of the arguments I made in round 1. The Gospels, which I have shown to be reliable, clearly prove Jesus was God's son. Con's 3rd round was uncited and a red herring.

Debate Round No. 3


I'm sorry. I didn't reply to your 1st argument. You said authors of Bible were divinely inspired. Ok. Let's see. I will answer your second argument in round 4. Please Read my comment
If God inspired the authors of Bible, why does it contain verses that belittle Him? Why does it recognise Satan as "the ruler" or even "god of this world"? If Bible confuses you, if you don't know who is behind it; then read my argument carefully. Analyse these examples of Biblical verses that belittle God and glorify satan. See if you can refute them. If you remain confused, be rational to accept the truth. Let not your emotions and pride overrule you. Accept that God isn't the author of Bible. The book itself says God is not the author of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33)

- Examples of Verses that Belittle God
Do you agree with Bible when it says. "The Lord is man of war; the Lord is His name" (Exodus 15:3)? Is it not a blasphemy to say that God is a man, even a man of war?
Is there man a superior than God? Why does Bible describe God to be merely prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6); whereas, Melchizedek as the King of Peace (Hebrew 7:2)? Doesn't God deserve the grand title, the King of Peace?
God isn't omniscient. How come the Bible portrays God's limited knowledge of His creatures? (Genesis 3:8-13; Job 1:7) Do you believe God didn't even know Satan,of where he came from? (Job 1:7)
God doesn't know what's right (Job 42:7-8) So He needs to be told what's right as narrated in the Book of Job
Are the verses that portray God created lies (1 Kings 22:22-23; Judges 9:23) divinely inspired?
Doesn't Bible belittle God when it says He's the husband of a barren woman? "For your Maker is your Husband, the LORD of hosts is His name."(Isaiah 54:1,5) Is God a man that Bible associates a partner to Him? Is he not Almighty and Self-Sufficient or the only One free of needs?
Bible narrates instances that depict God wasn't omnipresent at all times (Genesis 3:8; Genesis 11:5)
God can be tempted as shown in the following verses: "Why do you tempt the Lord?" (Exodus 17:2) "You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted Him in Massah." (Deuteronomy 6:16)
God isn't omnipotent. He is powerless to help His creatures (Judges 1:19). Would you believe that a man had robbed God (Malachi 3:8-9)?
He is also weak. He "Wearied" (Isaih 43:24) and "rested" (Genesis 2:2; Exodus 24:16)
God is not the only saviour. Didn't God say, "Besides me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-12)? How come Bible mentions of "saviours" who were to judge (Obadiah 1:21)
God made foolishness. Paul said that God made foolish the wisdom of this world and that God is pleased with the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1-20-21)
The Law of the Lord made nothing perfect: Do you believe Paul when he said the law made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:18-19)
God's commandments are not pure. How true that God said (or "inspired") Hosea to take a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry (Hosea 1:2)?
Did he really say to Hosea to go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery (Hosea 3:1)
God repents. He was "sorry that He had made man on the Earth" (Genesis 6:6-7)
Holiness does not pertain to God alone: Bible mentions of: holy people (Isaiah 63:18), a holy nation (Exodus 19:6), the holy seed (Psalm 86:2). holy prophets (Luke 1:70) and some servants of God as holy (Leviticus 11:44; Psalm)."
God is angry forever. Bible asks: "How long Lord will you be angry forever? Will your jealousy burn like fire" (Psalm 79:5)
God is not only jealous but his name is Jealous. Did God really say that He was jealous God (Exodus 20:5)? Does not the Bible belittle God when it says that God's name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14). Is He not worthy of all praise?
God is not a rock. The Bible says, "who is a rock, except our God?" (2 Samuel 22:32) it contradicts the statement: "To whom then will you like God? Or what likeness will you compare Him?" (Isaiah 40:18)
Man blesses God (Psalm 34:1;103:1). David said:"I will bless the Lord at all times." (Psalm 34:1) Does this mean God is dependent on man?"
God is visible. There were men who had seen God (Genesis 26:2; 32:30; 35:9, Exodus 24:9-10; 33:11; Numbers 12:6-8; Job 42:5; Amos 9:1)
God is changeable. The Bible narrates verses that show His changeable actions (Exodus 33:1,3, 14,17; Samuel 2:30-31; Jonah 3:10)
God's work is far from perfect. It questions man's purity, being God's creation (Job 15:14-26)
God is not oft-forgiving. He does not forgive sins of those whose hands are full of blood no matter how many prayers they make (Isaiah 1:15)
What if their prayers are sincere, showing their true repentance? Wouldn't God forgive them? If the sinners will believe in this verse, do you think they will receive admonition? Or you will expect them, being of little faith, instead to become atheists?
God is not the only judge of all mankind. Bible says, "For the father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son" (John 5:22). Even Paul claimed that he judged (1 Corinthians 5:1-3; 1 Corinthians 5:12)
He also said: "We shall judge angels. How much more on things that pertain to this life?" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)
How come Bible talks of "the fear of the LORD" (Psalm 19:9; 111:10; Isaiah 63:17), "the foolishness and "weakness of God" (1 Corinthians 1:25) Is He not the Almighty?
God was a tribal King. He was the King of Israel (Isaiah 44:6; Micah 5:2)
If God were the King of Israel (Isaiah 44:6; Micah 5:2), then Satan must be superior to God. Bible perceives Satan as the ruler of this world (John 14:30; 16:11)
The Bible associates partner to God. It says that Jesus is equal with God" (Philippians 2:8). It confuses Christians to believe him as "the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:16,18) and "one" in essence and in nature with God (John 14:6-7)
In short, Jesus was "God" (Romans 9:5). If Jesus were God, then God was not at all almighty, omnipotent and eternal. The Bible narrates that Jesus was sorrowful and deeply distressed. His soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. So, he fell on his face, and prayed (Matthew 26:37-39; Mark 14:33-36)
The high priest tore his clothes. They all condemned him to be worthy of death. Then some began to spit on him, and blindfolded him, they struck him on the face (Luke 22:63, 64)
He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. Jesus wept (John 11:33,35)
He suffered outside the gate (Hebrews 13:12)
They crucified him (John 19:18) until he yielded up his spirit (Matthew 27:50), breathed his last (Luke 23:46) and "died" (Romans 5:6)
If Jesus were "God", then God was a racial God. Bible describes Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Juda (Revelation 5:5)
It means he was a tribal Jew. He came for the Jews only (Matthew 15:24)
And he practised racial discrimination. He commanded his disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and told them not to go to the way of Gentiles and a city of the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5-6)
If "God" were a racial God, the God of Israel (also see Jeremiah 7:3), then Satan has dominion over Him. Do you believe, "there is no God in the entire earth, except in Israel" (2 Kings 5:15)?
How come Bible says, "Satan is the god of this evil world" (2 Corinthians 4:4)?

- Examples of Biblical Verses that Glorify Satan
Satan is the prince of the world. New Testament says that Satan is the prince of this world who shall be cast out (John 12:31). The Amplified version even describes Satan as "the ruler (evil generous, prince) of this world" (John 12:31)
Satan is the ruler of this world. He's the ruler of this world who is Judged. King James says that the ruler of this world is coming (John 14:30). The Amplified version specifies that the prince (evil genius, ruler) of the world who is coming is Satan (John 14:30,31)
The same version of Bible stresses that Satan is the ruler of this world (John 16:11). He is the ruler of this world who is judged (John 16:11) according to the other versions (i.e. King James, Living New Testaments, and the Revised Standard)
Satan is the god of this evil world. The Living New Testament even recognizes that Satan is the god of this evil world (2 Corinthians 4:4)
King James states that the god of this age has blinded those who don't believe (4 Corinthians 4:4)
Satan is imbued with all power. King James writes: "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9)
The devil had the power of death. All the popular versions of Bible, (i.e. King James, Amplified, Living New Testament and the Revised Standard) agree that the devil had the power of death (Hebrews 2:14)
The whole world is under the power of the evil one. The King James, Amplified and Revised Standard concur that the whole world is under the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19)
The Living New Testament says all the rest of the world around us is under Satan's power and control (1 John 5:19)
With all the descriptions given contrary to God's divine attributes would you then say that Bible is God's Word? Would you agree with the Bible when it says that Satan is the ruler and god of this world? Would you believe that the whole world is under the power of the evil one, Satan? Is Satan imbued with power, including the power of death? How true is it that God is kind to the devil (Luke 6:35)?
Does the evil one deserves God's kindness when he is in fact, rebellious to God? Do you not question God's justice to punish the wicked, if God were kind to the devil? Doesn't it imply that people have to also show kindness to the evil one instead of fighting or resisting him? If all people will adhere to this verse, do you think there will be peace and order in the world ? Is it not that the evil does not only deceive mankind but also creates mischiefs to humanity?
Who is behind the Biblical verses that belittle God and glorify Satan on the other hand? Do you attribute them to God? Indeed, it is a sheer blasphemy


I am confused a little bit, but not over the Bible. Con stated that he would answer my second argument in round 4. However, he said this in round 4, so I am understandably confused. I shall assume he meant round 5.

Con has abandoned any attempt to provide historical evidence that the Bible is incorrect or to demonstrate using the Bible that Jesus isn't the Son of God and has instead turned to an all out attack on the Bible. After his failed attempt to prove the Bible contained many contradictions, con now turns to quoting isolated verses out of context that appear to go against other sections of the Bible. Con's attack can be divided into two main points: the Bible belittles God, and the Bible glorifies Satan. My response will come in two parts. I shall first demonstrate unambiguously that the Bible glorifies God and is opposed to Satan on the whole, and secondly debunk each of the specific instances in which an out-of-context reading of the Bible may mistakenly give the impression of belittling God or glorifying Satan.

What does the Bible say about God? I shall quote only a few of many verses, but they are unambiguous in their declaration of God's glory, power, and righteousness. According to Psalms 19:1, "the heavens declare the glory of God." In Exodus 40:34-35, Moses was unable to enter the Tabernacle because God's glory filled it. There are many verses like these that declare the glory of God. What about God's righteousness? Psalms 145:17 declares "The LORD is righteous in all his ways and faithful in all he does." And of God's power, the Bible teaches that God rose Jesus from the dead, conquering the enemy to which all mortals succumb. It teaches that God created the entire universe from nothing. Clearly, the Bible praises God's holiness, power, and glory on the whole.

What does the Bible teach about Satan? According to Ezekiel 28, Satan was the greatest of God's angels who rebelled against him. The word Satan literally means adversary in Hebrew, and he is God's most powerful opponent. [1] However, as a creation of God, he is infinitely less powerful than God. Satan is also known as the devil, a less formal term. As "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) everyone is influenced by Satan in sin. 1 John 3:8 sheds some light on the subject. "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." Sinners are falling into Satan's plans, but Christ, mentioned here as the Son of God, came to destroy the power of sin, which is referred to as the devil's work. God has allowed Satan to have influence over sinners, so this is the reason why Satan is known by titles such as Ruler of This Age or even god of this world. These titles indicate the enormous influence Satan is allowed to have over the world, not that he is inherently good or more powerful than God. Eventually, according to Revelations 20:10, God will "throw the devil into the lake of burning sulfur."

Now, let's look at the specific verses con has cited in an attempt to display inconsistencies in the Bible. Con cites Exodus 15:3 as calling the Lord a "man of war." This term essentially means warrior, and is translated as such in most modern translations such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible. This verse is in no way actually calling God a man, and is only using the term "man of war" as another way of saying warrior. Next, con cites Isaiah 9:6 as calling God the "prince of peace". This is incorrect. Isaiah 9:6 talks about the Messiah, Jesus, not God the Father, so it is natural that Jesus would be the "prince" of peace. He cites Melchizedek as the "king of peace" in Hebrews 7:2. This is somewhat misleading. Melchizedek was the "king of Salem", which literally means king of peace, a fact that Hebrews points out. This is obviously not literal. This entire point seems to compare two metaphorical descriptions of two people and does not have a solid basis. Christians do believe that God is omniscient. Con cites the story of Adam and the story of Job in his attempt to show he is not. In the story of Adam, God asks Adam questions about whether or not he ate the forbidden fruit. This is in no way indicative of God's limited knowledge of his creatures. Imagine for a moment that you forbade your 3-year-old child to eat chocolate in the middle of the night. One night, you find your child with chocolate smears on his face hiding chocolate wrappers in his drawer. If you ask him, "did you eat any chocolate?", this in no way indicates your lack of knowledge on whether he ate chocolate. It is a test of honesty. God clearly knew that Adam ate the forbidden fruit, and his questions in no way detract from his omniscience. In Job 1:7, God asks Satan where he came from, and Satan gives his reply. Interestingly, this verse is repeated when God and Satan next encounter each other in Job 2:2. Is God both forgetful and not omniscient? No. Clearly, this refrain is used as a poetic device to tie the book together. Con then claims Job 42:7-8 show God doesn't know what's right. This is preposterous. I shall now quote these two verses ad verbatim.

"7 After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has." Job 42:7-8. As you can see, this verse in no way implies God doesn't know what's right, as con falsely claimed.

When the Bible refers to the Lord as the "husband of the barren," this is clearly metaphorical. It shows that God offers them the same kind of love and commitment they cannot get from a husband. In 1 Corinthians, Paul tells us that what the world thought to be wisdom couldn't save them, so what they considered foolishness was all that could. This is similar to God telling a rich man to give up his riches so that he can have riches in heaven. In no way does this condone poverty, and neither does the passage from 1 Corinthians condone foolishness. In Judges 1:19, God is in no way powerless to help His creatures. In Malachi 3:8-9, the Lord says the people of Israel were robbing him by withholding tithes, not by pickpocketing him. When God "wearied" and "rested," it is only metaphorically. When God said, "Besides me there is no savior," he meant there is no saviour from sin other than Him, not that no one could ever save anything at all except Him. Paul tells us that the Law didn't make anything perfect, but did set the standard for perfection. God inspired Hosea to take a prostitute as his wife to redeem her, just as God promised to redeem Israel. God doesn't repent of anything, but did show regret for creating a race of beings with free will that so utterly betrayed him. When the Bible calls God a "Jealous God," it means God wants to be His people's only god. God is not angry forever. David is asking a question, not stating a fact. There is no meaningful contradiction between the statement that God is beyond compare and using a metaphor to describe Him. God is not dependent on humanity in any way. God's work is perfect. However, as he endowed humans with free will, Adam and Eve corrupted the creation. God only forgives those who sincerely turn away from their sin, not those who grovel to escape consequences. This is why he refused to forgive those with "blood on their hands."

I do not enjoy making scrappy arguments like these, but I am running out of characters. Con is throwing a lot of mud at a wall trying to see what sticks. He fails to make a cohesive argument, as I have done in round one (still unanswered). As I have shown, his arguments are based on out-of-context quote mines. I would appreciate con not quote mining the Bible, as it is extremely tiring to refute a long list of false quotes.

Now, let's talk about Jesus' relationship to God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each an aspect of God. God is one, but in three distinct persons. Jesus and God are spiritually equivalent but not functionally equivalent. This means that, whilst both are truly and fully God, they fulfill different roles. This is why Jesus said, in John 5:30, that he can do nothing without the father, and this is why the Father has given the responsibility of judgment to His Son. God sent the Gospel message "first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." (Romans 1:16) God came first for his chosen people and then for the world.

To summarize, despite promising to answer my arguments in Round 4, con failed to do so. He has still not answered my considerable historical evidence from round one, and is forced to quote mine and misinterpret the Bible, flinging a large number of isolated verses that, when properly mined, feebly support a corrupted Bible. He has failed to provide any historical evidence of the Bible's corruption. He has abandoned any attempt of trying to prove from the Bible that Jesus is God's son, conceding that point. Con has failed to answer my arguments and has failed to create a cohesive argument of his own.


Debate Round No. 4


Ok, let me start with the excuses you made for those contradictions.
As I said in my comment, you may deceive yourself, but you can't convince.

For the first contradiction, you write:"God ordered/allowed Satan to incite David" But you didn't mention why God did so. Was God unable to incite David Himself? Why should He order Satan such a thing? If what you wrote was true, the authors of Bible would write it in this Book. But they wrote two different things. If we read those verses we will find out:
1) God (exalted is He) and Satan are the same.
2) Or the Bible is corrupted.

But let's suppose you are right. Do you think God orders Satan to do something, when He has cursed him?
"[Allah ] said, "Then get out of Paradise, for indeed, you are expelled. And indeed, upon you is My curse until the Day of Recompense." (Quran 38:78)

But let's suppose God ordered Satan to do so. Do you think when David obeyed Satan, he had obeyed God as well? God has ordered us not to obey Satan. He tells us that Satan is our enemy.
"O you who have believed, do not follow the footsteps of Satan. And whoever follows the footsteps of Satan - indeed, he enjoins immorality and wrongdoing. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have been pure, ever, but Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is Hearing and Knowing." (Quran 24:21)

"Indeed, Satan is an enemy to" you; so take him as an enemy." He only invites his party to be among the companions of the Blaze. (Quran 35:6)

God orders us not to obey Satan, but I want to ask a question:
When Satan incited David to count those men. how he (David) found out that it was the order of God? I mean, when Satan tells me to do something, I know it is his temptation. I know he wants me to disobey God. So I don't listen to Satan. God tells us not to obey Satan too. So, how God expected David to count the men, when He has forbidden following Satan? We all know Satan makes us sin. So when David counted those men, he committed sin. Because Satan incited him. So David was a sinner
You also said that God used Satan to accomplish his purposes. If you are right, it means that God wanted to make David commit sin. Because he used Satan. So God was evil, too. He wanted David to do an unlawful deed. He could incited David Himself. So David would obey God and get reward. Please tell me, does God want someone to sin? No. I hope you got my point. What God wants us to do is against what Satan wants. God wants to help us. Satan wants to corrupt us. God wants us to perform prayer. Satan wants us to neglect it. In brief, If counting the men is a good deed, God incited David. But if it is an evil deed, Satan incited him. So ONLY one of those verses is correct.
I don't wanna talk about others contradictions. We will definitely have anothor debate. So we can talk about them later. I wanna hear more excuses from you.

1. You said God was a warrior. Please tell me, what is the difference between "a man of war" and "a warrior"?

2. You said "Prince of peace" was about Jesus. So do you mean the "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" are about Jesus, too? Oh, I thought Father was God. So I was wrong. Everlasting Father is Jesus. So in the Bible, I should replace the word "Father" with "Jesus". Ok, thanks for this. I knew God wasn't the Father of Jesus. And you proved it. You answered the question of my debate. Jesus is not the son of God.
"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 God, Everlasting"Father,"Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)

3. You said Melchizedek was the king of Salem. "Salem" or "Salam" means peace. The word "Islam" is a form of "Salem" which means peaceful. When Muslims greet, they say:"Assalamun Alaikum", meaning "peace be upon you." I don't care what you have wrote. They make no sense to me. I will have another debate with you. I wanna learn how to make excuse like you.

In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton (died 1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture." Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous. Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication.
Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture".

Newton on I John 5:7
Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament.
"When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody"s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.
"Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best."

Newton on I Timothy 3:16
"In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play . . . they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business."
"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God."
Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority.

A. Wallace, "Anti-Trinitarian Biographies," Vol. III, 1850.


Raistlin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
By the way, my source was Bible. Christians claim that Bible is the word of God. So what source can be more reliable than the Word of God?!
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
It seems Pro didn't realize he had only two days to respond again!!!
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
"And whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] himself; and whoever strays - say, "I am only [one] of the warners."" (Quran 72:92)
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
My friend, you can ignore and deny what I'm saying. But know that what I tell you is for your own benefit. I just want to help you. Maybe I chose the wrong way, but my intention is helping you.
It's none of my business that the Bible is corrupted. I'm Muslim. My divin book is Quran. If you accept the corruption of Bible, I'll get nothing. And if you deny it, I'll lose nothing.
But if you listen to me, you can be guided and find the truth. But if you ignore, you will be in loss in hereafter. You will be regretful one-day when it is too late to regret.
I just want to help you. Please believe me. You can keep deceiving yourself. But one day you will realize that I speak the truth.
Oh, it's up to you... I can't guide you by force...

"And it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. You can only warn one who follows the message and fears the Most Merciful unseen. So give him good tidings of forgiveness and noble reward." (Quran 36:10-11)
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
I truely love Bible. I really love reading it. The Bible has been revealed by God, just like the Quran. But can you give me the original Bible? No. Jesus has taken the Gospel to heaven. Because the Christians didn't appreciate it. And the original Torah is in the Ark of the Covenant.
The Bible you have now, is not the origin Bible. Some parts of its have been corrupted.
I believe the origin Bible is the Word of God. As Quran says:" Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (Quran 2:136)
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
You're right. I don't understand the Bible. You can say I'm ignorant. But in fact, I don't understand the Bible, because it makes no sense to me. Who can prove Jesus is the Son of God? Who can prove Trinity is not imaginary? Who can prove Jesus died for your sins? Can you give me a rational and satisfacory answer without quoting the Bible? No. Because there's no evidence. You only can find such lies in the Bible!
You should read Bible with an open mind, not me. You should question your beliefs, not accepting them blindly. How many are the Scriptures? Read them carefully and compare them to each other. As I wrote, their verses are different from one another. Do you know why? Because there was a disagreement between the authors of Bible. And each author wrote his own opinion for his own benefits.
"And We had certainly given Moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement. And if not for a word that preceded from your Lord, it would have been judged between them. And indeed they are, concerning the Qur'an, in disquieting doubt." (Quran 11:110)
Posted by Raistlin 1 year ago
You seem to have a highly negative attitude towards understanding the Bible. I would encourage you to read it without your preconceived notions and instead try to understand its message. An open mind is the key to understanding the scripture. Rather than trying to take small portions of the Bible out of context, read it with an open mind and a desire for true understanding. I will post my final round within a day.
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
Pro, please post your last argument. I don't care what you want to say. You have already answered my question. As you said, Jesus is called "prince of peace" and "Everlasting Father". Jesus is the father. It is really simple to understand and makes sense to me. Thank you so much. I wanted to deny that Jesus was the son of God. And you denied it in the best way. "Everlasting Father" is Jesus. So the word "The Father" in Bible refers to Jesus, not God. And as a result, Jesus is not the son of God. Thank you so much!! Wow! I can't thank you enough!!
I didn't want to debate with you over the corruption of Bible. I just wanted you to prove the sonship of Jesus. But instead, you denied his sonship. Thanks.
By the way, Don't bother to make a new excuse. Because I can't believe it any more.
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
By the way, I'm following Jesus and his diciples. They were Muslim, too:

" But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, "Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah ?" The disciples said," We are supporters for Allah . We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]." (Quran 3:52)
Posted by Alice-The-Preacher 1 year ago
Hey! How do you know that Jesus sacrificed his life to forgive your sins?! We fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like a physician breaking his head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust. How about the redemption of those who were born and died before the coming of Jesus? Above all, the Old Testament tells us nothing about the so-called "ransom sacrifice".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con. Con dropped many arguments, so arguments to Pro. Only Pro had sources.