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

Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ Peace be upon Him

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,602 times Debate No: 16145
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)




The question: ‘was or is Christ Jesus (pbuh) God?’ leads to another question: did he ever clearly claim to be God? And of course as many of us know, there is nothing in the Bible as such. This is the book which is supposed to contain four accounts of Jesus’ (pbuh) life story, yet no where can we find Jesus (pbuh) ever directly claiming to be God. If this is the case then surely the answer is no, Jesus’ (pbuh) was not divine.

Let us look at this in more detail, let us use logic. If the Lord all Mighty had come down to earth as a man, as Jesus Christ (pbuh) then wouldn’t He want the people to know? Wouldn’t He make it plain such as ‘I am your Lord; I have come down to earth so worship me’? This is a very basic argument but effective. Why leave the whole world in such confusion? If Jesus (pbuh) was God according to Christianity, then there should be some direct unambiguous statement in the Bible, made by him while he walked this earth confirming that. This is only logical. For example if you did not know Adam’s name was Adam because he never told you, how can you be sure what his name was? It’s so simple and basic.

There is a passage in the Christian Bible which comes close to claiming the divinity of Christ (pbuh). In the book of Revelation, where Jesus is supposed to have said “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”[1]. This verse seems convincing at first but when one should looked into the matter with more detail (who wrote this book, when was it written etc?), the problem is very clear. The book of Revelation was a dream of a man named John, now if this John was the same John who wrote the ‘Gospel according to John’ or ‘Gospel of John’, I’m not sure. But nevertheless the book was a dream of someone called John as many Christian scholars claim. The very idea that it was a dream written down weakens the statement (Revelation 1:8). A dream could mean anything, how reliable is a dream? Did this man John really have the dream, or did he make the whole thing up? No one can be one hundred percent sure. Also, we do not take events that take place within dreams and attribute them to reality as proof, this clearly doesn’t work. Everyone knows this.

The book of revelation was written many years later after Jesus (pbuh) as a result of a dream, around 70 – 95 C.E (some scholars vary on the time). If such a direct and clear statement was uttered by Christ (pbuh) in actual reality while he was on earth, then there would probably be no disagreement to whether Jesus (pbuh) claimed divinity or not in the Bible.

It is obvious that we need to examine the personality and attitude of Jesus Christ (pbuh) according to the Bible, his nature and his attributes. And when we do so it is very noticeable that Jesus (pbuh) of the Bible presents himself as a modest servant of God who has no power without God. He presents himself as a simple human being and gives himself no divine attributes whatsoever. For example he completely humbles himself in such places in the New Testament: Jesus (pbuh) was called a good master but he refuses to be called as such and says there is none so good but the only Lord[3]. In another passage of the Bible he says: “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me[4]. Also Jesus (pbuh) claims all his power is given to him by his Creator[5]. One more example out of the many I feel I should point out here, before resurrecting Lazarus Jesus (pbuh) absolutely humbled himself by calling to the Creator aloud. Ponder carefully over what he said here according the Gospel of John: Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth”[6]. Are these the sayings of God? Is the all Mighty not good? Is His power given to Him? Simple basic logic suggests that these are not the sayings of God but of a mere human being, a prophet of God.

Even in Christ’s (pbuh) day to day thinking, actions and doings do we see no sign of a divine being but a simple human. Here are some instants from the Bible to show this: Jesus (pbuh) had no knowledge of the hereafter[7]. He felt thirsty[8], and he cried in another instant[9]. He was tempted by the devil[10]. It is very clear these are not the attributes of God, they are attributes a human being. Can anyone imagine a thirsty or weepy or ignorant God? Can anyone believe God was being tempted by the devil? Everything we find in the Bible regarding Jesus (pbuh) clearly show that he was only a limited being, whereas God all Mighty is unlimited. You cannot have an unlimited and limited being at the same time. As the famous Muslim debater Shabir Ally puts it: “you cannot have a square-circle”, you are either limited or unlimited.

Nevertheless Christians haven’t given up in the argument, they still present their reasons to why Jesus (pbuh) would be God. The explanations they provide are as always based on Biblical passages. Passages which they seem to think are convincing, and purely their own interpretations. When closely examined and scrutinised one would realise that such passages or verses are completely uncertain and ambiguous open to many interpretations. As I wrote earlier in this writing that wouldn’t the all Mighty make it clear and plain if He came down to earth as a Man? The following are some of the most common arguments given from the Bible as proof of the divinity of Christ (pbuh).

In the Bible Jesus (pbuh) had claimed that he was in existence before his miraculous birth[11], so therefore somehow concluding that he must be divine. But this is nothing special when the same concept is also in the Old Testament regarding Jeremiah, Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations”[12]. There are other verses when read out of contexts are misinterpreted against what they mean when read in context. Such as: “I and my Father are one”[13] and “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”[14]. And finally one more: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”[15]. This verse wasn’t even uttered by Jesus (pbuh), in the red letter Bible this verse appears as black. Also notice how none of these passages are actually direct or unequivocal.There is no direct statement, verse or passage in the Bible regarding Christ’s (pbuh) divinity. What would be most appropriate is a claim from the lips of Jesus Christ (pbuh) that ‘I am your Lord, worship me’, we don’t even have this in that Bible.

It can be said that there is no solid evidence to base a belief of the divinity Christ (pbuh). The Bible when studied, observed and scrutinised has nothing intellectually convincing to offer to prove such an idea. Rather we have at best very vague, indirect and ambiguous passages which Christians claim to be convincing proof. One must have solid incontestable evidence for giving such an attribute to Jesus (pbuh) or to God. We cannot base our beliefs on assumption. Also a Christian must consider verses which outright deny the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), such as: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven”[17].

1] Revelation 1:8

3] Matthew 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-18, Luke 18:18-19

4] John 5:30

5] Matthew 28:18

6] John 11:41-43

7] Mark 13:32

8] John 19:28

9] John 11:35

10] Mark 1:13

11] John 8:58

12] Jeremiah 1:4-5

13] John 10:30

14] John 14:6

15] John 1:1

17] Matthew 23:9

Full article:



I would like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent for selecting me for this debate. It is an honor to be selected out of all the Christian debaters on this site to challenge this worthy opponent.

Before the beginning of the debate, there still remains a few definitions to be addressed. I shall do so presently.

First of all, the resolution of this debate is the "Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ" (Forgive me for not including "Peace be upon Him," for this is a Muslim phrase and I wish there to be no confusion as to which religion I am representing). As such there are a few things that we must define.

Biblical - This debate hinges on the Bible itself. For this debate this means the 66 books of the Hebrew Bible (39 books) and the New Testament (27 books) that are universally held as inspired by all branches of orthodox Christianity. Since this debate is about what the Bible teaches, all other sources of teaching are irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, we must understand how the Bible is understood in Christianity. I will talk more about this in my responses to Con's arguments.

Burden of Proof - This debate has an unusual burden of proof. Typically Pro has the burden of proof in a case where the resolution is an affirmative statement (this is). However, In this case Con is the Instigator and is challenging 1800+ years of Christian interpretation. As such, the Burden of Proof is unique and complex. In order to secure victory in this debate Con must do the following: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible either A) Claims that Jesus is NOT God, or B) Prove that the passages that Pro supplies do not argue for the divinity of Christ. Pro on the other hand also has a burden of proof. To secure victory, Pro must do the following: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible A) claims that Jesus was/is God or B) Prove that the passages supplied by Con do not argue against the divinity of Christ.

Rebuttals: Let us break Con's argument into component parts. I shall then address each one in limited detail (with more to come in following rounds if needed).

A) Con asserts that if Christ was divine, then he must necessarily have explicitly claimed to be divine. He asserts that since this is true that if Jesus did not claim to be divine, that he was not.
B) Con then argues from Logic. He claims that if God became incarnate and came to earth, than he would explicitly state that. He then asserts that since there is no explicit statement to this effect in scripture, that we must conclude that He is not divine.
C) Con then seeks to assert that statements of Jesus' divinity found in the Book of Revelation are not legitimate because the book of Revelation is based on a dream, so it cannot be considered reliable.
D) Con then argues that Christ's attitude and behavior as a humble servant of God with no power outside himself, prove that he was indeed not God.
E) Con continues this line in asserting that there are various human limitations (lack of knowledge, thirst, sorrow, temptation, etc) show that Jesus was not in fact divine.
F) Con then puts forward what he feels are the most compelling passages, and attempts to refute them.

I shall now respond to each of these arguments.
A and B) Both of these arguments rest on an assumption. The assumption is that if God came to earth, he would do so in an explicit way and reveal it to all people. However, this is an assumption that is simply that... an assumption. In a formal debate, we must prove (either via evidence, or by irrefutable logic) that an assertion holds weight. Con has not fulfilled this burden in these two arguments. As such, I shall address them no further until he has given proof other than to provide the following passage. Furthermore, Jesus does not explicitly claim many things that we understand as true from the text. He does not explicitly claim to be Jewish, he does not explicitly claim to be the son of Mary nor does he explicitly claim to have been born of a virgin. Not explicitly claiming something does not make it untrue.

C) As I said previously, we are using the Bible and Christian interpretation to deal with this debate. As such, we must follow the rules inherent in Christian interpretation. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." As such, we must acknowledge that there is not a hierarchy of scriptures in the Bible. The red words of Christ are no more significant doctrinally than the black words of John, or Paul, or Peter.

D and E) Con argues that the humble attitude of Jesus contradicts the possibility of his divinity. This, however, is not true. We see at various places in the Old Testament that Yahweh is either called or calls himself a "helper" to the people. The word "helper" is the Hebrew word "Ezer" and often carries the connotation of "servant" or "assistant" (See Genesis 2:20). Additionally, Jesus commonly teaches that the true way to be a leader is to be a servant. He also says that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. With this in view, having a humble attitude of service and "lastness" is completely in line with divinity. Additionally, Philippians 2:6-7 claims that Jesus made himself nothing. The actual word is "emptied (gk=Keno-o)" himself of his divine attributes. This means that he self limited himself, so the limitation of hunger, lack of knowledge, thirst, emotions are self imposed limitations which do not impinge on his divinity.

F) My opponent simply claims that these passages are read out of context and therefore the interpretation is invalid. However, my opponent does nothing to substantiate his claims. As such, his arguments do not stand until he provides support for them. If he does not provide support in further rounds, these points can be dismissed. Furthermore, he argues that these passages do not come from the mouth of Jesus and are therefore invalid. For refutation of this, please see Rebuttal C)

Simply put: Con attempts to show that the Bible does not claim divinity for Christ. However, none of his arguments hold weight and therefore cannot be considered. He has not fulfilled any burden of proof to show that the Bible does not claim divinity for Christ, and therefore at this point has not secured victory.

Affirmative Argument:

I am short on space, so this will be brief. I shall include a longer affirmative argument later. I shall start with a list of passages with brief interpretive notes, and shall expand on them in further rounds if needed.

John 1:1-148- In this passage, John introduces the Word. He asserts that the "Word was God" and that "All things were made through him." In verse 14 he writes "the Word became flesh" and equates this word with Jesus (vs 17). This passage clearly asserts that Christ is God and shows him as a non-created being.

John 8:58 - In this passage Jesus makes a stunning claim. He says "Before Abraham was, I Am." While this seems rather innocuous, it is not. Jesus not only claims that he existed before Abraham, but he uses the proper name of God to explain this. We see clearly in the reaction of the Jews that they believed this to be a claim of divinity, as the immediately sought to stone him for blasphemy.

Philippians 2:6 - Paul here clearly states that Jesus was in the very form, God. He is claiming that Christ is divine in nature, and does not consider equality with God something to be sought (because he is already equal).

Colossians 2:9-10 - here Paul writes 'For in [Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." Clearly Paul is asserting that Jesus is God.

I have shown that not only to Biblical writers (John and Paul) make a claim that Jesus is God, but Jesus himself makes statements that imply his own divinity. Unless Con can show that I have misinterpreted or misrepresented these passages, I have secured my burden of proof in showing that the Bible does indeed assert this.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent ReformedArsenal (Pro) for accepting my challenge.

I must apologise for not providing a simple introduction in round 1 (opening statement) as my opponent has. I am new to so please forgive any mistakes I might commit during this debate. I am thankful to Pro for defining phrases/words such as ‘Biblical' and ‘Burden of proof'. These definitions will undoubtedly help us through the debate as well as the readers.

In this round I will reply to Pro's rebuttals against my opening statement in the 1st round. Pro broke my arguments down into six parts (A-F) and I shall carry on this format so it may not be confusing.

Part A & B) My opponent mentioned: it is an assumption of mine that if God came down to earth as a man, he would do so in an explicit manner and reveal it to all the people…an assumption? Is this not logical, is this not reasonable? For God to make it clear to his creation that He had come down as a man, because one's salvation depends on his/her understanding of God (at least for monotheistic religions). If God became a man on Earth then it must be 100% clear so that everyone may understand and be saved from disbelief, right? Pro absolutely believes that God became a man called Jesus (pbuh) yet he points out no passage where Christ (pbuh) ever clearly claimed to be the incarnate of God. He mostly quotes those other than Jesus (pbuh) (Paul, John, Mark etc). My opponent Pro then states "Jesus does not explicitly claim many things that we understand as true…not explicitly claiming something does not make it untrue". True (regarding the Bible), but Jesus (pbuh) does explicitly forbid calling any man on Earth God: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven"[1]. Also Jesus (pbuh) taught the greatest commandment to be: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord"[2]. Note here Jesus (pbuh) said "our God" including himself in the equation. These are two statements from the lips of Christ (pbuh) according to the Bible, and they clearly indicate that Jesus (pbuh) was not God, are they not clear enough?

Part C) My opponent implies that we should take Revelation 1:8 of the Bible in actual fact regardless of the book being a dream written down. Why? Because 2 Timothy 3:16 of the Bible tells us the entire Bible is from God. I'll grant this point for now because I don't want to get into discussing the reliability of the Bible in this debate. But the verse (Revelation 1:8) raises another question: such a clear and direct statement here, why didn't Jesus (pbuh) make such a statement while he walked the Earth (in the Bible) so everyone could know? Why appear to one person in a dream many years after he left? Further on my opponent stated: "Red words of Christ are no more significant doctrinally than the black words of John, or Paul, or Peter", so words of men such as Paul or John etc are equal to the words of Christ (pbuh) who he believes to be divine? Interesting way of thought and definitely the first time I have heard of it. I would kindly ask Pro to present a single leading Christian Bible scholar who agrees with this thought.

Part D & E) My opponent argues that it doesn't matter whether Jesus (pbuh) humbled himself or not, he is still divine, because God humbled Himself in the Old Testament by calling Himself or being called in Hebrew ‘Ezer' meaning: ‘helper' which has other connotations such as ‘servant' or ‘assistant'. However translators (of the Bible) translate ‘Ezer' to ‘helper' instead of ‘servant' or ‘assistant'. The reason must be that ‘helper' is the best word fitting ‘Ezer' in given contexts of the Bible. I don't think anyone disagrees of God being the Helper, it glorifies Him rather than humbling. My opponent then claims from the Bible (Philippians 2:6-7) that Jesus Christ (pbuh) limited himself, if this is so then it is not befitting to say that Jesus was/is God, because God is unlimited. As I mentioned in the 1st round: one cannot be limited and unlimited at the same time. Simply put: if God became a man, then he became a man and that man is no longer God anymore.

Part F) Regarding this part and also Pro's affirmative argument I would like to deal with in the 4th round carrying it on into round 5 with closing remarks, if that is fine with you ReformedArsenal? The reason why is because of the limitation of writing space given. It will be hard to deal with everything in one round. And it will be easier if we deal with my arguments: against and then your arguments: for. I hope you agree.

You see readers my points still remain and I await my opponent to give a fitting answer to them. In a debate we expect proofs, solid evidences and logical arguments. But when it comes to this particular topic (Jesus' Divinity) we hear the most loosely convincing arguments from the Christian side. The famous late Ahmed Deedat used to challenge Christian scholars so strongly, he used to promise to embrace Christianity if someone could show him anywhere in the Bible where Jesus Christ (pbuh) directly claimed divinity. No one ever came forth with a single convincing verse. Of course some may disagree with Deedat's tactics here, that this is not the way to debate. But it shows how one sided debates regarding this topic have become. I conclude for the moment with this: if Jesus (pbuh) was divine then most certainly he would have directly claimed so, but we find nothing of the kind in the entire Bible. There is no solid evidence; in fact there are passages which deny the idea, such as in Matthew 23:9 and Mark 12:29. So the divinity of Jesus Christ (pbuh) can never be absolutely proven from the Bible, and if the Bible cannot prove this then nothing else can or ever will. It would be more natural to believe the Jesus (pbuh) was only a prophet of God, on which both the holy Qur'an and the Bible agree.

1] Matthew 23:9

2] Mark 12:29


Response to A & B) My opponent continues to appeal to logic and reason. He claims that logically speaking, "If God became a man on Earh then it must be 100% clear so that everyone may be saved" but does nothing to support this claim as logical. Many branches of Christianity (Particularly those following after John Calvin) does not intend man to be saved. The assumption that God wants everyone to be saved is another case of "begging the question" that my opponent rests his argument upon. Until he proves these logical assertions from a Biblical text, his argument cannot stand. Furthermore, my opponent claims that "Jesus does explicitly forbid calling any man on Earth God." My opponent is correct, so the only logical assumption if someone does call a man God and Jesus does not correct them, is that the person being called God is in fact God. We see this happen. In John 20:28, we read "Thomas answered [Jesus], 'My Lord and my God!'" We also see places where the disciples worship Jesus (Matthew 14:33, Gk=proskyneo). If Jesus was a prophet, as my opponent claims, would he not know better than to let the disciples call him God and worship him... if he was not in fact God? Furthermore, my opponent appeals to monotheism to claim that Jesus could not be God. This is resolved by the Doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is necessitated by the fact that Jesus claimed to be divine. I do not have space to go into a full defense of the Trinity, but I am providing a link to an essay I wrote concerning the Biblicity of this doctrine. also, the book "God Crucified" by Richard Bauckham is an excellent resource to show that "plurality" within the unity of the Trinity does not contradict monotheism and the Shema in any way.

Response to C) I am in the process of obtaining the scholar that my opponent requests. However, this is such a foundational aspect of Christian interpretation that no one explicitly states it. I have e-mails into leading scholars that I have interacted with asking for a statement. I will provide these as soon as possible. Regardless of this, Jesus did in fact claim divinity. In John 8:58 Jesus replies to a group of Jewish Leaders and says "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." There are three aspects to this which reveal the claim of divinity. The first is that he claims to have existed before Abraham, which would make him thousands of years old. The second is that he uses the divine name "I am." This is the proper name that God revealed to Moses, YHWH. YHWH is a Hebrew word that means "I am" and this is the very phrase that Jesus uses. The third aspect is the way the Jews reacted to this. Vs 59 indicates "they picked up stones to throw at him." If Jesus was simply claiming to be really old... why would they react as though he had committed blasphemy? The Jews reacted to him as though he was claiming to be God, because he was claiming to be God.

Response to D & E) Perhaps the word "Limited" is problematic. It may be better to use the word "Abstained." Christ abstained from exercising his divine abilities. This does not mean that he did not have them (We see him exercise these authorities from time to time... he is able to know things before they happen, able to read peoples thoughts, exercises miraculous abilities like walking on water and multiplying food, etc). One of the primary characteristics that set humans apart from animals is the faculty of speech. However, if I choose not to speak I am no less human. Likewise, choosing not to exercise a divine ability does not make Jesus divine. Furthermore, simply acting humble does not necessarily preclude divinity. God can do whatever he wishes, if this includes acting humble... it simply means he is choosing to act humble. This is in line with Christ's preaching that the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

My opponent has still not supported any of his points any further than he did in his initial arguments. He simply says "No it doesn't" and appeals to "logic" without building any logical arguments. I have dismantled the logic of his argument and shown how his points fall to the wayside. Furthermore, I have provided an affirmative argument including several passages that clearly claim Christ's divinity. If my opponent wishes to wait to later rounds to address them, that is his prerogative.

Furthermore, I would like to provide the following additional texts that show him claiming divinity.

John 10:9 - In this passage Jesus says that anyone who has seen him (Jesus) has seen God. How can someone say they have seen God by looking at Jesus if he was not God

John 10:10, John 10:30 - In these passages Jesus says "I and the Father are one." This is the same phrasing that is used in the famous "Here o Israel, the LORD is one." How can "just a man" be one with God?

John 14:11, John 10:38 - the Father is in me, and I in the Father. These passages show that Jesus believed in an interconnected nature that shows equality. He places himself and God in the same place grammatically. This is significant.

John 10:33 - Jesus asks the Jews which of his Miracles they were stoning him for. They responded "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." It is interesting that if Jesus never claimed to be God, the Jews of the day were EXPLICITLY ready to stone him for a claim that he never made. In addition, if Jesus never claimed to be God... you would think he would respond by saying "But I don't claim to be God.

John 17:5 - Jesus here asks the Father to glorify him with the glory he "had with [God] before the world began." How could Jesus be claimig that he had Glory before the world began if he was simply a man and good prophet? This agrees with John 1:1-18 in asserting that all things were created through Jesus and that Jesus was not a created being.

Isaiah 9:6-7 - The Old Testament tells us that a man would be born that would be God. It writes "to us a child is born, to us a son is given." It later says this child "will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." This passage in the Old Testament clearly shows that the OT Prophet Isaiah believed in a coming Messiah that would be both man and God.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2


A & B) Pro mentions that God wanting to save everyone is a case of ‘begging the question', so if I am not mistaken; Pro believes that God does not intend everyone to be saved. I would like Pro to confirm if such is the case. There is no point in mentioning other branches of Christianity; I need to know what Pro understands. Does he believe God wants to save all mankind or not? If the answer is yes and if God became a man on Earth, then we expect God (or Christ pbuh) to clearly state that Jesus (pbuh) is God incarnate, this is only logical, because one should be able to recognise God. If not, then is God not all Loving?

Pro then went on to mention that I was correct in saying that Jesus (pbuh) forbade calling any man on Earth God, and so his "logical assumption" is that if any man was called God or worshiped and Christ (pbuh) didn't correct, that person is in fact God. First of all: Arguing from Christ's (pbuh) silence is a very weak argument. Also my opponent is giving his own interpretation here. Jesus (pbuh) said "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven"[1], Jesus (pbuh) was referring to everyone including himself by saying "no man upon the Earth". And so while saying this, if Jesus (pbuh) does get addressed as God (or worshiped) and accepts or does not correct such an address: this means either Jesus (pbuh) of the Bible or the Bible itself is in contradiction.

Note that I did not use monotheism to claim that Jesus (pbuh) could not be God (such an argument is too lengthy for me to introduce in this discussion); I said in all monotheistic religions, salvation depends on the understanding of God. Pro then mentions the Trinity and provides an external link for the readers as an argument. This is diversion from the equality of space and time in this debate.

C) My opponent believes the red words of Jesus (who he believes to be Lord) in the Bible are no more important than then the black words of men such as Paul, John etc. And he is in process of obtaining a conformation of this from a leading scholar. My argument here is: are the words of the Lord God not more precious and divine than the writings of even the very pious of men?

Regarding John 8:58, I wish not to counter such arguments in this round but in the next due to limited space.

D & E) In the last round Pro mentioned that Jesus (pbuh) "limited" himself from being divine. Now he changes "limited" to "abstained". The word ‘limited' is now "perhaps problematic". Changing the word doesn't solve the problem. Saying that Jesus was God and man at the same time is contradictory, because God is unlimited and man is limited, this in fact. If God became Jesus (pbuh) a man on Earth then he became fully man: meaning limited: meaning he is no longer God. For God to become a man means He is to give up his divine qualities completely, not partially.

Jesus denies himself to be good and mentions 'no one is good but the only Lord'[2]. For Jesus (pbuh) to be saying this is fine from a Muslim view point. But from a Christian point of view (believing Jesus pbuh is divine), it is deceiving not humbling. Is God not good?

In further rounds I would like deal with Pro's arguments for Jesus (pbuh) being divine, such as verses from the Bible which he claims as proof and his logic and understanding of such verses. Therefore I must conclude my arguments against:

So far in this debate my opponent fails to recognise the following 3 points:
1. Jesus (pbuh) is the fittest person in the Bible to confirm that he is God incarnate (if he is divine).
2. It is common sense and logical to expect a clear explicit conformation from God (or Christ pbuh) that Jesus (pbuh) is the incarnate of God if it is the case.
3. Arguing from Jesus' (pbuh) silence makes a very weak argument.

To say ‘it is an assumption to understand: if God came down to earth as a man, he would do so in an explicit manner and reveal it to all the people' begs the question: why wouldn't God explicitly reveal his presence if and when He became Jesus (pbuh)? He likes to stay on safe grounds here by saying: ‘to prove such an assumption we need irrefutable logic or evidence'. Nevertheless, Pro does seem to admit there is no clear or direct confirmation from God or even Jesus (pbuh) in the Bible of his "divinity" as a man.

We must understand that God is unlimited and Jesus (pbuh) a man is limited, and to believe in a being which is limited also unlimited at the same time is theologically impossible.

Finally, it is very clear if one who reads the Bible from an unbiased point of view, can find no clear, solid, irrefutable, undeniable evidence of Christ's (pbuh) divinity.

Thank you.

1] Matthew 23:9

2] Mark 10:17-18


A & B) I do indeed believe that God does not intend or will to save every individual. This is a common belief in many branches of Christian faith, particularly those in the Reformed tradition. This does not mean that God does not love other individuals, there are many common graces given to all people (The fact that they are still alive, namely) due to God's great love.

My opponent claims that "arguing from Christ's silence is a very weak argument." That's interesting, since the primary thrust of my opponent's argument against Christ's divinity is "He never explicitly claimed to be divine," which in itself is an argument from silence.

In regards to the use of the word "Father". My opponent is using the term "Father" as synonymous with "God." This is not the case. Rather, Jesus is talking about elevating people to positions they should not be elevated to, primarily elevating them above other people. We see this when we look at the context of the passage. Immediately prior to this Jesus tells the Pharisees not to call each other "Teacher" because they have one teacher (God). He then follows it up as saying "Do not call anyone father, for you have one Father (God)" He then follows it up by saying "Also, do not call each other Instructor, because you have one instructor... the Christ. So in this case, he is comparing HIMSELF to Teacher, Father, and Instructor. He is saying "Do not call elevate yourselves or another person to a place of primacy, for there is one who belongs in that place." And in answering the inevitable question "Who belongs in that place?" He answers "The Father and the Christ" who are one.

C) In regards to the "leading Christian scholar" requested. Millard Erickson, in both his "Introducing Christian Doctrine [A]" and "Christian Theology [B]" argue that all scripture is equally inspired, equally authoritative, and equally infallible. Beyond that, neither Jesus nor the Father penned any of the documents in the Old or New Testament, so none of it is "the words of Jesus." Why would we trust John to accurately understand and report the words of Christ, but not to accurately understand and report theological premises. Beyond that, my opponent argues against Revelation as authoritative because it was a recorded vision... might I remind him that many religious texts (Including the Koran) are recorded instances of a vision.

D & E) If God is unlimited as my opponent states, then is it not a limitation placed on him to say that he cannot self-limit himself? My opponent is arguing that God could not take on flesh by stating that if he has limitations he is not God. However, my opponent creates a line of circular reasoning by placing the limitation of unlimitedness on God. God can do whatever he pleases, if this includes choosing to refrain from exercising his own divine prerogative then so be it. If I choose not to walk, does it mean I am no longer capable of walking? If I choose not to talk, does it mean I am no longer capable of talking? Of course no, it simply means that for a time I am not doing so. Likewise, for a time God chose not to use his faculty of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Beyond that, we are not arguing about if the Trinity exists, the hypostatic union exists, or even if Christ was human. We are simply arguing if he was divine... the fact that there is a paradoxical relationship between his humanity and his divinity is irrelevant. I have no burden of proof to claim his humanity, so arguing that humanity and divinity cannot coexist is moot.

In reference to Jesus denying himself to be good... this is an interpretive choice. It is equally valid to interpret the passage as an actual affirmation of Christ's divinity. Note that Christ does not say "I am not good, only God is good." He simply says "No one but God is good." It is equally possible that Christ is pointing out that only God is good, and since he is also good (he does NOT correct the young man) that he is indeed God. We see this by way of syllogism. A) Only God is Good, B) Jesus is Good, C) Jesus is God.

In regard to always revealing himself. I would remind my opponent of the story of Pharaoh in the Old Testament. God explicitly hardened Pharaoh's heart against acknowledging him as God. Furthermore, Isaiah 45:15 writes "Truly, you re a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior." In fact, Jesus quotes Isaiah to explain why people do not recognize him for who he is (God), "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." (John 12:40) Although opponent claims that it is logical that God would reveal himself to all people, the Bible clearly teaches to the contrary. In both the Old and New Testament we see a God who hides himself from some.

I shall also conclude my debate with a summary

In this debate my opponent has failed to recognize the following 3 points
1) Jesus is the fittest person in the Bible to confirm that he is God incarnate... and he does. My opponent has chosen to leave my passages unaddressed until a later round, I believe this is unwise but respect my opponent's choice to do so. However, at this point, I have asserted several biblical passages (Including the words of Christ) that indicate that the Bible does in fact teach that Jesus was and is Divine.
2) My opponent claims it is common sense for God to reveal himself explicitly. However, we see from scripture that God often times chooses to hide himself from people. Since God chooses to hide himself, why would we expect him to behave differently in the incarnation?
3) My opponent comments that arguing from Jesus' silence makes a weak argument. My opponent fails to see two flaws with this point. A) The bulk of his argument is an argument from silence (Jesus is silent about his claim to divinity, therefore there is no claim) and B) If Jesus does not correct someone who is worshiping him or calling him God... he is a horrible prophet, a despicable man, and we have a whole other host of problems.

My opponent closes his argument by saying this "it is very clear if one who reads the Bible from an unbiased point of view, can find no clear, solid, irrefutable, undeniable evidence of Christ's (pbuh) divinity." However, I would like to assert exactly the opposite. I shall leave you with a verse from the Apostle Paul: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells. [C]" That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Thank you for reading.

[C] Colossians 2:9
Debate Round No. 3


In this and the following round I will be replying to Pro's arguments for Jesus' (pbuh) divinity. Plus I will be replying to some of Pros' points from the previous round.

Before I deal with the many verses from the Bible which my opponent has put forward as evidence of Christ's (pbuh) divinity, there are a few things which readers should not fail to recognise:

1. One who claims to be divine must claim so in the most unambiguous and unequivocal way.
2. Verses offered as proof for Jesus' (pbuh) "divinity" should not be open to several interpretations.
3. There should be no contradictions in what Jesus (pbuh) says and others say in the Bible regarding the topic of divinity.

Regarding my argument: Jesus (pbuh) forbade calling anyone on Earth ‘Father' (God)[1], Pro mentioned I was correct in this matter in round 2 but then changed his mind in the previous round. That Jesus (pbuh) was not using ‘Father' synonymous with ‘God'. Again Pro seems to be using his own interpretation here, when throughout the NT Jesus (pbuh) uses ‘Farther' to mean ‘God'. So why should it not be the same in Matthew 23:9. I'm using Pro's strategy here as he said "We see from scripture that God often times chooses to hide himself from people. Since God chooses to hide himself, why would we expect him to behave differently in the incarnation?" Often we read in the NT Jesus (pbuh) referring to God as ‘Father' so why should it be any different in Matthew 23:9. The Greek word used in Matthew 23:9 for ‘Father' is ‘patera', the same ‘patera' used by Jesus (pbuh) in John 15:23 which definitely speak of God: "He that hateth me hateth my Father also". I kindly ask Pro again to provide any leading scholar who agrees: in Matthew 23:9 ‘Father' is not being used synonymously with ‘God'. Otherwise his argument here does not really hold weight as it is simply his own interpretation.

As I have shown: in Matthew 23:9 Jesus (pbuh) does refer to God as ‘Father' and forbids calling any man on Earth Father. I have shown it is much more reasonable to understand in Matthew 23:9 ‘Father' means ‘God', unless Pro can prove otherwise. There are other verses in the Bible which refer to the complete oneness of God and that Jesus could not be divine, such as: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord"[2], here Jesus (pbuh) includes himself in the equation by saying "our God". And in John 11:41-43, where Jesus (pbuh) cries to God saying "You (God) have sent me", showing his complete helplessness as a mere human. And so if any verse goes against such verses then it is evident there is a clear contraction within the Bible.

Pro's evidences for Jesus' (pbuh) divinity:

John 8:58) This is a very ambiguous statement to prove the divinity of Christ (pbuh) and it is nothing special in the Bible. Prophet Solomon is reported to have said in the OT Bible, "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was…when he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth"[3]. Muslims agree that yes Jesus (pbuh) was before Abraham (pbuh), before creation in the knowledge of God, just like every other prophet and person of God. John 8:58 is not a strong evidence for the divinity of Jesus (pbuh).

John 10:30) Here Jesus (pbuh) states "I and the Father are one" if we read this in context the best explanation one can give is that Jesus (pbuh) and God are one in purpose. Also Jesus (pbuh) makes a clear distinction between himself and God in verses before by saying "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand…and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand"[4].

John 10:38) This verse would be sufficient as evidence if not for John 14:20 where Jesus (pbuh) speaks clear to his disciples: "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you". If Pro sees John 10:38 as evidence for Jesus' (pbuh) divinity then he should see John 14:20 as evidence for the disciples' divinity. It is logical to accept such verses as meaning ‘one in purpose' not ‘one as literal'.

John 10:9) I think you mean John 14:9. This is a very unclear verse to provide as evidence of Christ's (pbuh) divinity when we consider it in context with John 14:10-20.

Due to that lack of time and space I have left in this round, I shall scrutinize more of Pro's evidences in the next round including detailed counter arguments against Pro's claim that Jesus (pbuh) was worshiped and John 1:1.

Arguing from silence? Is it arguing from silence to say that Jesus (pbuh) never explicitly claim divinity? Throughout the entire NT Bible Jesus (pbuh) never made a clear or direct confirmation of his Divinity, is this not true?

Pro mentioned the holy Qur'an a recorded instances of visions, I correct my opponent that this is not what is believed in Islam. I will not go into explaining this now due to shortage of time and space, but maybe this is a new topic Pro would like to debate later: The holy Qur'an, a revelation from God or the word of men?

Thank you.

1] Matthew 23:9

2] Mark 10:17-18

3] Proverbs 8:23-27

4] John 28-29


My opponent asserts three things

1. One who claims to be divine must claim so in the most unambiguous and unequivocal way.
2. Verses offered as proof for Jesus' (pbuh) "divinity" should not be open to several interpretations.
3. There should be no contradictions in what Jesus (pbuh) says and others say in the Bible regarding the topic of divinity.

I would like to point out that points 1 and 2 have no foundation. He has simply asserted them. I am going to assert the opposite. Who is Con to determine what is required for someone to assert divinity? What credentials does Con posses that allows him to dictate what is required for someone to claim to be divine? What makes Con's assertion more valid than mine? The answer, my friends, is none. He is no more credentialed in Biblical Interpretation (In fact he is far less credentialed in Biblical Interpretation) than I. So at the very BEST our competing assertions cancel each other out, and in reality when two competing witnesses contradict each other in their testimonies, the more credentialed witness trumps.

Also, Point 2 is ludicrous... all passages of the Bible are open for multiple interpretations. This is how communication of any type works. To say that any given passage should not be open to multiple interpretations is to misunderstand the function of communication.

Point 3. Con has not shown a contradiction in what Jesus said and what other say. Until he does so in a way that cannot be refuted, this point does not hold water.

Regarding the use of Father in reference to God. Lets use some logical deduction. In the passage in question, Christ uses the word Father twice and in two different ways. He uses it in parallel with other terms in the broader context of verses 1-11. The parallel constructions are "Rabbi-Teacher" "Father-Father" and "Instructor-Instructor." The first of the diads is always a response to what the scribes and Pharisees were calling others (Rabbi,Father,Instructor). These are places of spiritual authority and leadership. Lets consider the reasonableness of Jesus instructing the Pharisees not to call people God (as Con contends he was). The Pharisees were the primary group of individuals who were behind the Crucifixion of Christ. They were also same people who attempted to stone Jesus for claiming to be God in John 10:33. Do you think it is reasonable for this group of people to need to be told not to call people God? Of course not. So we must understand the use of father in another way. Rather, Jesus is instructing them not to call people father in regard to spiritual leader. This is most logical considering that the passage opens with Jesus chastising them for believing themselves worthy of special honor due to their leadership positions. Also, when we consider how he i using the parallel terms (Rabbi,Instructor) which are both positions of spiritual leadership. Rather he is saying "Do not call anyone A (Position of Spiritual Leadership) when you only have one B (Divine Spiritual Leader)." My opponent is asking you to ignore the context of the passage, and believe the ridiculous notion that he Pharisee's had to be told not to do something that they were stoning people for doing.

Defense of my points -

John 8:58 - My opponent claims that Solomon made a similar statement... however he is incorrect. The Author of Proverbs uses a personified "Lady Wisdom" and it is "Lady Wisdom" that is speaking, not the Author of Proverbs. In both Christian and Hebrew literature... Lady Wisdom is seen as divine and is present before creation. My opponent has misrepresented the passage and therefore has not knocked down my point. Furthermore, my opponent that Jesus was saying that he subjectively existed in God's mind but was not yet created... this is a post-modern imposition into a pre-modern figure. The concept of "subjective" existence did not occur until much later in the development of philosophical discourse... if my opponent wishes to argue that Jesus was referring to his subjective existence in God's foreknowledge, he is going to have to prove it.

John 10:30 - My opponent claims that "if we read this in context" but then does not explain how the context disagrees with the standard Christian interpretation. Furthermore, if my opponent claims (as he does) that Jesus is making a distinction between himself and God here, he needs to explain why the Jews reacted as they did. In verse 33 and following the Jews attempt to stone Jesus for these words, because they believed he was claiming to be God. My opponent presumes to understand the mindset and words of a 1st century Jewish man better than a 1st century Jewish author. This is an arrogant and absurd presumption. The most natural reading is to see Jesus' words meaning exactly what they say 'I and the Father are one." This is bolstered when we see that the immediate audience interpreted it in exactly that way.

John 10:38 - My opponent claims that this passage shows clear distinction between Jesus and God... however it does not deny the divinity of Christ. It is possible (and orthodox) to say that Jesus is distinct from God yet still equally divine.

John 14:9 - You are correct, 10:9 was a typo and I meant 14:9. Again, my opponent argues that when we consider the context of surrounding passages that it makes this unclear. However, again he fails to explain how the context does this. This is another passage where Christ refers to himself and the Father in a way that makes them distinct. As I mentioned above, this does not challenge his divinity... it simply establishes him as distinct from the Father.

Argument from Silence - My point was that Con cannot attack an argument from silence without undermining the vast majority of his argument. My argument is that in the passages above, Jesus has made claims of his divinity that were clear enough to his original audience that they attempted to stone him. Furthermore, other Biblical Authors (who hold equal authority in determining Doctrine as the Gospel writers do) clearly assert Jesus' divinity. My opponent has not successfully refuted these.

I do not wish my opponent to spend space discussing the Qur'an. I know the story. Mohammad went into a cave, was visited by an Angel who revealed certain things to him about Allah. This virtually identical to the claim in the Book of Revelation (it was not a dream, it was a vision. Most often being revealed to him by an Angel). He cannot attack Revelation without also attacking The Qur'an. However, that is a debate for another time, please disregard the point.
Debate Round No. 4


shajahanahmed forfeited this round.


I would like to thank all my readers, as well as my opponent for this lively and engaging debate. It is clear that Con put hard work into this debate and it is obvious that real life must have taken priority for him not to post a final argument. However that being said I would like to quote my first argument:

"To secure victory, Pro must do the following: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible A) claims that Jesus was/is God or B) Prove that the passages supplied by Con do not argue against the divinity of Christ."

This definition of what I must do to secure victory was agreed upon by Con (or at the very least, not contended), and you have seen through this argument that I have successfully dismantled Con's argument against the divinity of Christ. I have also provided several verses that assert the divinity of Christ, which Con did not refute. Therefore I have met both points of my burden and should be declared the victor.

I would again like to thank my opponent for the rigorous debate, it was enjoyable and stretching. Thank you also to the readers.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shajahanahmed 5 years ago
I thank Pro for a great debate, it was an honour debating him and hope we can have more debates in the future on other topics. He is a very good debater and I admire the style and method in which he debates.

My deepest regrets for forfeiting the last round as I had so much left to say, having a busy schedule for the last couple of days has really kept me away, I apologise to the readers. I also apologise to my opponent for my misrepresentation of Proverbs 8:23-27 in round 4, it was a full mistake on my part as I missed-read the passage.

I thank the readers and once again ReformedArsenal for such a lively debate.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago

Why did I lose the conduct point?
Posted by ianspigler 5 years ago
Look at 1 Timothy 3:16
Posted by daley 5 years ago
Con is making the same mistake ezs777 made with me in our debate on the trinity. He is arguing from what is logical TO HIM as opposed to what the Bible actually teaches. Not even the most logical interpretation of a verse can take precedence over what the verse actually says. Jesus claimed he would raise himself from the dead. (John 2:19-22) Doesn't make sense? A man raising himself from the dead? I've heard some logical ways to interpret it, but in the end, Jesus said he would raise himself, so I believe him! The debate is going very good though guys, keep it up.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
btw I hope you used Matthew 26: 62-64 in this debate
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
first five books excuse me, numbers 23:22, 24:8; deuteronomy 33:17. Check the King James version btw.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
Unicorns and dragons in the first 5 chapters? Where are you seeing this?
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
watch the video then send me a message if you want to debate or talk with me, just saying
Posted by Xenith967 5 years ago
both sides are giving very well written responses
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
The count down shows the amount of time for the current stage.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Reformed clearly illustrated that Jesus Christ referred to Him as divine. Shajahanahmed seems to begin with the Qur'a and then approach the Bible, rather than the opposite.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: (See previous voter's reasons)
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Reformed clearly displayed a need for a better "thinking" process and demanding Con's assumptions be backed up. Great debate.
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: ...
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Very solid argument to Pro for demanding that Con support every assertion with warrant which had Con clearly on the defensive for most of the debate where Con clearly intended it to be the opposite. 2 : 1 for Pro on that and another for the forfeit.