The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is Jesus Jehovah or a seperate ontological being?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,041 times Debate No: 49749
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (59)
Votes (1)




*See comments 4 format
*use bible to check scripture reference

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. I have been looking forward to this and my prayer is that it would be helpful to all who take the time to read it. Madcornishbiker is a very sharp thinker so I am expecting a very stimulating and thought provoking debate.

I'd also like to thank all who are reading this. It is a vitally important topic we are addressing and it's good to know people are still interested in meaningful dialogue between opposing views. Please keep in mind that it is you who bare the responsibly to take what is presented here and examine it objectively. This is not where the study ends, it's where it begins.

The thesis is " Is Jesus Jehovah or a separate ontological being?"

Before I lay out my argument, I want to first clarify two points that will serve as the backdrop to the material I will later present.

The first is monotheism, the doctrine that teaches that there is only one God. The very bedrock of the doctrine of the trinity is the belief in monotheism. It is the foundation of my position. The case for this truth can easily be made from scripture.

Deuteronomy 6:4 is a verse that was recited twice a day by every good Jew. It reads "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"
The proclamation of monotheism by the Jews was the primary way they distinguished themselves from the polytheistic religions that were prevalent in the surrounding nations during that time.

Also in Isaiah 43:10 there is a clear expression of the belief that there is no other God but the LORD.
We read, " ...Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." This takes place in the context of the LORD challenging the idols of the nations demonstrating they're no real god at all.

There are literally hundreds of text to support the teaching of monotheism, but due to space these 2 will have to be suffice. But please know what I'm affirming. There is only one true God. Appealing to passages where Satan and angels are referred to as gods does not override this truth. To maintain the inerrancy of scripture we must interpret those passages to be speaking of god in a different sense. None is God in the sense that The Lord is.

One last point. This doctrine puts my opponent in between a rock and hard place. He will seek to demonstrate that Jesus is a god seperate from The Lord. But in doing so he will be arguing against monotheism. So in essence, even if he wins this debate he will be contradicting the bible, the very thing he will use to make his case.

The second point is that this one God I am referring to is known as YHWH. Some may be more familiar with the name Jehovah, which I don't believe is the correct pronunciation, but for the sake of the debate title, we'll use that name. The name may be foreign to some because you don't find it in your English translations. I'd love to explain why, but due to space I will only help you to identify it.

Whenever you see the word LORD in all caps, it is referring to the divine name. Look closely because some translations put 'ORD' in a smaller font size. God's name is used over 5,000 times in the Old Testament. For an example, see Psalms 40:1.

This is important because in the New Testament, the writers ascribe passages to Jesus from the Old Testament where the divine name Jehovah is used. If the early Christians believed that Jesus was not Jehovah, they would have not ascribed to a mere creature what should only be ascribed to the one true God. So as we enter into the text, keep in mind that if what we find is Jesus identified as Jehovah, the gig is up for madcornishbiker. If Jesus is Jehovah, then Jesus is God and my opponent and all who hold to his subordinationist view, are dreadfully wrong and are engaging in active idolatry. So now to the text we turn.

In John 1:23, John the Baptist was asked by the religious leaders to give an answer of who he was. John responds with a citation from Isaiah 40:3.(pls read). Notice that the word LORD is in all caps, indicating that in the original language, the divine name Jehovah is being used. So in essence, the voice in the wilderness was preparing the way for Jehovah. But who did John forerun for? Was it not Jesus? Of course it was. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that Jesus is Jehovah.

Moving on, I would like to turn your attention to Psalms 102:25-27.(please read). Everything in these passages indicate that Jehovah is the one being described by the psalmist. This is made clear by the first verse in the chapter "Hear my prayer, O LORD!(Jehovah)..." But when we turn to the first chapter of Hebrews we discover something shocking. The author applies this passage to the Son(Jesus)(pls read Hebrews 1:10-12). If Jesus is not Jehovah, why would the inspired writer ascribe to Jesus passages that describe Jehovah directly out of the OT Scriptures? What was the writer thinking?Unless of course Jesus is Jehovah. If he is not, then this would be nothing less then blasphemy endorsed by the god breathed scripture. Those are truly the only two options although I'm sure my opponent will try to provide another. But I believe it's clear to all who read it. Jesus is Jehovah.

For my last example I would like you to turn your bibles to John chapter 12. We'll be looking at vs 37-41. John begins to explain why even after all of Jesus's miraculous signs, many Jews did not believe. He then quotes two passages from Isaiah as reasons. Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10.
After he does that we read this in vs 41 "These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. (John 12:41).

Now the closest antecedent to the pronoun 'him' is Jesus in vs 37, so grammatically we know John is talking about Jesus. But here is the question. When did Isaiah see Jesus? John said Isaiah said THESE THINGS(plural)... So the implication is that Isaiah said both of the cited verses because he saw Jesus right? We know that Isaiah saw the suffering servant passages of Isaiah 53. But the other cited verse was Isaiah 6:10. And how does that chapter start?
"In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the LORD sitting on a throne...". Once again LORD is in all caps so who did Isaiah see? He saw Jehovah. So if you asked Isaiah who he saw he'd say Jehovah. But if you ask John who Isaiah saw, he'd tell you Jesus. Ask yourself, what is the god breathed text trying to reveal.

With the remainder of my space, I would like to make one more case for my position. The scriptures are clear that worship is to be given to God and God alone. Indeed, one needs to look no further then Jesus's own words in Matt 4:8(pls read). But as we read the New Testament we see that on numerous occasions Jesus receives worship.

The Greek word predominantly used to refer to worship in the NT is the word 'Proskuneo'. It is applied to Jesus in various places in the NT. However, my opponent may want to stress the fact that many other men in scripture such as David and Solomon received 'Proskuneo' as well, but they are not considered deity for it. At this point my opponent would be right. The word literally means to bow down and/or kiss the hand. When rendered to royalty or one in high position it is only an act of reverence. Nothing more. But when rendered in a religious context this word's meaning elevates to an act of worship. It's up to the interpreter of the text to determine whether the context is religious or not.

What I want to do is show two passages of scripture where Jesus receives what is only due to God. Proskuneo. I will leave it to the reader to determine whether the context is religious or not.

In Matt 14, Matthew gives us the account of Jesus walking on water. After the disciples marvel at the site, Jesus and Peter get back in the boat. Lets read what Matthew records. "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!". So after Jesus performs a miraculous act all the disciples in the boat worshiped(proskuneo)him. Is the context religious? Well I believe the last clause of this verse gives us a vital clue. As they were rendering proskuneo, they are saying to Jesus "you are certainly God's son". If that's not a religious context, I don't know what is.

And last but not least, one of the most profound text in all of scripture, Revelations 5:6-14(pls read). The context here is heavenly worship tracing back to the beginning of chapter 4. In 5:3 the dilemma is presented that no one can be found worthy to open the scroll with seven seals. In vs 5 it is stated that one worthy was found, and the description is clearly Jesus. In vs 6 Jesus is referred to as the lamb and vs 7 distinguishes him from the one who sits on the throne.

With that established take a look at vs 12. All of creation begins to sing praises to the lamb in what can only be described as worship, and notice the striking similarity between what they sing to the Lamb and what is sang to the one on the throne in 4:11. Both receive glory, honor, and power. Yet Rev 4:10 tells us the one one the throne is receiving worship. The only way to remain consistent with the text is to regard 5:12 as worship as well.

But the real meat is in the last two verses of the chapter. In vs 13 John stresses that every creature everywhere began to sing to BOTH, the one on the throne and the lamb. And what is ascribed to them? Glory honor and power. Just like 4:11 & 5:12. And finally in verse 14, while they were singing to both the lamb and the one on the throne, the elders fell down and worshiped.

Once again, if Jesus is not Jehovah what is all of creation doing in Rev 5:12-14? Are they committing blasphemy in the very throne room of heaven? Or are they giving due worship to two distinct and divine persons of the Godhead? The answer is clear, but I leave it for the reader to assert.Thank you for reading.


I thank my opponent for this opportunity to state God's case in this long running theological dispute.

I agree that the Divine name is represented by the 4 Hebrew Characters which transliterate as YHWH, and in all probability represent a name which transliterates as ether Yahweh or Yehowah, depending on the guesses as to vowel placement and Choice.

I also agree that it is a vital topic, after all Christ said at John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you Jehovah, ad the one who you sent forth, Jesus Christ" therefore our very eternal lives rest on getting to know the personality of the One True God.

This is understandable since it is impossible to accurately know what God means unless you have learned to understand how he thinks. We are therefore invited by scripture to get to now him well, and hold him in "accurate knowledge".

Colossians 1:9 That is also why we, from the day we heard [of it], have not ceased praying for YOU and asking that YOU may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension: Philippians 1:9 And this is what I continue praying, that YOUR love may abound+ yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 2 Peter 3:18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him [be] the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

Interesting that you use the word LORD when talking of God. It reminds me of what Martin Luther once said "Wheresoever you see the word LORD in great letters, there is where the name of God should appear".

Trinitarians are guilty of the worst bastardisation of scripture by removing the Great and Holy Name of God from the vast majority of the places where it should appear to bolster their false doctrine, and even of altering scripture to the same end.

However the accepted English translation, as opposed to transliteration, ids Jehovah, and I am sure that God is happy to accept our best efforts to recognise that name in our own languages., and there are a number of different language versions.

Much as I agreed, when this was first put to me, that there is no sense in limiting argumentation, I don't feel I will need to get anywhere near to that level. However I am happy for my opponent to if he feels the need.

My case is simply and according to scripture, not any man made creed.

I can see no way in which the Euthanasia, the very basis of the Trinity doctrine can be said to promote monotheism, because it states plainly:

"(5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit."

Three persons cannot be one God if they are "(4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance."

In other words the Trinity is not only a false teaching in no way based on scripture, but is also a logical impossibility.

I plan to show that, according to scripture:

The word God has a number meanings, and whilst there is only one true God, there are, according to scripture many gods,

That God is unique, and immortal, not eternal which in scripture is a very different thing.

That Christ is unique in that, whilst scripture shows him to have been created, he is the only part of creation that was created by God alone, and afterwards he worked alongside his father in creating all else.

Like the Angels, and humans he was originally created eternal, not immortal. However, due to having "learned obedience to death through suffering" God's son was made immortal, as will all those humans selected to go to heaven to rule alongside him. They too will have suffered greatly in order to have been fully tested for faithfulness.

That personalisation does not mean holy spirit is sentient, and that in fact it is not.

That according to scripture Jesus was not born the son of God, but was in fact created in Mary's womb as a human with potential for eternal life, just as was Adam.

In fact, if the scriptural indications are as they appear to be, Jesus actually only lived up to his baptism, at which point God's son took over the body of Jesus and became the Messiah or Christ (a title not a name incidentally).

That contrary to the Athanasian Creed God's son always was and always will be in subjection to his father.

I intend to use only scripture, and my power of reasoning on scripture, (Acts 17:2,3) as provided to me by God and Christ according to their promises, to demonstrate these points,

I look forward to my opponents comments on what I intend to show, and / or his answers to them.

Once again I thank my opponent for this opportunity to expose one of the greatest myths of all time to be nothing more than a Satanically inspired doctrine created to cause confusion and draw people away from the One True God, Jehovah.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you madcornishbiker.

I have to say that I'm somewhat disappointed. I thought I made clear in the format that in the opening statement positive arguments are suppose to be made for your position. I have been given very little material to rebut because my opponent has not yet attempted to substantiate his claims. And I am now left with less space to work with when he does. I will have to make due with what I get, but I wish my opponent would have put a little more effort in his opening statement.

He mentions in his opening remarks that he was fine with my extensive presentation but did not feel he would have to "get anywhere near that level." We'll that's fine but let me just remind you, the reader, of what my opponents task is in this debate.

He must demonstrate why my arguments fail to affirm the positive side of the debate thesis. And he must present an alternative view that is consistent with itself and scripture. If my opponent can do that without using as many characters as me, fine. But my hope is that he will be as thorough as he can, so that you, the reader, are not short changed in this debate.

I will now seek to address some of the things madcornishbiker raised in his opening statement.

He mentioned John 17:3 and misquoted it in a way that assumed the very thing we are discussing in this debate.
He wrote:

"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you Jehovah, and the one who you sent forth, Jesus Christ"

The text does not say Jehovah at all. There is not one Greek manuscript anywhere that would substantiate that reading. And if there is I challenge my opponent to produce it for us. My opponent is assuming the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus in this mis citation.

He says later in the paragraph:

"therefore our very eternal lives rest on getting to know the personality of the One True God."

By using the word 'personality' he is assuming from the start that the One True God is not tri-personal, which would be my biblical assertion. My opponents task is to prove this assertion, not just simply state it.

My opponent states that trinitarians are responsible to for removing the divine name from "a vast majority of places where it should appear to bolster their false doctrine". I believe the phrase he used was "bastardization". But then he never gives us any evidence to back up the claim. Not even one example. Once again my challenge will be for madcornishbiker to prove his claims. Gives us specific examples where the divine name is suppose to appear but it does not. And provide the textual basis from the original languages of why it should be there. Don't just assert it prove it. This is a debate. There is not one claim in my opening statement that I did not seek to substantiate. We need to see that from both sides.

My opponent stated:

"In other words the Trinity is not only a false teaching in no way based on scripture, but is also a logical impossibility."

If my opponent wants to seek to demonstrate that. Fine. Go for it. But keep in mind what the topic of the debate is. My case is plainly laid out and my opponent has a duty to deal with the material presented to him. I did not put together a presentation for the doctrine of the trinity. If he wants to debate that another time I'd be glad to do so. Set it up. But you, the reader, stay focused on what the discussion is about. Is Jesus Jehovah.

Madcornishbiker wants to show from scripture that the word 'God' has different meanings. He is free to do so, but it's not something I disagree with. The question is what kind of God is Jesus. Is he a god the same way that satan is called god, or angels, or the religious leaders of psalms 82. Cuz when we take into account what is said in Isaish 43:10 we have to conclude that no one is truly a god. There is no God apart from Jehovah. So if Jesus is a god in some other sense, then he is no real god at all.

I'm not sure if I was understanding what madcornishbiker meant when he said, "That God is unique, and immortal, not eternal which in scripture is a very different thing."

I agree with the unique and immortal part, butwas he stating that God is not eternal? Perhaps he can clarify that for us. It's seems outlandish if he was asserting that God is not eternal considering the clearness of scripture on that subject.

He states that Jesus is a created being. Ok.. Show us. I want to see it. Where is the proof. Madcornishbiker has provided us none.

He says that "personalization does not mean holy spirit is sentient, and that in fact it is not."

He can make a case for that all he wants but I will not respond. It has nothing to do with our topic. We're discussing the person of Jesus, not the person of the Holy Spirit. Keep your eye on the ball folks.

Toward the end of his opening remarks, madcornishbiker makes a couple of claims. He says that Jesus was not born God's son and that he only lived up until his baptism. At that point God's son took over Jesus's body and became the messiah.

That is another remarkable claim with no further elaboration. Making statements like these require substantiation. He says "if the scriptural indications are as they appear to be...", but then he appeals to no biblical text. I don't see any indication in scripture that what he is saying is true and therefore until he shows is why he believes it, I can't respond .

He tells us he's going to show us that Jesus always has and always will be subject to the Father.

Once again if he wants to do that, that's ok with me. But remember that Orthodox Christianity has always asserted that Jesus, during his earthly ministry and now, is FUNCTIONALLY subjected to the Father. This is the roll the son takes in the plan of redemption. Jesus voluntarily took on that position. This is what Phil 2:5-11 is all about. But being less in function does not necessitate being less in being. I'll give an example.

Me and my boss are equally human beings. But functionally my boss is greater then me.

So if my opponent wants to show how Jesus is subjected to the Father he will have to then show how that proves he is ontologically less then the Father.

As my opponent enters into his first rebuttal round, I want to call the readers attention back to the debate thesis. "Is Jesus Jehovah or a Separate Ontological Being?"

I've made my case clear for all to see. Jesus is identified as Jehovah by the New Testament writers and he receives the worship due only to Jehovah. We have not had a full and clear positive case made from madcornishbiker in his opening round. Lets see if in his rebuttal round we can get a full and clear attempt to refute the arguments I laid out in my opening statement.

Thank you.


Again I thank my opponent for the opportunity he is given me.

No that is true, the Greek text of John doesn't use the name Jehovah, but since the bible identifies the True God as Jehovah it is in essence the same.

However I have no need to assume anything since scripture makes it very clear that the Trinity is indeed a false teaching. Nowhere, even in the Christian Greek Scriptures are God and Christ linked described as anything but, two separate beings.

It is neither a misquote or a mis-citation, in terms of meaning, and since we have no idea of what the actual wording was in the originals it impossible to give a truly verbatim quotation, however it is still clear what it means.

The Apostles certainly never taught that God and Jesus were one of the same, and always wrote about them as separate individuals.

For instance Paul wrote, at Ephesians 1:3:

KJV(i) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

ASV(i) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:

In both cases Jehovah is addressed as "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". Indicating that they are in fact two distinct persons.

It is also significant that the only place where God, his Son, and the Holy Spirit are linked is in the baptism, and even there the linkage is tenuous because each is being spoken of as a separate beings, needing the conjunction "and" to unite them.
Peter did precisely the same at 1 Peter 1:3.

In John 20:17 Jesus the resurrected Jesus tells Mary:

ASV(i) 17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.

KJV(i) 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Incidentally, you notice I am deliberately not using the NWT. I am just as happy using any translations because they all teach the same thing, despite what man has done to them in the name of Doctrine.

It is not hard to prove that the trinity is false. For instance Revelation 3:14 tells us:

KJV(i) 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

ASV(i) 14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

If God's son was "he beginning of the creation of God", that means that he was a part of teat creation, and therefore is a created being.The same thigns are inferred by John 1:18

KJV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

ASV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This passage is clearly not speaking of Jesus human birth, since it refers to him as having seen his father which Jesus, after his human birth did not see his father again until after his death, and again it implied that since he was "begotten", which can also mean "produced", he was created. That too hits the Trinity teaching in the head well and truly.

On top of that we have Paul's statement at Colossians 1:15

KJV(i) 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

KJV(i) 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Both verses again put God's son as the first act of creation.

That is, from scripture, the only source that really matters, two aspects of the trinity blown wide open and sunk without trace.

To provide evidence for the statement that God's name has been replaced in s many places I would have to copy and paste the whole of the Hebrew scripture, and in fact the Gospel of Matthew, in the Hebrew, and leave you to find just how many places the Tetragrammaton appears. That is in fact an exercise I have personally carried out, when investigating just this subject. I bought a Hebrew English "Old Testament" and also a Hebrew / English and indeed was somewhat surprised by the result, and Gave up after I had counted a few dozen appearances in the Hebrew Scriptures and not a few in Matthew.
However as far as that stamen goes I shall simply quote Martin Luther, a Trinitarian himself, who said "Wherever one finds the word LORD in great letters, there is where God"s name should be found.

In fact, the removal of God"s name is clearly evidence by a comparison of a number of translations, all of whom have it replaced in at least one or two different places.

Why did they need to do that? Quite simply to try and support the scripturally unsupportable Trinity teaching.
In fact there is not one scripture in the whole of the Christian Greek Scriptures which does support the trinity without very obviously having been altered.

It is easy to given you some examples, but how to choose which of the 7,000 or so places it should be is harder. Instead I shall cheat slightly and give you an already prepared list of some of them.

Where is God"s name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?

The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use "Jehovah" in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)

Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: "The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH."

Today"s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: "THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions."

King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.

American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.

Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: "My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,Ex 3:14) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost." (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: "Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.")

The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and Ex 6:3.
The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form "Yahweh," but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under "Lord" and "Yahweh."
The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.
New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.

An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and Ex 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by "the LORD" in brackets.

The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

The "Holy Scriptures" translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.

The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text"A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.

The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.

OK I was wrong. I am using up so many characters I am probably not going to be able to cover some of your points thoroughly.

Since I have already shown from scripture that according to Christ himself, and the Apostles after him, Christ has a God, he cannot be co-equal as the Trinity teaching claims

Again, since I have shown from scripture that God's son was indeed part of, the beginning of the creation by God he was also created, therefore he cannot be co-eternal with God.

I am forced to be brief about the personalisation of holy spirit. Consider these texts:

1 John 5:8
ASV(i) 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Genesis 4:10
ASV(i) 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brothers blood crieth unto me from the ground.

So here blood and water are also personalised alongside holy spirit. They have a voice, they can agree and they can bear witness.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you madcornishbiker

It is not the same thing. When you insert Jehovah into John 17:3 you assume that Jesus is not Jehovah rather then allow it to say what it says. It's misleading and improper. And I find interesting that my opponent accuses trinitarians of altering the text to support our doctrine, and then he turns around and does the same thing. Consistency....?

He says, "Nowhere, even in the Christian Greek Scriptures are God and Christ linked described as anything but, two separate beings."

Really? Has he even read my opening statement? I made an entire presentation demonstrating just the opposite, and he still hasn't touch anything in that statement. Heb 1:10-12, John 1:23,12:41... we need to get some responses to these text.

Madcornishbiker brings up Eph 1:3 and 1Pet 1:3 and points out that The father is referred to as Jesus's God.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...(1 Peter 1:3 NASB)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...(Ephesians 1:3 NASB)

He says, "In both cases Jehovah is addressed as "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". Indicating that they are in fact two distinct persons."

Well no trinitarian will argue against the fact that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons. That is what we've always believed. The fact that the father is referred to as the God of Jesus only speaks to the incarnation. Jesus took on a subordinate role in the plan of redemption. He took this role on voluntarily and he did it by becoming a man. As a man, he will always be POSITIONALLY subordinate to the father. But that does not mean that he is not equal with the father ontologically.

Also, the NT reveals to us that each person of the trinity perform different duties in accomplishing the act of redemption. In both passages, Eph 1:3 & 1Pet 1:3, the writers are praising God for specific aspects in the act redemption that the Father was responsible for. So it would make sense for them to distinguish the Son from the Father, so as to not mislead people into crediting to the Son what belongs to the Father.

He mentions John 20:17

Once again, if you accept the incarnation, this text does not present trinitarians with a problem. If Jesus is in an incarnate state, how should he regard the father? If he is going to remain in the role he voluntarily took, would he not regard the father this way? Of course he would. He was/is a perfect man. But lesser in function does not necessitate lesser in being.

Interestingly enough, just 11 verses after this passage in John 20:28, we have Jesus being called Lord and God by his disciple Thomas and Jesus says nothing to him. No correction no reproving. Nothing. In fact it's the opposite. Jesus considers Thomas's words as "having believed" and says blessed is the man who believed that without seeing. If Jesus is not Jehovah, this would be considered blasphemy.

My opponent brings up John 1:1 and completely misses what the text is saying.

The first problem is the English versions he uses to quote the text. The KJV and the ASV both did not have the earliest papyri manuscripts available to them that we have today. If they did they would have realized that the earliest reading of John 1:1 is 'monogenes theos'(one and only God). Not Son. This is even the reading of the NWT. At Least in the 2006 copy I own. The Greek word 'monogenes' does not mean begotten, it means unique or one of a kind.

I have no clue what madcornishbiker was was getting at with his interpretation of the text. Jesus's birth is not mentioned anywhere. Let's read it...

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18 NASB)

The first 18 verses in John 1 make up what is known as John's prologue. The prologue was meant to lay out the theme for what is to follow. To provide a lens for the reader to read the rest of the work through, so-to- speak. This was something common in those times so the reader would have been aware of it. With that said lets read it.

The first clause says, "no one has seen God at anytime...".

Lets stop there for a moment. Does my opponent believe that? He believes that the Father is Jehovah. But who does my opponent say Isaiah saw in the first verse of Isaiah 6? Jehovah! Yet here John is telling is no one has ever seen God...hmmm. How can this be?... Lets keep reading,

"...the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father..."

So here we have a reference to Jesus as the one and only (monogenes) God and we know that it's Jesus because in vs 14 he is referred to as the 'monogenes'. And he is being distinguished from the Father.

So Jesus is referred to as God, and the father is referenced in distinction to him in the same sentence. How can my opponent explain this?

The final clause says, "...He has explained (exegeted) him."

John's prologue is telling us that what you are about to read is the unique God Jesus is exegeting God. Revealing God. This is the theme of John's gospel. So this verse is actually one that works against my opponent. Not for him.

Mad Cornish biker brings up two common passages uses by JW to teach that Jesus is created.

He first references Rev 3:14

"...The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: (Revelation 3:14 NASB)

The problem with the usage of this verse to prove that Jesus was created is that it assumes a particular meaning of a word without any basis.

The Greek word 'Arche' is translated in a few different ways from the Greek language. In the New Testament they're two ways in particular. One is 'beginning' as in John 1:1, the temporal sense. The other is 'ruler' or 'authorities' as in Luke 20:20. A third is 'origin' which is certainly a possible rendering for this text as well. But one thing the word never meant, ever, is first created, which is the way my opponent would understand it.

Normally the context would provide us with the info needed to determine the proper rendering. But since this is just mentioned in passing, other practices of translation need to be exercised. In this case, you'd have to go with the rendering that would be consistent with the rest of the text.

The temporal sense of 'Arche' would not fit in this passage since there is no other place in scripture where Jesus is taught to have a beginning or be a beginning to anything. I understand that my opponent would disagree, but he would have to demonstrate that before appealing to this text. Not assume that this text means that, and read it back into everything else.

I'd also like to point out that there passages in Revelations where my opponent would assert Jehovah is being referenced(Rev 21:6 & 22:13) where 'Arche' is used. So if my opponent was consistent, he'd have to conclude that Jehovah is created as well.

His usage of Col 1:15 has a similar problem. The word Prototokos, the word translated firstborn, no where in all of Greek literature according to any of my sources, ever meant first created. Yet this is what my opponent would have you believe.

The word does literally mean first born, and that is it's proper translation. But the word firstborn was understood to be a description of preeminence long before the time of the letter to the Colosians.

This can be seen clearly in the OT.
In Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim was called the firstborn, even though We are told Manasseh was actually the first born literally in Gen 48:14.
So we see they the word Prototokos has more then one meaning and we need to be carful to to assume one without a basis.

The difference with this vs from Rev 3:14 is that the context can clearly tell is which rendering is correct. Paul is talking about the creation of all things. How can Jesus be apart of the creation if he in fact created all things. The preeminence rendering would be the only one to make sense here. And inserting the word other in the preceding passages is completely unwarranted. I've read the Watchtowers argument for doing this using Luke 13:2, and it's absolutely pathetic. Pls don't waste any space attempting to use it.

My opponent spent most of his space pointing out that the Tetragrammaton is missing from many ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. But his previous argument was that the divine name was removed from the bible. Certainly, my opponent does't believe that English translations are the actual scripture. It's no secret that the Tetragrammaton is not found in most translations. But I pointed out in my opening remarks how anyone can identify where it should be in their English translations. There is not one place where the divine name appears in the manuscript tradition, that you wind find the word 'LORD' in all caps indicating that that is the divine name. And I still do not see where these alleged alterations have bolstered the trinity doctrine in any way.

So what have we seen so far? One thing we haven't seen is any interaction to my opening statement. All we have seen is the standard, long refuted arguments , subordinationist have always made. But I hope that my opponent realizes that answers need to be given. And I hope he will do his best to attempt to provide them with the remain space we have left. Thank you.


1. Would you consider Jesus to be a legitimate god?

2. In Heb 1:10-12 the writer uses OT passages that are specifically describing Jehovah in Psalms 102:25-27, and then applies them to Jesus. Considering the context of chapter one, how would you explain this to be anything other then an identification of Jesus as Jehovah?

3. In John 1:23, why would John the Baptist state he was preparing a way for Jehovah, citing Isaiah 40:3, when in fact he prepared the way for Jesus whom you claim to be a separate ontological being from Jehovah?

4. In Revelation 5:6-14 we have the one who sits on the throne, who I believe you would agree is the Father and the lamb which is clearly a reference to Jesus, both receiving praise from EVERY CREATURE. If Jesus is in fact created, why is he not included in that group rendering the praises?

5. Specifically in Rev 5:14, considering the praises that are directed toward the one on the throne AND THE LAMB in vs 12-13, who were the elders rendering worship to?


I do not insert Jehovah into John 17:3, Christ does, when he say that eternal life comes from getting to know "You the one true God and the one you sent forth Jesus Christ".

That is a clear case of separation of individuals, hence the conjunction "and" joining them, and the statement that the one sent the other forth.

If they were the same being, and the Supreme God to boot, they could have gone forth, but they could not have sent themselves forth. It just doesn't work. It does violence to reason.

The only one ever described as the True God in scripture is Jehovah, the after of the one who came to earth to become human.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - ,the relationship between God and Christ is exactly like that between Christ and man, as well as between man and woman. Again God's son is one rung down the ladder.

Hebrews 1:10-12
ASV(i) 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail.

Where does that state that God and Christ are the same. Scripture makes it very clear that the creation was made "through" and "for God's son. If they were the same then the creation would have been done "by" not "though" which suggests someone else, someone superior working through another, an inferior, in terms of rank and status.

In fact it lends no support to your argument whatever.

John 1:3
ASV(i) 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

OK now John 1:23

ASV(i) 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet.

That too adds no support to your argument because God is not often referred to as Lord, except in the places where LORD is substituted for his name, by men, who were trying to hide it.

Also, scripture "Lord" is a form of address used to men also, therefore it has no significant meaning n that sense. As Paul says, there are "many gods and many lords".

Now for John 12:41
ASV(i) 41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

There Jesus is talking of his father not of himself as the context shows. But what was Jesus referring to? A good reference bible should show us.

And it does.

Isaiah 6:1
NWT 1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple.

ASV(i) 1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Isaiah 6:8
NWT 8 Then I heard the voice of Jehovah saying: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And I said: "Here I am! Send me!"

ASV(i) 8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me.

Again, how does that add weight to your claim? Just because to the title "Lord" when that title is used in scripture to describe not only God and his son, but also men.

Sorry that s pure wishful thinking on your apt . You want it to mean it, therefore in your eyes it does, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. John also said that no man had seen God at any time other than his son.

Was John lying? or was it simply a vision Isaiah had, and not actually real. You need something much more definitive than those, and frankly there is nothing, all the definitive scriptures point the opposite way.

I have Eveready show, by citation that before and after his human existence Christ is seem as subordinate to his father, however there is no statement that makes that clearer than those in 1 Corinthians 11:3, which I shall now quote:

So, once again the relationship between God and his son is exactly the same as that between Christ and man, and man and woman also. One of willing and happy subjection and cooperation.

John 20:17 came after his resurrection, so was he actually incarnate at the time, did he ralelly, having offered his human life up as sacrifice, take on human.

Well, what did Peter say:

1 Peter 3:18
ASV(i) 18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

So, Peter says that Jesus was put do death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, not the flesh. which does fit in with the sacrifice made.

That means that God's son was incarnate before his death, but not after.

Consider these facts.

1: After his resurrection, not one of his closest associates recognised him by sight, unless they were told beforehand.

2: On a number of occasions he was able to simply appear, in the middle of a crowd, in a locked room. No body of flesh could do that.

3: He was able to produce what would have been very obvious wounds, on demand. Had they been there all along no-one would have needed to ask to see them since they were in the hands and feet, both of which were visible, uncovered.

These three facts, and Peter's simple statement, make it very clear that Jesus was indeed not incarnate after his death a on his resurrection.

Also, he was seen by witnesses to ascend into heaven, something else impossible for flesh to do.

I do, I admit, have the advantage that I never have been and never will be restricted to doctrine. Scripture is the be all and end all of my beliefs, and since I am not tethered to a doctrine I am free to think about what the scriptures are actually saying, look for the sub-text if you like, and scripture is full of those just beneath the surface, where one has to dig to find them, and can only do so with God's help, which both he and his son promised to provide for those who asked in faith.

Ah yes, the famous "doubting Thomas scene.

Thomas was perfectly right to call Christ Lord, and even God at a pinch, but would you not have been shocked at the sudden appearance of these wounds which you had not seen until you asked for them as proof?

How many ties do you hear people say, in shock and surprise, "My God"?

However even though Christ never was and never will be the one True God there is no harm in someone calling him God provided they are not taking glory away from the one who will not even share it with his son. After all Isaiah calls God's son Mighty God, and gets away with it because Mighty is one rung below Almighty, again.

And now we come to worship.

What do you understand the word to mean?

Does it always mean exactly the same wherever it is used.

After all, in the UK at least we call judges "your worship".

No, the word worship has many meanings and there is no reason not to worship Christ, even the Angels, as long as you are not detracting from the worship due to the creator. It really is true that especially in scripture, there is worship, and then again there is worship.

The Expression being " in the bosom of the father" does not mean any ting of the sort then or now. Even now we hear of people being in the bosom of their families, that does not fit in with any understanding of the Trinity, let alone that expressed in the official teaching, the Athenasian Creed. In fact if you are "in the bosom" of someone you are in fact being cared for by that someone. No sign of equality in that then.

Again a weak argument based on nothing more than wanting it to mean that.

In fact all Trinitarian support relies on ambiguity, and simply comes from understanding what Trinitarians want something to mean, rather than what was actually meant by it in the first case. A very dangerous way to try to understand anything.

Also to claim that something which teaches that it's component parts are distinct personalities, as you have, and the Athanasian Creed does, cannot by any stretch of the imagination bee seen as Monotheistic, only be the determined twisting of things to mean what they do not, in fact cannot. Even to claim that the Athanasian Creed makes sense does far more than violence to reason, it competently destroys it, and since we are not just invited, but commanded to get to ow both God and Christ reason is the most essential part of doing that.

How do I explain it? I don't need to you just did it for me, you said that the passage referred to them "in distinction" as distinct beings, one caring for the other.

Yes Jesus explained his father, but then I can explain him and his son also, thanks to Jesus, so that actually proves nothing either way.

No I do not claim that the translations into any language are the original, but they have to retain the meaning of the original to be faithful translations, there fore Jehovah is a faithful attempt to render the Divine name in English, to reduce that holy name, declared to be his memorial forever, to a mere title, Lord, in great letters or not, is not to translate it, but to alter it and is in no way faithful to the original..

Now the questions.

1: Yes Jesus is scripturally a legitimate god in the same sense that Satan is, as Paul said "the god of this system of things" in the same sense that Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees, even Israel Chieftains were referred to as gods, by God himself.

2. Actually, when taken in with other scriptures about creation Hebrews 1:10-12, could be referring to either God, his son, or both.

History tells us that Sir Alfred McAlpine built the M54 in Shropshire, UK. I lived nearby whilst it was being built and not once did I see him with a shovel in his hand. God is credited with many things because he thought of it, commanded it, and even supervised it. That doesn't mean he did the labour.

3. Because he was preparing the way for the one who would do the actual work.

4. Who said he wasn't praising his father. He did so all his life from his creation onwards.

5. Here we are talking of different levels of worship.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you madcornishbiker.

Well I guess we're not going to see any interaction with my opening statement in this debate. I've made appeals to see but up till this point, my opponent seems to have neglected that task. I'm confident that any reader of this debate will see that.

I'll start with the responses I received to my questions.

Q 1: My opponent says that Jesus is a legitimate god in the sense that satin is. But I pointed out, Isaiah 43:10 clearly states that there is no other god before or after Jehovah. So whatever way we understand the word 'god' to mean when applied to satin or angels, it cannot mean god in any legitimate sense. In Phillipians Paul refers to a people who's god is their stomach. But merely being called a god does not make something legitimately god. So it is either Jesus is not a true God or the scripture contradicts itself. Madcornishbiker gotta take his pick.

Q2. My opponents response was

"Actually, when taken in with other scriptures about creation Hebrews 1:10-12, could be referring to either God, his son, or both.

Madcornishbiker has not takin into account the context of this passage. The writer is arguing for the supremacy of Christ over the angels. The intention of the author is to use these passages to communicate that message. And grammatically speaking this passage was addressed directly to the Son. In vs 8 leading into the citation of these two passages the text clearly states,

"But of the Son he says..."

Interpreting this the way my opponent suggest is to read far more into the text then the original author's intent permits. It does not flow from the plain reading of the text, but from a underlying presupposition my opponent brings to the text. But that is not how exegesis is done.

Q3. The response was,

"Because he was preparing the way for the one who would do the actual work."

Once again this interpretation does not flow from a plain reading of the text. John the Baptist uses a text directly from the OT. If he did not actually mean Jehovah as the text clearly states, he would have been obligated to articulate that. The men he was speaking to would have no option then to understand this the same way Isaiah understood it and all who read that passage up to this point.

Q4. Madcornishbiker obviously avoids the question here. I'll state both the Q & A for all to see.

4. Q: In Revelation 5:6-14 we have the one who sits on the throne, who I believe you would agree is the Father and the lamb which is clearly a reference to Jesus, both receiving praise from EVERY CREATURE. If Jesus is in fact created, why is he not included in that group rendering the praises?

A: Who said he wasn't praising his father. He did so all his life from his creation onwards.

Anyone could see my question had nothing to do with whether or no Jesus praised the Father. The question was, if Jesus is a creature, why was he not included amongst the group in Rev 5:12, made up of every creature? If Jesus is a creature then that group was NOT every creature. The plainest way to understand this is that Jesus is not a creature. My opponent knows that, and it seems to me, that's why he avoided the question.

Q5. When asked about who the elders in Rev 5:14 were rendering their worship to, the response is,

"Here we are talking of different levels of worship."

Once again, my opponent fails to take into account the context of the passage. Anyone with the slightest bit of reason can see that this is in the context of heavenly worship. We have one group, the elders, rendering worship in the same event. How in the world can anyone read this text and say, "ohh well they were giving the one on the throne one level of worship, and they were giving the Lamb another level of worship."? That is impossible to derive from simply reading the text. Impossible. The Lamb is clearly receiving worship alongside the one on the throne because they are both worthy of it. That is plain for anyone who does not approach the text with any Unitarian presuppositions.

Now I would like to address some of the other points my opponent made.

He continues to assert that Jesus and the Father are regarded separate.

As I've already stated, of course they are. They're suppose to be. They are distinct Divine persons. I'm not a modalist. I believe in three distinct Divine persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That does not necessitate distinction in being. This only stems from the presupposition my opponent takes to the text. He assumes that God only has one person and interprets the text in light of that assumption.

He states,

"The only one ever described as the True God in scripture is Jehovah..."

Well this is simply not true. In 1John 5:20 Jesus is regarded as the 'true God'. But even if that were true, it doesn't prove my opponents position. The question then is, "is Jehovah unipersonal or tri-personal"? And that's where the debate lies.

My opponent's responses to Heb 1:10-12, John 1:23, and John 12:41 are completely irrelevant. I find it hard to believe he did not understand what I meant when I asked for responses to them. They were were not presented in isolation. I was looking for a response to why the OT passages cited which specifically addressed Jehovah, were applied to Jesus? This was my argument from the beginning. The closest we got to a response is that is some cases people are attributed the credit to the work of their representatives. But that is not taking into the account the context and manner in which these passages were used. Not only that, but to use these OT passages in that way would be unthinkable. The biblical authors were monotheistic Jews writing in very Puritan time. It was considered blasphemy to even say the divine name YHWH (Jehovah). For them to turn around and uses these texts to refer to anyone other then Jehovah wouldn't even be a thought. My opponent's suggested interpretation is a very long stretch.

We read my opponent say,

"Scripture makes it very clear that the creation was made "through" and "for God's son. If they were the same then the creation would have been done "by" not "though" which suggests someone else, someone superior working through another, an inferior, in terms of rank and status.

If this is true then Rom 11:36 proves that Someone is superior to Jehovah since it is said that all things are THROUGH him. If we just applied the same standards folks...

Also ALL THINGS are said to be created BY the Son in Col 1:16 but my opponent rejects that. Consistency...?

He mentions John 1:3. Look it up. It says

"apart from Him(Jesus) nothing that came into being that has come into being."

I ask, did Jesus come into being? According to my opponent He did. So He needs to answer to scripture at this point.

My opponent's attempt to respond to John 1:23 was absolutely pathetic. Clearly the Isaiah text that John cited was referring to Jehovah. It seems my opponent is the one who picks and chooses when he wants to allow the Tetragrammaton to be acknowledged in the text.

He argues that the Father is the one being regarded in John 12:41. I provided a grammatical basis why it is actually Jesus. He is the nearest antecedent. No basis has been provided to say otherwise. He says that a good reference bible show us it's the Father being mentioned and cited Isaiah 6:1 for proof. If you can't see the clear assumption of Unitarianism there I don't know what to tell you. He is assuming the Father is Jehovah and then reading that back into the rest up the text. That is the very definition of eisegesis.

This is not a debate on the nature of Christ resurrection, but considering the fact that Jesus is the High Preist of the new covenant and FOREVER makes intercession on behalf of the elect, it follows that he will remain in voluntary subjection to the Father even after his resurrection. That's the point.

He claims that Thomas was saying " God"simply out if shock. But the text says in John 20:28

"And Thomas said TO HIM..."

These words were directed toward Christ. Madcornishbiker's interpretation does not suit the text.

We read,

"However even though Christ never was and never will be the one True God there is no harm in someone calling him God provided they are not taking glory away from the one who will not even share it with his son. After all Isaiah calls God's son Mighty God, and gets away with it because Mighty is one rung below Almighty, again."

A couple things. First, the Father does share his glory with Christ. We see that in Rev 5:12-14 and John 17:5 where Jesus spacifically states sharing glory with the Father.

And second. If mighty God is one rung lower then almighty, then Jehovah is one rung lower then almighty as well since in the very next chapter of Isaiah(10:21) He is called mighty God. If my opponent is consistent he would have to agree.

He try's to make it seem as if I said the word worship (proskuneo)always means the same thing. I clearly stated in my opening remarks that the rendering is determined by the context. I'm starting to wonder if my opponent even read my opening arguments.

My opponent argues that the trinity can not be seen as monotheistic.

I would disagree but perhaps we can settle that in a debate on the trinity. This is not on the trinity. Stick to the topic.

My opponent has one more rebuttal round left. And if you've been following along in this debate your probably like me. Hoping to see some meaningful attempt to respond to my opening remarks. Lets see if thats what we get. Thank you.


I am sorry you don't feel that I have addressed it, I thought I had, and still do.

For instance I have shown how the Athanasian Creed actually says there are 3 God's. How is that monotheism?

Line 15: 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

That makes three God's..Line 16: just turns it it a complete dichotomy, a paradox, and there is nothing paradoxical about God, though the Athanasian Creed pretends there is. There are either three or there are one, nothing else makes sense logicically or otherwise. Since God insists that his followers get to know him there cannot be any mystery to him to he would be asking the impossible. Not only that but his son, who also linked knowledge of his father to sternal life would be a liar.

I have asked many a priest or vicar to explain how the Trinity is even possible and all they can say is "It's a mystery"

Too right, it's a mystery. It's a mystery how anyone can fall for it. But then to me fear of man, peer pressure, and all the things that make people accept what is, I am sorry to say, nothing short of an absolute lie designed with one thing in mind, to lead as many people as possible away from God and thus prove Satan's challenge true.

However if there is one single factor which makes an absolute nonsense of the Athanasian creed, and any thought of a trinity, which whatever you say is at the heart of this debate, including the title thereof. t is this.

Jehovah and Christ cannot possibly be the same person, because scripture makes it plain that God's son was a created being.

If he was created, as scripture says the n he cannot be the same person as Jehovah.

If he is created, as scripture says, then he cannot be co-equal or co-eternal with Jehovah

He can, of course be of the same substance as Jehovah for two reasons:

1: All the Angels, faithful or unfaithful are equally spirit beings, as is Jehovah, even if they are created ones.

2 :When "push comes to shove" everything was originally of God's substance because there was nothing else for him to create anything from.

Hence the renditions of John 1:1 which fit best into the overall picture of scripture read:

Joh 1:1""and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)" Gr., (origianl language characters did not survive copy and paste, sorry) (kai the"os' en ho lo'gos)

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

The most powerful scriptural arguments for God's son being created are:

Revelation 3:14
ASV(i) 14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

"The beginning of the Creation by God".

There is only one way to understand that. And that is that he was the first thing that God created, the first of his works. Nothing else works.

I shall now "resort" to a few different literal translations.

John 1:14
ALT(i) 14 And the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic] became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only-begotten [or, uniquely-begotten] from [the] Father, full of grace and truth. (Words in square parentheses theirs not mine).

CLV(i) 14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us, and we gaze at His glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Both of these, as with Revelation 3:14 speak of God's son being begotten, in the fact the "Only begotten"

The human Christ could not be the only gotten son of God because:

Adam was a human son of God, long before him.

Luke 3:38
ASV(i) 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

On top of which Mary was stated by Matthew to have been found pregnant by holy spirit, not by God.

All the Angels, crated after God's son, but long before the human Jesus was born, were called Sons of God

Job 1:6
ASV(i) 6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Job 1:6
KJV(i) 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2
KJV(i) 1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

John 1:18
CLV(i) 18 God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds Him."

Rotherham(i) 18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him] .

These two literal translations are interesting, because here John calls God's son an "only begotten God"

A created God? Apparently so, and yes that is possible because Satan is called a god

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
KJV(i) 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There can be only one personage described here as "The god of this world" and that is Satan, since neither God nor Christ want to hide the truth of God's word from anyone.

John 10:35
KJV(i) 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Here Jesus is referring to:

Psalms 82:1
KJV(i) 1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (I'll let you look up the context of that one).

As Paul rightly said under inspiration:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
ASV(i) 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

Again Paul speaks of God and Christ as two separate beings, one who produced everything and the other, the one that he produced everything through..

Which makes God the one in charge and God's son the submissive one he used to do the creating. Hence John could rightly call God's son the "only begotten god" because a god god he was, and is sand always will be indeed, but a subservient god, a second tier god, which of course also shows that God and Christ were not, are not, and can never be co-equal as the Trinity teaching claims.

If you need anything else to show you that, according to scripture, not only are Jehovah and Jesus not one and the same belong, but they are not co-equal, or co-eternal, as the Trinity teaching claims.

As always I thank my opponent do the opportunity to being these vital scriptural truths to the fore and thus continue the work of Christ and the Apostles in exposing error and making the paths of those who wish to serve God and his Son, in spirit and truth, straight.

John 4:23,24.
Debate Round No. 4


Well I want to begin my closing remarks by thanking my opponent, madcornishbiker, for participating in this debate. I would also like to thank you, the reader, for following along. I hope that you have been educated and enlightened on the topic
that's been being addressed.

I want to just touch briefly a few things madcornishbiker said in his previous rebuttal and then move on to my closing statements.

He mentioned the Athanasian creed and said that it stated they are three gods. He cited vs 15,

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;"

He seems to neglect the fact that in vs 5 the creed made perfectly clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct individual persons. When the creed referred to all of them as God, it was speaking of their equality as God. Not that they made up the fullness of God, but rather, they shared the same divine nature. And that nature is one. If you just understand that God is one BEING who exist in three divine PERSONS you would remove the confusion of tritheism.

Once again, I did not make a presentation on the trinity so I wouldn't be able to adequately represent it in this debate. If my opponent wants to debate that, he is free to set it up.

My opponent asserts that the Son was created. I believe that this has been dealt with. The two examples given by madcornishbiker, both assume a rendering or definition of a Greek word that would lean toward his conclusion. But their is no basis for his particular rendering or definition. The NIV renders Rev 3:14
"the ruler of the creation of God".

On what what basis does my opponent rule out this rendering.

Also he, as does the NWT, mis translate the verse. Even though the ASV he cited had it right. He wrote,

"The beginning of the Creation BY God".

The rendering should actually be,

"the beginning OF God's creation"

The actual Greek has ' tou theou ' ((the) God) in the genitive case implying possession to the preceding noun, creation. The NIV rendering of this text is the best of all the translations I've seen.

He brings up John 1:1. It's seems a little late to bring this matter up in the debate. I will only say that the insertion of the indefinite article violates the original Greek and the intent of the author. The idea that whenever the definite article does not appear before a noun, an indefinite article must be inserted is fallacious. If those who hold this view applied it consistently, all of the NT text would look silly. This is an incorrect Greek practice.

He talks about the word begotten and ignores the fact that all meaningful Greek scholars today recognize that the Greek word 'monogenes' means "unique or one of a kind". This is clear in other places of scripture as well.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; (Hebrews 11:17 NASB)

Was Isaac Abraham's only "created" son? No he wasn't. Ishmael was a son as well. Same Greek word here, same meaning as in John 1:18. No implication of creating.

He argues that there is a "second tier god" on the basis of Satin, angels, and the the men in Psalms 82 being "CALLED" gods. I pointed out that merely being called god does not make one a legitimate god. Sometimes others are referred to as god because they hold certain offices that resemble some of the aspects of God's office. Of course in a much smaller scale. But creating a second tier god class only turns Isaiah 43:10 on its head and forces one to interpret it in unnatural ways just to make the theology fit. Once again, this is not how to do exegesis.

He brings up 1Cor 8:6. It's a little late for new arguments so I'll have to pass on attempting to respond. I would need more space then I have.

Ok. So lets assess what has been presented to us in this debate.

I made an affirmative argument that Jesus is identified as Jehovah by the New Testament writers. I appealed to the places in scripture where passages that were directly ascribed to Jehovah(not merely things Jehovah did) in the OT are ascribed to Jesus in the NT.

I also appealed to the fact that Jesus received worship, indeed the same worship given to Jehovah, which would be blasphemous. But one of my examples show this taking place in the very throne room of God. We understand this to mean that the worship is due to both the Father and the Son.

As far as I was able to tell, we seen little if any direct response to my opening arguments. Everything offered to counter what I presented by madcornishbiker, were separate arguments from different passages of scripture. And I believe that it will
be evident to all who read this debate that madcornishbiker could not deal with my presentation. It was sidestepped and avoided.

What I had to do the entire debate was direct everyone's attention back to the case I made in the beginning and challenged my opponent to respond. This was not a debate on the trinity. The question was "Is Jesus Jehovah?" And I will allow my opening statement to stand for itself because I believe it is full proof. Any objective observer of this debate would have to agree.

So for the final time let me bring your attention back to the issue at hand. Is Jesus Jehovah? According to the NT writers he was. There is no reason good monotheistic Jews would ever use these Old Testament text to refer to one who was not in fact Jehovah. There is likewise no reason good monotheistic Jews would render religious worship to one who was not Jehovah either. And if this is how they identify and treat Jesus in Godbreathed scripture, it is how the people of God should always identify and treat Him. That is why I pray to the Son as I do to the Father. That is why I worship the Son as I do the Father. I do it because I believe ALL of what scripture says an ONLY what scripture says. And when that is your end, Jesus being Jehovah is the only necessary conclusion.

But why is this important? It's important because it has to do with wether one is worshiping an idol or the one true God. It is a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, eternal life or eternal damnation. That is why it's worthy of extensive discussion. That is why I take the time out to debate these issues. Because a wrong decision comes with massively horrible ramifications. Ramifications I would wish on no one.

I stated in the beginning of my opening presentation that this debate is not where the study ends, it is where it begins. My recommendation to all who read this is , no matter what side you are on, to do further examination on this topic. Make sure you know what you believe and why you believe it. The nature of God is not something we can agree to disagree on. And when you stand on a position you want to be sure the position is held up by divine revelation.

Is Jesus Jehovah? Yes he is. He is the giver of life. The sustainer of all of creation. Worthy of the highest level of worship. And I hope what I have presented can help some come and rest in that conclusion and give Him the praise that is due to him. In the words of the The Lord Jesus Christ himself,

"so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." (John 5:23)

Thank you.


The Athanasian Creed states that all three are equal. Scripture emphatically states that the son is was and always will be subject to the father, which completely negates the Athanasian creed.

1 Corinthians 11:3
KJV(i) 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Where is the equality in that scripture?

It clearly states that the son is in subjection to God in the same way that man must be in subjection to Christ and woman to man.

Which do you choose to believe? The Athanasian Creed which states they are equal, or God's own word, written y Christ's own Apostles, which clearly states that they are not?

The choice is yours.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
KJV(i) 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

As Paul shows here, Christ's reign as head of the kingdom is not permanent. He is only to rule until "he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death".

When is death destroyed?

At the end of the 1,000 years reign of Christ Revelation 20:14
KJV(i) 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

You speak of teh claim that the Father Son and Holy Sopiurit all share teh same divine natuer.

Is anyone arguing against that?

Their sharing that divine nature comes from the simple fact that God. his son, and in fact all the Angels, faithful or unfaithful, share that divine nature as spirit beings.

You notice I specifically leave out eh Holy Spirit, largely because, in fact, nowhere is scripture is Holy Spirit definitively stated to be a sentient being. In fact the implication appears to be that it is in fact a source, a power, and the one wielded by God and all he allows top access it. But more of that later if I have the character allowance available.

I agree it can be a problem when phrases are translated so differently that they can appear to lead to a different conclusion.

So how do you decide which is right?

Do you let your chosen doctrine dictate the answer to that dichotomy?

Or do you rather, as I do, rely on God's word to do the job for you?

After all if, as I believe to be the case, it truly is God's word it can only be saying the same thing about the same situation or event every time can it not?

My opponent picks on the word "begotten" and implies that it cannot aply to ctrasion, and yet avan mankinds dictionaries support the fact that it can.

be"get transitive verb \bi-G2;get, bē-: to cause (something) to happen or exist

: to become the father of (someone)
be"got also be"gat be"got"ten or be"got be"get"ting
Full Definition of BEGET

: to procreate as the father : sire
: to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth.

Those definitions of Beget, include creation or (production as an effect or outgrowth.

Since everything produced was produced as an effect or an outgrowth of Gods spirit and being, everything can by the logic used by the Apostle John to denote the creation of God's son.

As for the variation between:

"The beginning of the Creation BY God".


"the beginning OF God's creation"

Both declare that God's son was the first thing created by God. Whether an item is the "beginning of" an act of creation by you, or the "beginning of" your creation, it is still the first thing you have created, and is still a part of that creation. I find it interesting that my opponent has tor resort to such weak argumentation.

Since the different renditions of a passage can indeed cause wrong understandings it is even more important to make sure that your understanding matches in with all scriptures on the same theme. The word of God is, by it's very nature, completely harmonious throughout, and that fact can be used to help in our understanding.

Inters tingly my opponent refers to Abraham's son Isaac as his "only begotten son", but was he Abraham's only son? the only son born to Abraham?

What about Ishmael? Abraham's son by Hagar? Not only was Isaac not the only son "begotten" by Abraham, he was not the first either. In the same way, neither was God's son his only one. Therefore, since Isaac was not Abraham's only son, in what way was he unique?

Simply that he was the only son born to Abraham according to God's arrangement, Ishmael was the result of Abraham listening to his wife's weaker faith.

That God's son was as Revelation describes, however you change the words around, the beginning of God's creative works.

Interestingly enough wording it as "the beginning of God's creation" fits in perfectly with Colossians 1:16:17
16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

How? because though it describes the creation as God's it does not say he actually did it. Whereas wording it as "The beginning of the creation by God" actually gives God the credit for doing the creating, even though in fact his role was similar to one of my favourite comparisons. God was the designer, the motivator, the delegate.

All of creation is his work in the same sense that the M54 in Shropshire UK was the work of Sir Alfred McAlpine.

Sir Alfred McAlpine never lifted as shovel in the creation of that motorway, however he provided the means and the ability to have to created by his own organisation.

Thus it was with God's creation,

God created his son.

God's son then worked alongside him in creating everything else, no doubt assisted by the Angels once they had been created.

Thus Paul could rightly say, as he does at Colossians 1:16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

God is the creator because all was created according to his will, and using his holy spirit as the tool to do the job.

God's son was the workman because he worked under his father's direction in creating everything, and "without him was not one thing created" and "all things were created through him".

To return finally and briefly, because it is not really a part of this debate, to holy spirit.

As I said above there is not one ting which definitely points to holy spirit as a essentialist being.

True people are baptised " in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy spirit". But does that make holy spirit a person?

It is not that long ago that, in the UK at least, miscreants were arrested "in the name off the law". Was the Law ever a person?

Many an aggressive action has been carried out "in the name of peace". Is peace a person?

When he confronted Cain about the fate of Abel, God said as reported at Genesis 3:10 At this He said: "What have you done? Listen! Your brother"s blood is crying out to me from the ground. Was Abel's blood a sentient being?

At 1 John 5:8 we read "For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. " (ASV), is water a sentient being?

Almost throughout Proverbs 8 Wisdom is spoken of as if it were a sermons (and many think it applies, figuratively, to God's son), whoever does that means Wisdom is a person?

If neither water, blood, peace or Law can be said to be sentient beings why should the personalisation of holy spirit, clearly the tool used in God's creative work, be a person either?

After all, holy spirit can be poured out on people, just like water, as it as in the upper room at Pentecost. I don't see that as a possibility if holy spirit were a sentient being.

No, the only thing that the Athanasian Creed get's right is that God and his son she the same divine (spiritual) nature as spirit beings.

True if you do not honour the son you cannot honour the father, but does that make them the same person?

How about the number of times in scripture when a king, a leader, or even God himself was said to be dishonoured by the treatment of those they sent out as their representatives the way God's son was sent out to become the Christ, the Messiah..

Even the Pharisee Gamaliel recognised the danger of the Sanhedrin's becoming "fighters against God" if they continued to fight against those who were his people. The same applies to those who truly are God's people today. fight against them and you are fighting against God.

Acts 5:33-39, which due to lack of remaining characters I shall leave you to research for yourselves.

Obviously it is up to you, the readers, to decide whether in your opinion the scriptures quoted and reasoned on above truly describe God's son as a created being in subjection to his father. however if you do so, you are compelled to agree that father and son are not the same being, and as the title of this debate argues., nor can they be equal in any sense.

I thank my opponent again for this opportunity and sincerely hoe that all who have read it, have enjoyed reading t as much as I have writing and researching it.
Debate Round No. 5
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
The Commandment states: "Thou shalt not lie" .
You all really ought to shut up!

My name back then wasn't Jesus.
I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.
The name of the self-proclaimed "God" of the Bible wasn't Jehovah.
He also had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yahweh.
None of us spoke English- English didn't even EXIST back then.
The 3rd nail proves that I couldn't have been on that cross-
somebody else was.
"Yahweh" wasn't a real God, at all.
He was doing things thousands of years ago that a real God would
never have done, such as insisting that only one God exists, that he was that God,
that everybody has to believe in him & obey him & worship him as God,
that he could murder any unbelievers, & he actually destroyed the
physical bodies of some of them.
(See, for example, Numbers 16. )
Posted by annanicole 2 years ago
MCB: "So if you really are determined enough to make a fool of yourself in God's eyes then by all means continue to pursue me there, lol,"

Anna: Nobody is gonna "pursue" out unless you are out there preaching WatchTower doctrines.

A "fool in God's eyes"? Listen, anyone who preaches doctrines that causes him to preach that when liquid water is put in a freezer, it ceases to be water isn't the sharpest tack in the drawer, in God's eyes or anyone else's.

You go through these stages in which you mostly spew rhetoric - one raw assertion after another, beginning with your baseless blurt-out that Jehovah's Witnesses are "God's people", so naturally anyone who opposes them is opposing God. These sets of assertions are generally followed by dire warnings: "you'll find out soon." Pffffffffffffft. You are in such a stage now.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
To the contrary Anna, I have done nothing but teach you, or try to, the essence of scripture, as taught by Christ and teh Apostles, and as found in the words of the scriptures that they taught from, the Hebrew Scriptures.

The fact that you refuse to accept it is as such is your problem not mine. I can only fill the water trough, I cannot hold your head under it for you to drink.

Just as the Pharisees who refused to listen to Jesus words when he spoke them learned their error, in the time of their judgement,when ti was God's time for them to do so, just like that you and your fellow "Pharisees" will learn the error of not listening to Jesus words in the time of your judging, and only you can alter that judgement.

Don't expect a "Road to Damascus". That only happened to Saul (Paul) and for a specific purpose, since he was a special case, an individual with very rare qualities that Christ knew he could use. Few of us are that special. Some of us get decidedly "mini" versions of that, but even then it is only a very small number, and ones that Christ needs for a particular purpose.

Incidentally I am not one such, just in case you think I am claiming to be.

Anyway, I am not coming back on to this debate again. I only wet for it because I had long ago agreed to. I prefer public debate and discussion in the forums, and the only ones I accept judgement from are God and Christ. So if you really are determined enough to make a fool of yourself in God's eyes then by all means continue to pursue me there, lol, it certainly does me far more good than it does you, in God's eyes, if not in men's, and Christ already knows whose eye's it is worth his effort opening their eyes to the truth. He knows his "sheep" and that they will "hear his voice" being the words that I and those like me preach and teach, I have no need to be concerned about that because I trust his judgement implicitly,

Shame you don't.
Posted by annanicole 2 years ago
Then by all means teach it, because what we've been seeing from you is anything but evidence that you've "gotten it".
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
I got it long ago Anna, shame you haven't.
Posted by annanicole 2 years ago
MCB: "I pity you very deeply, because when you get your awakening it will be even more rude than mine was."

Anna: You haven't gotten it yet, but it can't be all that long before you will. All you've discovered so far, it appears, is that Jesus and His apostles all made errors in teaching. After all, if they got it right - then the WatchTower would necessarily be wrong, and we can't have that, can we? You've been "awakened" to the novel concept that if you do not know what a word means, you just PRAY about it. Then you make up a definition, and claim God helped you along. You've recently alerted us the strange idea that when liquid water is frozen, it is no longer water. You argued for a month about the translation of the simplest of sentences ("Ego eimi"), then assured us that altering the tense was ok, but the change made the passage teach what you thought it ought to teach. You then confirmed it by diverting us through the Syriac language. After all of that - and much more - you want to speculate on what you think certain prophesies mean.

Based upon the above ... multiplied by about fifty .... you might consider the possibility that YOU will be the one who gets a rude awakening. There's a good, logical reason that you lose every disagreement - and it's because the scriptures, correctly translated, are not on your side.
Posted by annanicole 2 years ago
MCB: "You know as well as I do that the beliefs you hold to, and others like you, make a mockery of God's word, and therefore of God and Christ themselves."

Anna: I make a mockery of Jehovah's Witnesses

MCB: "There really is no point in saying anything else to you. I have done my part and put the truth in front of you many times"

Anna: It looked more to me like WatchTower nonsense.

MCB: "As you will find out, God is not one to be mocked, specially in the ways in which you mock him"

Anna: How does pointing out the outright stupid definition that you've made up for the word "doctrine" equate with "mocking God"? Furthermore, how does laughing at a bunch of dimwits who think that the Son picked THEM as "God's people" as they were in the process of filling people's heads with the grossest of errors equate with ... "mocking God"?

MCB: "There really is no point in saying anything else to you. I have done my part and put the truth in front of you many times, and all you do is mock it, and when you mock God's truth, you mock him."

Anna: Unfortunately, you somehow equate "God's truth" with what appears to be WatchTowerism. It amazes me that you can't even define simple words, yet your erroneous made-up meanings equate with "God's truth".

MCB: "There really is no point in saying anything else to you."

Anna: Correction: there is really no point in you posting WatchTower doctrines. Nobody cares about that 1914 nonsense, other than Jehovah's Witnesses. So why bother with it, unless you are talking to another Witness? Nobody uses the NWT, other than Jehovah's Witnesses. Everybody else recognizes it for what it is. So why shove it on people? By the way, if somebody asks you what a word means, I'd suggest you look it up - and quit citing yourself as a source. After all, look at your record on "generation" .... "doctrine" .... "oikemene" .... "arche".
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
No better at sarcasm than at understanding are you Anna.

You know as well as I do that the beliefs you hold to, and others like you, make a mockery of God's word, and therefore of God and Christ themselves.

I just hope you think the plaudits of men are worth it when the time comes, because it will come, and then you will be facing the wrath of God and Christ. There is nothing more sure than that.

I need be no more specific that Matthew 7:21-23, because that is what awaits you unless you change.

As you will find out, God is not one to be mocked, specially in the ways in which you mock him.course.

As always I pity you very deeply, because when you get your awakening it will be even more rude than mine was.

There really is no point in saying anything else to you. I have done my part and put the truth in front of you many times, and all you do is mock it, and when you mock God's truth, you mock him.

John 5:24
ASV(i) 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.

The word I give you is not mine, but God's passed down to us by Christ and the Apostles in scripture. Therefore the above scripture applies as much to my saying it as it did to when Christ did so.

I am free of guilt for your blood, because I have more than done many part in trying to show you the truth of God's word, now all I can do is warn you of the judgement to come on you and those like you, unless you wake and follow Christ, which means obeying him, so I'd start with that if I were you.

You are just as determined to usurp other people's debates as you are their threads aren't you.
Posted by annanicole 2 years ago
Could you be a little more vague. The specificity is killing us.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
It's scripture. If you wish to call scripture ridiculous that is up to you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by annanicole 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: MadCornish doesn't seem to grasp the concept that as the negative (con) in a debate, his job is to rebut the arguments presented by the affirmative, and rebut them in a systematic fashion. I noted in my debate with him that he could have typed out his "replies" without even reading what I wrote, and he agreed. The same essentially holds true here. The best statement made by Chris in the whole debate is: "He can make a case for that all he wants but I will not respond. It has nothing to do with our topic." I thought Chris stayed pretty much on the subject, but I would suggest using spell-check. There is no reason for misspelling "separate" in the proposition. If the two of you ever engage in another debate, I would limit the scripture sources to one Greek text and one translation. There is no point in introducing perversions into the discussion.