The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valtin
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Jesus Christ is God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Valtin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 754 times Debate No: 51183
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

radz

Pro

The case of Pro is that according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is not only human by nature but also God by nature ( John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16,, Philippians 2:7).

On this debate challenge, Pro must prove his case while Con must prove that Jesus is only human by nature.

Scripture alone is to be used in providing arguments and Bible scholars may also be cited.
Valtin

Con

I accept this debate, and thank Pro for making this debate possible, I assume this round is only for acceptance because Pro has not shown the structure of the debate, I await Con's argument in the next round, I also accept to his rules which are:
"Scripture alone is to be used in providing arguments and Bible scholars may also be cited."

Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

Thank You for accepting my debate challenge.

John 1:1

John 1:1 explicitly identify the Word as God by nature*.

We know that this Word is a person because he has God's nature and God's nature only subsists in a person never in inanimate things.

Premise 1: Nature denotes all the qualities/attributes in totality.
Premise 2:God's nature includes personality.
Premise 3: The Word was God by nature ( John 1:1).
Conclusion: Therefore, the Word is a Person.

* The third clause in John 1:1 reads KAITHEOSEENHOLOGOS in Greek and the underlined word is "God" in English.

It is to be noted that this noun functions as an adjective because the Greek lacks the definite article.It is qualitative in sense. Therefore, it refers to God's nature per se.

This Word who is God by nature is the only-offspring of the Father based on the immediate context:

John 1:1 The Word was with God and he was God by nature.

John 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh. He has a glory as of the only-offspring* of the Father.

John 1:18 The only-offspring* who is God by nature.

John 3:16 The only-offspring*, who is a Son.

* only-offspring is monogenes in Greek. This is compound word of "monos" ( one,only) and "genos" ( kind, stock,offspring).These definitions are accepted by all Bible scholars and is not in dispute by any Christians theologians.

Monogenes has a lot of definitions. When it refers to parent to offspring relationship, it means either "only one of its sort" ( i.e.unique) or "only-offpring.

For this very reason, we found out that Jerome ( and others) justly translated monogenes into Latin as unigenitus specially in reference to Christ because it is in the context of a parent to offspring relationship specifically of a Father and Son relationship. To be an only-offspring of a Father highly implies to be an only-begotten.

Source:

http://biblehub.com...

Philippians 2:6

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus is "existing in the form of God(ASV)"

Morphe means "form" ( nature, shape). It's dual meaning is used in the Bible, morphe is used in the New Testament as "nature" for about 5 times ( Phil. 2:6, Romans 12:2, Phil. 3:10 and 21,Gal. 4:19 ) and as "shape" in both Old Testament Septuagint (Daniel 3:19 ) and New Testament ( 2 Timothy 3:5 ).

Philippians 2:6 explicitly conveys that Christ existed in God's nature before He took on the nature of a human slave.

Source:

http://www.etsjets.org...

Colossians 2:9

In Christ all the fullness of the divine nature dwells bodily ( Colossians 2:9). The Greek word for the English phrase "divine nature"in this verse is "theotetos" and it means "the very nature of God himself."

On the otherhand, Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians are to be "filled to the measure of all the fullness of God." The Greek word for the English Noun "God" in this verse is "theos" and it means " God himself as person" NOT his nature.

Source:

http://biblehub.com...


Valtin

Con

I thank Pro for presenting his argument, I will God willing refute it.

John 1:1:
“In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God.”
I just want to remind that these are not the words of Jesus, but words of John, which was not a disciple(since his Gospel was made around 90-100 after Jesus[1]).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
The word used for God in this verse is “theos”. [2]
The Europeans have evolved a system, they put a capital “G” for God when they refer to Almighty God and put a small “g” when referring to some other deity. When they speak about Hindu and Greek gods and goddesses they put a small “g”. When the Christians speak about Jesus. They put a capital “G”, when the same word “theos” is used for somebody else, the Christians put a small “g”. Consider the following.
“4The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,” (II Corinthians 4:4)
The same word “theos” is used here, which is used in John 1:1. But the Christians have put a small “g” here.

Another argument I can claim that Jesus was not the only offspring of God according to the Bible, Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God...", Romans 8:14 "For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.", Luke 3:38 "...the son of Adam, the son of God." Pslam 82:6 "I say, “You are gods,children of the Most High, all of you;"

We conclude that Jesus is not the only offspring of God according to the Bible.

[1] '[T]he Gospel circulated abroad during the first half of the 2nd century but was probably composed about 90—100 CE.' Harris, Stephen L. , Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 303.
[2]http://biblehub.com...

Philippians 2:6 :
Obviously those are Paul's word Not Jesus, In the Gospel of John, we can see Jesus can do nothing:
John 5:30 "30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me."
And again Paul contradicits the words of Jesus, since Jesus called the "Father" God as his God, and not said that he is God:
John 20:17 "17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Jesus again says that his doctrine is not his, but the one who sent him, making another distinction between him and God: John 7:16 "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me"

Another distinction that Jesus made between him and God is found in Gospel of Matthew in the following:
Matthew 19:16-17 "
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

Another distinction is found in Gospel of John, John 13:3 "3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, " If Jesus was indeed God, then he would have gave himself all things, which is illogical, thus we can understand that Jesus throughout the Gospels he makes distinction between him and God, which clearly makes the words of Paul false.

Colossians 2:9:
"The Greek word for the English phrase "divine nature"in this verse is "theotetos" and it means "the very nature of God himself."
You have translated it wrong, because according to [1] the definition of 'Theotetos' is "deity, Godhead." and NOT 'the very nature of God himself'.

And the verse nowhere it says "Divine nature" and the major Bibles [2] the verse goes like this from the NIV "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,"

[1]http://biblehub.com...
[2]http://biblehub.com...


Pslam 146:
Jesus is the son of man, the OT tells us not to trust the son of man The New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus is the son of man(Matthew 8:20 Matthew 9:6 Matthew 12:8 Luke 9:44 Luke 9:22 John 5:27)
The Old Testament tells us not to put our trust in the son of man:
Psalms 146
1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

So note, Jesus is the son of man, the OT tells us not to put our trust in the son of man; therefore we cannot place our trust in Jesus so he cannot be God. The OT is basically saying that you shouldn"t put your trust in men as you do with God, so hence we cannot put our trust in Jesus in the same way we do with God since Jesus is just a man, and he cannot really save us. So hence Jesus cannot be God.
The OT also tells us that there is no help in the son of man, therefore this means Jesus cannot help anybody, therefore he is not God since God can help all. So we cannot place our trust in Jesus, nor can he help us, therefore he cannot be God according to the OT.

Authority:
I can further claim that Jesus was given authority, It would be illogical for God to give himself Authority:
John 17:6-8 "
6 “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; 8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. "

John 5:27 "And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man."

Son of Man is a worm to God:
Job 25:4-6 KJV "
4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?"

Who is the Son of Man?
Matthew 8:20 "Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

God is greater than himsel?
Jesus many times in the scripture he says that the father is greater than himself
John 14:28 "...for the Father is greater than I."

Conclusion:
God is not Jesus, Jesus is not God.

Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

I have given cogent rebuttals to all of Con's arguments:

John 1:1


The use of upper case and lower case in the English language is to distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns and in Christian Theology, monotheism is taught and therefore, this usage in English is applied.

Proper Noun ( specific) - The only true God.
Common Noun ( general) - false gods and people gods in title.

In 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "theos" there is Satan and obviously, he is a false god.

In John 10:35, God's people have a title "gods" due to their function not nature.

The Unique Sonship of Jesus

Con wrote: Another argument I can claim that Jesus was not the only offspring of God according to the Bible, Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God...", Romans 8:14 "For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.", Luke 3:38 "...the son of Adam, the son of God."Pslam 82:6 "I say, “You are gods,children of the Most High, all of you;"

We conclude that Jesus is not the only offspring of God according to the Bible.

Response:

I totally agree that Jesus is not the only-offspring of God based on the Scriptures but as I already explained in Round 2, Jesus is "the only-offspring who is God by nature" ( John 1:18).

John 5:30

I agree that with the verse and in fact, the immediate context is on my side:

John 5:19 (NIV)

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does

See? The Son is Almighty because he can only do what his Father can do.For sure, his Father can do anything (i.e. Almighty).

John 20:17

The reason why Jesus call his Father as his "God" is because he's the incarnate Son based on John 1:14.

This doesn't make him not God by nature but rather, it proves that he's also truly human aside from being truly God.

John 7:16

The doctrine (i.e. teaching) Jesus taught is not from him but from the Father.

This doesn't make him not God by nature but rather, it only proves that he and the Father are distinct persons who has different roles.

Matthew 19:16-17

May I ask Con a Question?

Is Jesus not good?

He's even asking the question in purpose of why is he called good not that he has heard a balsphemy!It means that he is pointing to his godhood as the "must" be motive of calling him good.

John 13:3

Con said: If Jesus was indeed God, then he would have gave himself all things, which is illogical, thus we can understand that Jesus throughout the Gospels he makes distinction between him and God, which clearly makes the words of Paul false.

Response:

Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are NOT the same person but rather, they are two persons, distinct and of same nature.

Colossians 2:9

Con's argument holds no water.There's a Bible translation that did translate "theotetos" as divine nature:

For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity ( Good News Bible).

Theotetos means "deity, Godhead" or God's very nature itself not just an attribute or quality.The following English-Greek Bible Dictionaries concur:

  • Deity, divinity, used as an abstract noun for qeoV (BAGD)

  • Deity, i.e., the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9...Syn. qeothV, qeiothV: qeot. deity differs from qeiot. divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute (Thayer)

  • Divinity ... The one God, to whom all deity belongs, has given this fullness of deity to the incarnate Christ. (TDNT)

  • Deity, divine nature, divine being...'all the fullness of divine nature' Col 2:9...The expression 'divine nature' may be rendered in a number of languages as 'just what God is like' or 'how God is' or 'what God is' (Louw & Nida). Louw & Nida do not semantically distinguish theotes, theiotes, andtheios, treating them each as synonymous with "diving nature" as they define it here.

Con wrote:

Pslam 146:
Jesus is the son of man, the OT tells us not to trust the son of man The New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus is the son of man(Matthew 8:20 Matthew 9:6 Matthew 12:8 Luke 9:44 Luke 9:22 John 5:27)
The Old Testament tells us not to put our trust in the son of man:
Psalms 146
1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

So note, Jesus is the son of man, the OT tells us not to put our trust in the son of man; therefore we cannot place our trust in Jesus so he cannot be God. The OT is basically saying that you shouldn"t put your trust in men as you do with God, so hence we cannot put our trust in Jesus in the same way we do with God since Jesus is just a man, and he cannot really save us. So hence Jesus cannot be God.

Response:

The very words of Jesus suffices:

Don't let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me ( John 14:1 NLT).

Con wrote:

The OT also tells us that there is no help in the son of man, therefore this means Jesus cannot help anybody, therefore he is not God since God can help all. So we cannot place our trust in Jesus, nor can he help us, therefore he cannot be God according to the OT.

Hebrews 2:16 suffices:


New International Version
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.

New Living Translation
We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham.

English Standard Version
For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.

New American Standard Bible
For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.

Authority

Trinitarianism teaches that the Son has his authority from the Father. This doesn't mean he has no divine ability but rather, it only means that he is a true Son who is under the Father yet of same nature with him ( John 5:19,30).

Con wrote:

Son of Man is a worm to God:
Job 25:4-6 KJV "4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?"

Response:

Why did Jesus call Himself a worm?

Psalm 22:6 “But I am a worm and no man; a reproach of men, and despised by the people.”

We return now to Christ’s experience. In being made sin and the accursed thing, He calls himself a worm and no man. What a radical statement to make… He is calling Himself the lowest form of life, a worm! And not just any worm but a particular kind of worm [1]- a scarlet worm (coccus ilicus). The scarlet worm is a beautiful type of the Lord Jesus in His death. In order for this worm to bring forth life (reproduce), it attaches itself to the trunk of a tree, lays its eggs and dies. In dying it stains the tree scarlet. In the scarlet worm we have a picture of life coming only out of death. Just as the Lord Jesus was willing to lay aside His life to bring forth many sons unto glory so too this worm lays aside the right to live to bring forth life. In the process of dying the worm stained the tree scarlet which is a graphic picture of Christ’s shed blood on the cross. Jesus was a man, but not any kind of man; conceived of the Holy Spirit, born without sin, the only perfect man who ever walked on earth in all that He said and did. When He came into the world He said, (Heb 10.5) “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire but a body you have prepared for me ...Then I said, Behold, I have come – In the volume of the book it is written of me to do your will O God”.



[1]The Hebrew word for "worm" in Psalm 22:6 is from the word ‘towla’, which refers to a particular type of worm, known as the ‘coccus ilicis’. It was the scarlet worm, and was commonly used in Israel to make scarlet dye.

Source:

John 14:28


The Father is greater than the Son in position,rank and role NOT and NEVER in nature because in John 5:18 it is clear that the Son is equal to the Father in nature.

Conclusion:

None of Con's arguments conflict with Trinitarianism. In fact, he misunderstood Trinitarianism as Sabellianism (Oneness Theology) due to his pre-conceived idea of a Unitarian deity.

Valtin

Con

I thank Pro for presenting his rebuttal, now swiftly to mine.

Rebuttal II:

John 1:18 :
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
The translations you have made in round 2, makes no sense, because the actual verses are different.

" Nature denotes all the qualities/attributes in totality."
Jesus did not have qualities of God, as he said in Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Jesus is not God by nature since he doesn't have the "All-knowing" attribute of God, your argument in Round 2 is fallacious.

John 5:19 :

Pro claims that the reason Jesus says he does nothing of his own is because he works together with the Father, a convenient answer, yet wishful thinking on Pro's part.

What Pro forgets is that EVERYTHING JESUS SAID AND HAD WAS FROM THE FATHER, tell me does that sound like your working togethor? Here are the verses:

John 17:6-8: 6 “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; 8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

Not Jesus says that ALL things have been GIVEN to him, meaning miracles, doctrine and so on, Jesus himself said his doctrine is not his:

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Notice the problem Pro's explanation has, if the Father and Son are working perfectly together, then why doesn’t Jesus say my doctrine is not mine, but OURS, my Father and I. Why doesn’t Jesus say that instead? If Jesus and the Father are working together and so on as Jesus claims, then why does Jesus lay all authority and power to the Father alone? Jesus says it BELONGS TO THE FATHER, meaning not to him. Jesus says his sayings are not his, but the Fathers, why didn’t Jesus say my sayings are not mine, but OURS, my Father and I.


This refutes Pro silly made up explanation. Also if Jesus and the Father were working completely together as Pro says, then they would be SHARING things with each other, however so, the Father is GIVING things to Jesus, meaning they don’t belong to Jesus but rather they belong to the Father. By sharing, I mean that they both possess the great power and so on, both equally have it etc. As we see they don’t, since the Father gives Jesus EVERYTHING, not a few things, but EVERYTHING.John 20:17

"The reason why Jesus call his Father as his "God" is because he's the incarnate Son based on John 1:14."
If indeed Jesus was the incarnate son then should have said only 'Father' otherwise your statement is fallacious.

John 7:16
"The doctrine (i.e. teaching) Jesus taught is not from him but from the Father. "
This proves my point, they are to distinct persons, that means he is not the Father, and vice versa, you even said it yourself! "he and the Father are distinct persons" They are not the same being!

Matthew 19:16-17 :

"Is Jesus not good?"
Jesus is good, but I have forgot to explain what Jesus meant by 'Good' he meant it in a sense that God is the only one who is perfect, Jesus is only saying that God is the only perfect being, which is obviously true.

John 13:3
I have already proved that Jesus is not God in nature, because of the following reasons:
1.Jesus never said he is God, but made a distinction between him and the Father.
2.Jesus doesn't have qualities of God, therefore he is not God.
3.Jesus calls his Father, God, why is that? because he is the only true GOD.
You have failed to rebute my arguments.

Colossians 2:9

Pro has misread my argument, I have said "And the verse nowhere it says "Divine nature" and the major Bibles "
I have never said that no translation of the Bible does not say that, but obviously all of the major versions, like the NRSV which revised by 32 scholars of the highest eminance and backed by 50 co-operating denominations.
I think that Bible is better translation than the GNT(Good News Translation).
We understand that all of the major and strong Bibles did not translate Theotetos as divine nature.

Psalm 146(REBUTTAL TO JOHN 14:1 AND PRO STATEMENT):
It is funny that only the New Living Translation, says trust, while all other MAJOR BIBLES, say:
NIV:
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me."

ESV:
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me."

NASB:
"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me"

KJV:
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

HCSB:
"Your heart must not be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me."

I think I have made my point.

I have not understood Pro's point he said "Hebrews 2:16 suffices" when it didn't.

Authority:

I have already refuted John 5:19 above, and how Jesus is not the same nature as God.
He brings this lenghty rebuttal about Jesus being a worm, JESUS DOES NOT CALL HIMSELF A WORM!, God did that to prove that the SON OF MAN CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH GOD! JOB 25:4 " How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?"

John 14:28 :
Lets examine the meaning of "greater" shall we? first let us see the meaning of 'Great' the meaning is "Of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average" [1][2] So Jesus is saying that the Father is more 'Great' than him in "Of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average" SO IT IS NOT IN POSITION OR RANK, BUT IN ABILITY AND QUALITY.

[1]https://www.google.com...
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Conclusion:
Pro's rebuttals are weak, I refuted his rebuttal, he thinks I have misunderstood, but actually he misread one of my arguments, his argument of Jesus being the same nature as God is frail as well as his rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

John 1:18

I totally agree with the English translation Con has quoted. It proves my point. The Son is God by nature for he is God himself.

John 5:19

The Father and the Son work together ( John 5:17). The role they have it different for they are two distinct persons.

Authority ( functional subordination)

The Father has authority over his own Son.It doesn't lessen his deity at all. Both are still God by nature.

Consider this:

President Barack Obama has authority over American people. Both are of same nature: human.

Nature ( ontological equality)

The Father begot the Son eternally ( Hebrews 1:2-7). The anthropomorphism conveys that they are of same nature.


Consider this:

My Dad is human by nature. I am his son. I am human by nature. ( Simple scientific reality of Genetics).


Matthew 19:16-17

The Son took on human nature ( John 1:14, Philippians 2:7). He's now one person with dual natures: divine and human. Hence, he has two minds: the divine mind and the human mind.

The Son does not know the day and the hour of his return because he does not have an access to his divine mind at that time ( Mark 13:35, Acts 1:7). But after his resurrection, he was given all authority ( Matthew 28:18) that is why now he has an access to his divine mind to install all knowledge to his human mind in his glorified body ( Colossians 2:9).

This is the reason wht in Colossians 2:3, it says that in Jesus lies, " all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Colossians 2:9

The fact is that " deity, god-head and divine nature" are synonymous terms. Therefore, whether which of the word is chosen for translating "theotetos" into English, it would still be on my side.

New International Version
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

New Living Translation

For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

English Standard Version

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

New American Standard Bible

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

King James Bible

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Holman Christian Standard Bible

For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ,

International Standard Version

because all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form.

NET Bible

For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

For all The Fullness of The Deity dwells in him bodily.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

All of God lives in Christ's body,

Jesus is truly God both in identity and in nature while being also truly human.That's what the verse means.


Psalm 146:3


The word the Greek word for "trust" in Psalm 146:3 LXX and John 14:1 is the same.Hence, Jesus is saying that we must trust him the same way we trust God himself.

SOURCE:

http://en.katabiblon.com...

http://biblehub.com...


Furthermore, reading the context carefully shows that this Psalm in no way refutes the Deity of the Lord Jesus, or his function as Savior. The son of man in this particular Psalm is a reference to frail, mortal humanity collectively, that persons should not put their hope in mere mortals since they all die and fade away. Here is the entire Psalm in order to prove that this is what the Psalmist meant in context:

"Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD, O my soul! I will praise the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have being. Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith for ever; who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free; the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD watches over the sojourners, he upholds the widow and the fatherless; but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin. The LORD will reign for ever, thy God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the LORD!" Psalm 146:1-10


JOB 25:4

QUESTION: How then can man be justified with God?

ASNWER: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law ( Romans 3:28).

QUESTION: can he be clean that is born of a woman?

ANSWER: LUKE 1:28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.


John 14:28


Based on the definitions Con has given, only " eminence considerably above average ' fits the context of the said verse. Hebrews 1:3 supports this fact. The Son and his Father are of same nature ( ability and quality) but not in eminence because that is why the Father is called the First Person in the Trinity.


CONCLUSION:

I have given cogent arguments and rebuttals to all of Con's arguments and rebuttals. Shockingly, Con is reluctant to admit that he misunderstood my case.

Con said:

If Jesus was indeed God, then he would have gave himself all things, which is illogical, thus we can understand that Jesus throughout the Gospels he makes distinction between him and God, which clearly makes the words of Paul false.

Everyone can see that Con's argument is an assumption of his case ( Unitarianism) imposed on the texts rather than refuting my case ( Trinitarianism). Therefore, it is his arguments that are truly weak and not mine.
Valtin

Con

I thank Pro for presenting his rebuttal, now swiftly to mine.

Rebuttal III:

John 1:18 :
In Pro's rebuttal he completely ignores my refutation of the Son being NOT the same nature as the God/Father, but instead restates his previous point, I extend my argument.

John 5:19 :
Again Pro restates his previous points on authority, and doesn't rebute my refutation on the Son being same as the Father in nature, or my refutation on John 5:19, I extend my argument.

Hebrews 1:2-7 :
Again these are the words of Paul, not Jesus, we are talking about Jesus, also Hebrews 1 doesn't say that the Father and son are the same in nature, or same in any way.

Matthew 24:36 :
First I want to clear out one thing, Pro thought that Matthew 19:16-17 is Matthew 24:36, so do not get confused, now to my rebuttal:
Actually Jesus specifically said that NO ONE KNOWS, that means even the "DIVINE MIND" does not know, only the Father!, lets see what Jesus said "....nor the Son, but only the Father." only the Father, your argument is invalid.

Colossians 2:9 :
"The fact is that " deity, god-head and divine nature" are synonymous terms."
Let us see if this is true, now to the meanings :
Deity : 1."A god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion)" or "(usually the Deity) The creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity):" [1]

God-head :
"God" [2] " Divinity; godhood." [3]

Divine Nature : "Our nature when we are in touch with our Soul Essence and choose our highest good."[4]

Not the same meaning, but they're close.

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2]https://www.google.com...
[3]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4]https://www.google.com...

Psalm 146 :
The source he provided for Pslam, was Psalm 145 not 146, I further seen the Psalm 146 in Greek [1] but nowhere I find the supposed Greek word for "Trust" which is πιστεa3;ω [2], further Psalm 146 describes the return of Jesus that is nowhere near the topic of "Jesus Christ is God".

[1]http://en.katabiblon.com...
[2]http://biblehub.com...

Job 25:4-6 :
Again, answers by the words of Paul(Romans 3:28) but not Jesus, Paul's words contradict Jesus in Roman 3:28, what did Jesus say? Matthew 5:20 "20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Man is justified by righteousness and peity not Faith.
quote the next verses please, Pro, Job 25:6 "How much less man, who is a maggot, And a son of man, who is a worm?”
Pro uses the words of Paul to justify his points, and not the words of Jesus.
Further I can claim that Jesus said that the law will never Matthew 5:18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
(I have ignored the second answer to the subject, because he should have quoted the 6th verse which is shown above.)

John 14:28 :
The definition I gave was "Of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average" [1] but Pro removed some of the definition and said " eminence considerably above average", I extend my arguments that the Father is more "Great" Of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average.

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Arguments that I have stated that Pro did not refute :

Argument of John 13:3, Matthew 19:16-17, John 7:16, John 14:24, and John 8:26.

Conclusion :
Pro didn't give a rebuttal to all of my arguments, as seen above he has ignored those, Pro uses Paul's words that contradict Jesus, I have rebutted every rebuttal posed by Pro, Thank God, I urge Pro to provide the correct sources, and not to ignore my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

John 1:18

Con accuses me of ignoring his rebuttal on this matter when in fact, I repeatedly wrote arguments about the said verse.

I, therefore, extend my arguments about John 1:18:

John 1:18 proves that Jesus is God by nature because in the Greek, it is clearly said that he is the "only-offspring who is God by nature" ( monogenes theos). This Greek phrase functions as a "substantive" and the word "theos" therein is anarthrous and hence, qualitative in sense.

SOURCE:

http://www.forananswer.org...

John 5:19

Con uses the following verses to prove that Jesus is not God by nature because everything he has (e.g. authority ,doctrine and ability) was given to him by the Father:

John 17:6-8: 6 “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; 8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Con thought that these verses are against the doctrine of the Trinity when in fact, it reinforces that Jesus is "God's own Son" ( Romans 8:3)because for Jesus to be a Son denotes to be under the authority of his own Father whom he is equal with in nature ( John 5:18).

Even the godhood of Jesus came from the Father and was given by the Father based on John 5:26 and John 1:18. This means the Son has an origin but has no beginning of existence for he is eternally begotten from the Father.

The Son is God by nature because he was given divine nature by God himself through eternal begetting ( Hebrews 1:3-7, John 1:18,5:26).

Source:

http://www.forananswer.org...

On the Incarnation

Con wrote:

"The reason why Jesus call his Father as his "God" is because he's the incarnate Son based on John 1:14."
If indeed Jesus was the incarnate son then should have said only 'Father' otherwise your statement is fallacious.

Response:

It isn't mine but it is Con's statement that is fallacious because he restricts the incarnate Son to call his Father "God" when in fact, it is natural for him to do so because he became real human "under the Law" ( Galatians 4:4). Jesus isn't an atheist!

In fact, the Father himself calls Jesus " God" in Hebrews 1:8.

Hebrews 1:2-7

Con wrote:

Again these are the words of Paul, not Jesus, we are talking about Jesus, also Hebrews 1 doesn't say that the Father and son are the same in nature, or same in any way.

Response:

Why is Con against using Hebrews by reason of Paul wrote it so? Is he against the epistle? He accepted the gospel of John and the epistle of Colossians throughtout the debate. May I remind Con that the epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon.

Con is wrong when he said that "Hebrews 1 doesn't say that the Father and son are the same in nature, or same in any way" because on the contrary, Hebrews 1 is talking about that very subject.

Hebrews 1:2-8

2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God's angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.


Hebrews 1:2 says that God created everything through his Son.
Hebrews 1:3 says that God and his Son are of same nature because the Son is "the exact imprint of his nature."
Hebrews 1:5-7 says that the angels are created while the Son is begotten from the Father. To beget is to have an offspring " of same nature."
Hebrews 1:8 says that the Father himself calls the Son "God."

Conclusion:

Con's argument on Hebrews 1 is null and void.

Matthew 24:36

The Father alone knows at that time because the Son hasn't yet given authority to know it. This doesn't mean he's not God by nature but rather, it only means that he is Son by nature.After his ressurection, Jesus was given all authority ( Mt. 28:18) that's why he now has an access to his divine mind:

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep (John 21:17).

Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
(John 16:30)

Of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:3)


Colossians 2:9


Con insists that I'm wrong. He did not put all the definitions but hence, only include the definitions that suits his argument.Here's the dictionaries. See for yourself:


de·i·ty (dē′ĭ-tē, dā′-)
n. pl. de·i·ties
1. A god or goddess.
2.
a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
b. Deity God. Used with the.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

deity (G2;de=8;t=8;; G2;diH0;=8;-)
n, pl -ties
1. a god or goddess
2. (Theology) the state of being divine; godhead
3. (Theology) the rank, status, or position of a god
4. (Theology) the nature or character of God
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

god·head (g!5;d′hĕd′)
n.
1. Divinity; godhood.
2. Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Godhead (G2;ɡ;4;dG6;hɛd)
n (sometimes not capital)
1. (Theology) the essential nature and condition of being God
2. (Ecclesiastical Terms) the Godhead God

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


Psalm 146

Con wrote:

The source he provided for Pslam, was Psalm 145 not 146, I further seen the Psalm 146 in Greek [1] but nowhere I find the supposed Greek word for "Trust" which is πιστεa3;ω [2], further Psalm 146 describes the return of Jesus that is nowhere near the topic of "Jesus Christ is God".

Response:

Con thought that I am wrong when I provided Psalm 145 as a source. Based on his demeanor shown, I see that he is ignorant of the Septuagint Greek for he is not aware of its numbering as different from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Greek word "πεποθατε " of Psalm 146:3 ( 145:3 in LXX) and " πιστεa3;ω" of John 14:1 has same origin ( "πε^3;θω") with same meaning (have confidence, persuade, affirm, faith, trust).

http://biblehub.com......


Con wrote:

Regarding Job 25:4, it shows that Con indeed isn't accepting Paul's authority. The fact that he's talking about soteriology shows that he's off-topic here. Regarding Job 25:6 I already given rebuttal to this in Round 3 which Con hasn't yet refuted and hence, I extend my argument about it.

John 14:28

Con insists that all of the definitions of "greater" must be included to define the Father's greatness over the Son. This argument is absurd. Con is explicitly imposing the meaning on the texts without its proper context and hence, his argument is really a pretext. Let Con re-read my argument regarding this for I extend my argument to it.

Concluding Statement:

Con has may blunders in throughout the debate. I have completely given all the rebuttals he wants and that I need to. I even extended arguments to Con and I hope he would refute all of that.

Arguments that I have stated that Con has yet to refute :

John 1:18,Hebrews 1,John 5:19,Colossians 2:3,John 1:1, Philippians 2:6,and Colossians 2:9.

The one who has a cogent and logical argument from the scripture wins this debate.

Valtin

Con

This is my last rebuttal, I will deliver a decisive rebuttal this time!

Rebuttal IV:

John 1:18:
First of all, all modern versions of the Bible remove the word "Begotten"and put "Only" or similar words, that could be obviously shown in the following examples:
NIV John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son...." NIV was published in 1978(Full Bible) and updated in 2011[1]
KJV John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son" KJV was made in 1611[2]
You can refer to other narrations like John 3:16 and see the difference between the modern and old versions.
But if you go through the OT there are many sons of God, but Pro claims that John 1:18 says that Jesus was God's son by nature(Meaning by begetting) but the modern translations remove that interpolation, Jesus is not the begotten son of God, therefore not God's son by nature.
"Monogenes theos" Does not mean "only-offspring who is God by nature" actually it means "One and only son" as translated by the NIV Bible.
If the passage did say, "monogenes God," then such a translation would be inconsistent with the rest of John's message where Jesus is always portrayed as God's only-begotten Son. The Greek word itself, monogenes, indicates a Father/Son relationship. The same word is used of Isaac at Hebrews 11:17. If we carefully think about the siutation, the Father-Son version of the text seems to be far more likely than the only begotten God version. No one has seen God but the only-begotten [somebody] who is in the bosom of the Father expresses Him. If we are to understand that "God" here in this verse is the Father and only the Father, then what word goes with "Father?" The term "only-begotten Son" goes with the word "Father." No one has ever seen God but God's only-begotten Son expresses him who is his Father and whom no one has ever seen. Verse 14 tells us that he is the Word that became flesh and verse 15 that he is the only-begotten from the Father and right here in this passage we see that he is "unto the bosom of the Father."

John 1:14 "only-begotten of the Father"
John 1:18 Consistency: "only-begotten Son" Inconsistency : "only-begotten God"

The "monogenes God" version is conspicuously out of place in John's writings. Christ is always portrayed by John as someone of God, Lamb of God, Son of God, Love of God, Glory of God, Word of God, Bread of God, and and begotten of God. Secondly, "monogenes God" goes against John's immediate message. It makes John out to be speaking ambiguously to say no one has ever seen God, and then to say people did indeed see God by seeing the unique God who, by the way, is flesh, and especially when he later says, "God is spirit."
Even further, notice what word monogenes is modifying throughout John's writings: SON. Jesus is God's unique son. And of course he would be if he was an only begotten son. However, now think about how out of place the term "monogenes God" is in contrast to "monogenes Son." Why would John import such language to describe God? Why would John refer to an only-begotten God, or if you prefer, a one of a kind God, or a unique God? It is very weird selection of vocabulary to describe God Himself as monogenes. It is very understandable why John would describe God's son as monogenes. It appears Pro's want to read "God" but think "Son" when they read John 1:18. But to also refer to the son as monogenes theos amounts to tri-theism since it implicitly defies, "we do not believe in three Gods" unless of course one suppose all three members of the Trinity are monogenes theos. And when we ask ourselves how that stands in contrast to John's description of God's son as monogenes huios, it becomes quite clear that monogenes is not a term used to describe an only God but to describe an only son.

John 5:19 :
Basically Pro is saying that the Father granted the Son Godhood, based John 5:26, but when you go to John 5:26 it says "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." Father gave him life, not Godhood, meaning that the Father created Jesus(Refutation to John 1:18 above).

Hebrews 1 :
I am sorry in my last round I said these are Paul's words, when they are not, no one knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, now to my rebuttal:

First you can see that in the modern translation begotten is removed, NIV Hebrews 1:5 "5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,“You are my Son;today I have become your Father” because It is another interpolation.
And the anonymous author of Hebrews likes to contradict Jesus by saying in Hebrews 1:6 "6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,“Let all God’s angels worship him.” But wait, didn't Jesus say worship God only in the Gospel of Matthew 4:9-10 "" 'All this I will give you,' he (Satan) said (to Jesus), 'if you will bow down and worship me.' Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "
In this verse, we clearly see that Jesus refused to obey to Satan's commands by taking Satan as his GOD or Superior. Jesus told him that non shall be worshiped except GOD Almighty.
So Hebrews contradict Jesus, and Pro used a wrong translation, therefore Hebrews cannot be used as an evidence for Jesus's divinity.

Matthew 24:36 :
Again says that God gives the Son(which is also God according to trinity), knowledge or the "DIVINE MIND", basically he says that when God was manifest in the Father, he gave himself knowledge after some time, which is back-flipping apologitic response, again the verses you presented are people telling Jesus that, but what did he say? he said " "....nor the Son, but only the Father.
" only the Father, I trust the words of Jesus not the disciples, obviously the disciples never understood Jesus, even told them you cannot bear things I have to tell you:
John 16:4 "12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear." and scolded the disciples many times example: Matthew 16:8 "Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?" the disciples of Jesus are little of faith, and then you quote Paul who did not meet Jesus or even seen him, hmm, trust the words of Jesus or Paul? the answer is obviously Jesus.

Colossians 2:9 :
As seen In my previous arguments Paul contradicts Jesus, and Jesus is from God, Paul says he isn't 1 Cor. 7:25 "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord,but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy"(Refer also to 1 Cor 7:12 and 2 Cor. 11:17)
Jesus is inspired, Paul says he doesn't talk from the Lord, but you still hold on to Paul's words instead of Jesus's.

Psalm 146 :

I am sorry I was ignorant about the numbering, but sadly I could not find the word used in John 14:1 "πιστεa3;ω" meaning is "to believe, entrust" It is not there, you can check the sources, It is not there.

Sources:
Greek word: http://biblehub.com...
Psalm 146: http://en.katabiblon.com...

Job 25:
First of all in Psalm 22:6 if you see the whole context, people are making fun of David, and he is crying for the Lord(Refer to whole of 22) and It is David speaking in 22:6 calling himself a worm, not Jesus calling himself, argument posted by Pro in round 3 is fallacious.
I was not off topic, I was disproving Paul using the words of Jesus.

John 14:28 :
Actually there is one definition which I said with the sources given, Pro does not have an answer thus attempting to disprove me, Pro is just clutching at straws.
Definition is one which is " "Of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average" [1] my argument is extended.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

John 1:1 :
In the second round he simply approves of my John 1:1 argument, now he is telling me I didn't rebutt his supposed "Rebuttal" on John 1:1


Pro's false claims:
He has said that I did not refute "John 1:18,Hebrews 1,John 5:19,Colossians 2:3,John 1:1, Philippians 2:6,and Colossians 2:9."
I refuted John 1:18, Hebrews 1, John 5:19, Colossians 2:3(Paul contradicts Jesus, again), and Colossians 2:9 in this round.

He said that I didn't refute Philipians 2:6, when he actually dropped his argument on Philipians 2:6 on the second round.

Arguments that Pro did not refute:
Argument ofJohn 13:3, Matthew 19:16-17, John 7:16, John 14:24, and John 8:26.

Closing statement :

Pro droped 1 of 3 of his main arguments which is on Phillipians 2:6, clutching at straws in an argument, and giving mostly frail rebuttals, I urge the viewers to vote for me, I did rebutt everything he claimed, and he even droped one of his main arguments, thus makes him in weak position in this debate.
I thank Pro for this fun and awesome debate!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
radzValtinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a great debate. My hats off to Pro for his incredible knowledge of the bible. I had to vote Con because he seemed to have far more examples of Jesus not being God. According to the bible Jesus mostly claims that he is God while also claiming that he is not. The contradictions made me dizzy and at the end of it was apparent that Jesus was in fact not God!