The Instigator
byebyepats
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
polka-dots323
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

Jesus is God incarnate.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,698 times Debate No: 3126
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (13)

 

byebyepats

Con

I believe that Jesus was a prophet, not God incarnate. The Old testament states clearly that there is only ONE God. Matter of fact, its stated as such in the first commandment.

All christians should pounce on this debate.
polka-dots323

Pro

Thanks for starting this debate and I wish you good luck! :)

"The Old testament states clearly that there is only ONE God. Matter of fact, its stated as such in the first commandment."

Yes. This is true. There is only one God. God consists of the Trinity. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is all three of these. In this case, Jesus is The Son. He is God in a human form.

So, during this debate, we are not arguing whether or not Christianity or God is true, but rather that Jesus was really God? Am I correct?
Debate Round No. 1
byebyepats

Con

As I was doing some research I came across a site (http://www.afcministry.com... ) that gave a nice little breakdown of the trinity. It's short and to the point. I would like to take a look at the 4 main points that they bring up.. I think they are pretty standard component beliefs in the 3 parts = God, trinity concept.

Explaining the Trinity

1) The Bible teaches that there is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22)

2) The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God. (1 Peter 1:2)

3) The Bible teaches that there is one who is called Jesus and is identified as being God. (John 1:1-3&14-18, John 20:28-29, 1 John 1:1-4&5:20, Philippians 2:5-8, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 22:12-20)

4) The Bible teaches that there is one who is called the Holy Spirit and is identified as being God. (John 14:16-17, John 15:26, John 16:7-15, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2, 1 Corinthians 12:4-18, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15-18)

Do you accept these 4 main points? I'm not asking if you agree with the source that I sited as a whole. I just want to make sure we're on common ground before I give my main argument. Again, as far as I know, those 4 points listed above are basic building blocks of support for the trinity,correct? (Nor am I implying that the 4 points above are the only support used to defend the trinity. Again I just want to find a basic, common ground before giving my main point.)
polka-dots323

Pro

I do not think that you understand the concept of the trinity. It states that God is one, but comes in different forms. It does not say that there are 3 Gods, all in different forms, but 1 God whom is present in 3 forms.

God the Father: Guardian, Lord, Alpah and Omega, Creator, Forgiver

God the Son: Christ, Jesus, Savior, Messiah

God the Holy Spirit: Eternal, Almightly, Omnipresent

These three examples are the three forms that make up God. Jesus falls under God the Son. He is God in human-form. The average human, let alone any human, cannot preform the miracles which Jesus did. He rose from the dead. He accended into heaven and promised that he would come back. Jesus claimed to be God. Now tell me, what human could touch a blind man from birth and make him see? What man could rise from the dead?

"Do you accept these 4 main points? "

Yes I do. They did not say, " There are 3 Gods. One whom is the Father, one who is the Son and one who is the Holy Spirit. They stated that God comes in 3 forms but is one. I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
byebyepats

Con

You have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to get you to go along with arguments #1 through #4 just to say the trinity doctrine supports belief in more than one God. My definition of the trinity is in 100% agreement with what you have said so far. I believe, as you do, that the trinity doctrine is the belief of One God, but made up of 3 "parts", for lack of a better word.

Now that we both are on common ground, here is the heart of my argument. According to the trinity doctrine:

GOD = GOD the father + GOD the son + GOD the holy spirit

GOD = X + Y + Z

but, and this is key, GOD the Father = GOD or GOD = X
(this comes from #2 above: "The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God". (1 Peter 1:2))

therefore,

X = X + Y + Z

This example shows the true False logic of the trinity doctrine. In short, How can God himself be one of the 3 parts that make GOD up. READ THIS NEXT LINE A FEW TIMES. GOD the Father is GOD. Remember you agreed to this.

The trinity doctrine was created by Man and supported by scriptures patch worked together when in fact the trinity doctrine is never mentioned anywhere in the bible. As a matter of Fact, 1 John 5:7 is known as a fabrication and does not appear in any manuscripts before the 15th century.
Here's 1 John 5:7 -- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." --Benjamin Wilson

I would also like to point out that this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all expunged this verse from their pages. There is one major translation that still contains this verse, The King James Bible.

So I think not only has logic showed that the trinity doctrine just doesn't add up, then what evidence do we have left that Jesus is actually God then. I think the answer is very very little. You spoke of Jesus doing great miracles as evidence of him being greater than a human when in fact there are many prophets of the lord that also did miracles. Miracles do not mean that someone isn't a prophet. Nor does rising from the dead. Which I personally do not believe he did but that's really beside the point. The fact is God could of rose Jesus from the dead and that doesn't prove Jesus is GOD. So what proof do we really have then that Jesus was GOD. I've addressed all your suggestions except one. One huge piece of evidence. You state that Jesus himself claimed to be GOD. This is a utterly false. You nor anyone can show anyone any evidence of Jesus claiming to be GOD. There is no evidence of Jesus being GOD because he is not GOD. He was a prophet of the lord. I will leave you with one more example outside of the evidence I have all ready presented that supports the fact that Jesus was not GOD.

Luke 4:1-13, is the story of the temptation of Jesus. The question I have is that if the devil knew Jesus was GOD, why in the world would he tempt him? Does it make sense for the Devil to tempt GOD and offer him something that all ready belongs to him?

James 1:13 says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." So again if the Devil knew Jesus was GOD, and I think he would if Jesus was GOD, why would he try to tempt GOD. Even the Devil knows the Lord cannot be tempted.

So there you have it. To summarize real quick, the trinity doctrine is simply not logical and does not add up. How can one of God's 3 parts be himself. It just doesn't add up literally. Without the trinity doctrine the amount of evidence for Jesus being GOD dwindles pretty quickly. And besides I think more people need to realize the implications of what we are talking about here. What if you have been lied to your whole life. It's at least worth thinking about. Do you really believe that GOD's essence can be captured in a man? Do you really think that a man that was tempted to do evil was GOD himself? Remember, GOD cannot be tempted. JESUS WAS TEMPTED!

thank you for your time.
polka-dots323

Pro

polka-dots323 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LTIUAFO 2 years ago
LTIUAFO
Check you concept of infinity! If i have an infinite number of apples and I take away ONE apple, how many apples do I have?

Jesus and God are ONE AND THE SAME! Just like Jesus and The Holy Spirit are ONE AND THE SAME!

Check your concept of infinity.......
Posted by coolman 6 years ago
coolman
I hardly think you can disprove the trinity using algebra. How can this work when you can't put a numerical value on God in the first place. But if I had to argue your little 'equation' using your logic, I would say:

GOD = Father + Son + Holy Spirit
GOD = X + Y + Z

ONE FORM OF GOD = Father
GOD/3 = X

Although there is no way a person can assign proportions to the value of each form of God (i.e. which form exists in the highest quantity), that is the best way I could algebraically refute your argument.
Posted by byebyepats 6 years ago
byebyepats
a strong flaw in my arguement??? Its funny you can't point out that flaw.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
I'm not a practicing Catholic, however, a strong flaw in Con's debate is that he is simply not grasping the concept of the trinity. He keeps turning it around to reflect his beliefs and the point that he is trying to make. However his point is incorrect. So even though I don't BELIEVE in the trinity, I understand it, and Con's arguments against it really made little sense even though it was well researched and documented.

Anyhoo, polka's arguments were based more on reasoning then documented sources, however, I think that was all it took to win this debate. Good job to both of you though.
Posted by byebyepats 6 years ago
byebyepats
I think you need to read my response again. No where do I imply that the trinity refers to 3 gods.

I clearly state that the 3 parts = God, according to the trinity. Not the other way around.
Posted by Agent_D 6 years ago
Agent_D
Im a catholic, I strongly disagree that Jesus is no a God, he is and he claimed it.
Posted by byebyepats 6 years ago
byebyepats
yes this debate is simply whether Jesus is God or not. I am a believer in the God of Abraham.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
studentathletechristian8
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 6 years ago
scorpionclone
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 6 years ago
brittwaller
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mocha 6 years ago
mocha
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 6 years ago
liberalconservative
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 6 years ago
PreacherFred
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 6 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 6 years ago
DrAlexander
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 6 years ago
polka-dots323
byebyepatspolka-dots323Tied
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