The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

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...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,612 times Debate No: 36844
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

radz

Pro

homoousios means "of same nature"

Nature means "totality of qualities/traits in a person" In God, this is omniscience, eternality, immutability, to name a few.

I , the Pro, shall prove from the Scriptures that Jesus, as the Son,in his preincarnate state is existing as equal with the Father in nature.

Con, on the other hand, shall prove from the scriptures that Jesus, as the Son,in his preincarnate state is existing not as equal with Father in nature.

* This debate already presupposes that Jesus has a preexistence as the Son.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I thank you for this interesting debate and I look forward to reading your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

Thanks for accepting my challenge.

I will point out 7 "titles/appellations" ascribed to Jesus as the Word in his pre-human state:

1) Effulgence- Heb 1:3

The Son is the "radiance" while the Father is the "light"(1 Jn 1:5). Just as the Sun is coeval and consubstantial with its radiance so is the Father and the Son.

2) Exact Imprint- Heb 1:3

The Son is existing as the exact imprint ( Greek: hupostaseos) of the Father's very being i.e. nature and personhood ( Greek: hupostaseos).

Again, the Son is the "exact copy" of the Father's being ( it's a noun not a verb!)

3)Wisdom-Prov 8:22-30, 1 Cor 1:24

The Wisdom in the Old testament is revealed to be a real person in the New Testament.

The Father doesn't need experiential knowledge to make sensible decisions in every situation because he has his own Son as his own Wisdom per se.

4) Power- 1 Cor 1:24

The Father doesn't need ability to do everything because he has his own Son to do everything and just as it is written, all things were created through the Son.

5) Image- Col 1:15

Contextually, the "Son of his Love"(v.13), is the invisible image of the invisible God i.e. the Father and because this eikon clause stands in apposition with the next clause, it inevitably denotes that the Son of his love is not a created image of him but an uncreated Image of the Father within the immanent Trinity because he was first-born of the Father, the one in,through and for whom all things were created as opposed to us humans who were created in the image of the Trinity* ( Genesis 1:26-27).

*Image of the God i.e. the Trinity( theos-without the definite article). The Son is the image of "the God, the invisible"(theos with def. article,only used of Christ in the scriptures -Col 1:15).

6) Son- Romans 8:3

The Sonship of the Word stems from his being the "only offspring" of the Father.A classic analogy is this, a human parent has a human offspring. The Son of God is God in nature because his daddy is God himself. " calling God his own Father making himself equal with God" (John 5:18).

7) Only-offspring- John 1:14,18,3:16,18,1Jn 4:9

Contextually, John 1:1-3 affirms that the Word was with God before creation and this Word has the nature of this God.

Actually, the Johannine Word ( Greek: Logos) is the "only offspring" who is God in nature (monogenes theos) as opposed to us humans who are human "offspring" of God( John 1:18,Acts 17:29).

All of these titles/appellations proves two stance of scripture regarding Christology:

1) The Word is distinct person with the Father.
2) The Word is consubstantial with the Father.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Pro defined homoousios as having the same nature, and defined nature as the totality of traits and characteristics.

I can only use the topic to disprove my opponent. The topic says, "Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation." Notice the word "before." It is there to specify that this is not the case after creation. Yet as my opponent claims, God is defined as immutable(means changeless throughout time, unalterable[1]). This means that Jesus had the whole baggage of traits before and after creation, including immutability which is one of God's traits. This means that the specification of "before creation" is enough to disprove my opponent's argument, given that he implies that Jesus changed after creation.


Due to the nature of this debate, I'm only required to give one valid contradiction to my opponent's claim to prove him wrong. However, I'm going to list a number of contradictions.

On Omnipresence and Immutability

Jesus was not omnipresent when he was in human form. However, one of God's traits is omnipresence. Note that I established above an argument that proves that we can't treat Jesus before creation differently than Jesus after creation if we assume that Jesus is homoousios to his Father.

King David on God: "
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me." [Psalm 139:7–10]

"Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord." [Jeremiah 23:23,24]

When it comes to Jesus, we are told that (1) he changed forms and thus he is not immutable like God and (2) that he was constricted in human form and not omnipresent when he was on Earth. Thus, if we assume that Jesus was immutable, we have to concede that he couldn't have changed forms and became present in just one state.

"[Jesus] made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." [Philippians 2:6]


On Obedience

God in the old and new testament is regarded as the highest authority and he is not obedient to anyone. However, there are many verses in the Bible which show Jesus' obedience to the Father, which means that this trait is only found in Jesus.

"Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but thine be done." [Luke 22:42]

"...[Jesus] humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." [Philippians 2:6]


Refutation

Contention 1: Just as the Sun is coeval and consubstantial with its radiance so is the Father and the Son.

After reading this verse, I ended up thinking that my opponent was arguing for my position. He claims that God and Jesus are of the same nature, and yet quotes something that says that Jesus-God are like the radiance and the sun which are not alike to begin with.


Contention 2: "The Son is existing as the exact imprint (Greek: hupostaseos) of the Father's very being i.e. nature and personhood (Greek: hupostaseos)."

My opponent has clearly misunderstood this verse, which only says that Jesus and God were equal in goodness and person, but it doesn't go anywhere near the claim that Jesus is exactly like God in all traits and characteristics. It is logically absurd to state that Son and father are "exact copies" when they have different roles and traits.

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son... who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." [Hebrews 1:1–3]

[1] dictionary.reference.com/browse/immutable

Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

My opponent has clearly misapprehended the debate topic that I had proposed. He claims that it implies bane contradiction. I intended to put forth a debate concerning the sameness in nature of both the Father and the Son anterior to creation. I do not mean that Jesus is only homoousios with the Father in his pre-human status but on the contrary, as I already expressed in Round 1, the debate would be about the divinity of the Son in his preincarnate state. In other words, I must prove that before the Son became flesh he is truly and fully God unlike Arians who taught that he is not homoousios with the Father before creation began.

Therefore, Con didn't prove me wrong. He just made an assertion without even examining the context of the discussion.

On Omnipresence and Immutability

My opponent has made fallacious arguments about the belief that I supposedly upheld. His response is clearly about Chalcedonian Christology in which as I see he's not cognizant at all. So let me explain bit by bit, It is groundless to say that Jesus wasn't omnipresent when he was in the flesh. It is because he has the nature of the Father per John 1:1 and the Father's nature includes omnipresence as Psalm 139:7-10 says. The right thing to affrim is that Jesus is omnipresent albeit in the flesh. How is this so? It's the same with the Father. The Father is omnipresent, that is, he's present everywhere at the very same time. Does this mean that he is physically present everywhere? No. It's because the nature of his omnipresence is bound in his aseity as spirit for he is spirit as John 4:24 says. So, Christ is still omnipresent even though he's in the flesh because his omnipresence was never ascribed unto his manhood but to his deity.

Concerning the immutability of the Word, in the flesh, he was still completely God. Nothing was ever changed in his divinity. He is the self-same Son who is of same nature with the Father. As I clearly perceived, my opponent is incognizant about the doctrine of the Incarnation and as such, deemed it illogical per se. He asserts that the the Son changed as he assumed human nature.So let me elucidate the logicality of the Incarnation:

The Incarnation is possible for three logical reasons:
(1) It doesn't make the Son not Almighty but on the contrary it proves that he is Almighty.
(2) It doesn't contradict or violate the Son's immutability.He didn't transform or change into human like in Greek mythologies.
(3)The fact that the Son chose to become flesh proves that it is possible.

Therefore,it is very locigal as it is scriptural to believe that Jesus is a single person who has two distinct unmixed but united natures of divinity and humanity. By the way, in Christology this is called "hypostatic Union".

Because Con brought up the omnipresence of Christ, I will also discuss about the Omniscience and Omnipotence of Christ which is a great need to know, not only by my opponent, but also of all our peers.

On Omniscience of Christ

Jesus knows all things. There's nothing hidden to him. He knows everything but this is his trait per se which he has control with. He has volition to not use his omniscience. In other words, he can choose to not use his ability to know all things and this is what happened in the incarnation.He concealed his knowledge via his flesh. Jesus assumed human nature and human nature includes human body and human spirit. Jesus' divine mind is inevitably and literally concealed so that he doesn't know even his return unless he was given authority (i.e. permission) to use that omniscience he has.

Again, to put it in simpler terms, ability is different from authority because in Christ, he the the ability, as God, to know the time of his return but on the otherhand, he , the Son per se, has either the authority from his Father to use it or otherwise he can't use it.

The fact that Jesus can't use his omniscience at Mark 13:32 because of lack of authority or permission to do so, doesn't prove that he is not omniscient as God but only proves further that he is the Son in his intrinsic function, of same nature with the Father.

On Omnipotence of Christ

Jesus is All-powerful. He can do all things( except sin). He has the ability to do all things but doesn't have authority to do so unless given by the Father.

A classic example of this is explicitly found in John 17:2:

You( the Father) have given Him (the Son) authority over all flesh, that He(the Son) should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.( NKJV)

It is so clear, the Son was given authority to give eternal life to people means he has the ability to do it!

On Obedience

Concerning obedience. I believe that in the Trinity there exists a relationship of functional subordination and ontological equality.

Functional Subordination means "inferiority in role/rank/status/function/job/office/"

Scripturally, The Father is always over the Son just as they are always of one nature.

Well, obviously for you to be a Son means the Father is higher in status than you. But this doesn't mean that you're not of same nature with your Father.

Ontological equality simply denotes" equality in nature"

Scripturally, the Father and the Son are consubstantial.

Hebrews 1:3, John 1:1,18, 5:18,26, 10:33 etc.

Well, obviously a father is always of same nature with his son. I have a Daddy, his name is Russel Brown and he's human and so am I, for I am his offspring.

In Philippians 2:6, the context shows that after assuming the form of a human slave, Jesus "became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

As I already discussed, obedience falls into the category of Functional Subordination.Unless my opponent disprove the Trinity, no one could contend against this intra-Trinitarian relations as illogocal, unsound and unscriptural.

Refutation

Contention 1:
It seems like my opponent did not appeal to the whole of my written argument. I know that the Father and the Son are unlike their creation but I am bringning up here the aspect wherein the creature and the Creator overlaps via analogy of trait. I quoted the first clause of Hebrews 1:3 and gave a support of its analogy of 'radiance" ( Greek: apaugasma) and 'light' ( Greek: doxa) with contemporary facts that suits it. The writer of Hebrews wants to reveal. The radiance/ effulgence that came from the Light per se is distinct, coeval and consubstantial to it.

Contention 2: "The Son is existing as the exact imprint (Greek: hupostaseos) of the Father's very being i.e. nature and personhood (Greek: hupostaseos)."

It isn't me but my opponent who clearly misundertood this verse. First, it is very evident that the Son is the exact imprint/copy of the Father's actual being* i.e. nature and personhood.

*Actual being(Greek: Hupostaseos, nature, substance,essence, being, actual existence including nature & personhood )

http://biblesuite.com...
http://www.teknia.com...
http://www.blueletterbible.org...
http://www.studylight.org...

Con said to me:

My opponent has clearly misunderstood this verse, which only says that Jesus and God were equal in goodness and person, but it doesn't go anywhere near the claim that Jesus is exactly like God in all traits and characteristics.

WOW. My opponent clearly contradicts his own statement by saying that Jesus and God were equal in goodness and person
and it doesn't go anywhere near the claim that Jesus is exactly like God in all traits and characteristics.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10:18

Con just proved that Jesus is homoousios with the Father. WOW again. Jesus is indeed EQUAL to God in goodness and person because they are of same nature.

Con just equated functional subordination with ontological equality and worst of all, he took the verse for granted. Hebrews 1:3b said that the Son is the exact copy of the Father's NATURE and PERSONHOOD ( Greek: hupostaseos)Hence, the Son is a Divine Person exactly like his Father.


NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Pro has used this round to shift goalposts and accuse me of knowing nothing while contradicting his own definitions, which forces me to summarize and restate my refutations which he seems to have misunderstood or simply ignored.

1- Preincarnate Jesus and Immutability Argument

P1- Immutable means unchangeable through time, always in a static state, unalterable. [Point of agreement & well-cited definition]

P2- Immutability is one of God's traits. [Point of agreement]

P3- Preincarnate Jesus incarnated.
[Point of agreement]

P4- Incarnation requires a change of form/ It is impossible to incarnate without any changes. [Undeniably a change of form took place so Jesus could be also in human form when he incarnated]

Conclusion: Preincarnate Jesus was not immutable nor shared that trait with God.


This is undoubtedly my trump-card in this discussion. I can stop arguing here, but I'll continue out of courtesy dealing with some of the other objections my opponent raised.


On Obedience

I'm going to just quote my opponent here. Pro says, "Concerning obedience. I believe that in the Trinity there exists a relationship of functional subordination and ontological equality." So we should follow my opponent's personal belief without any examples from scripture? If this debate is based on scripture, I win. I have showed that only Jesus appears to be obedient with not one act of obedience from the Father.

On Personhood and Nature

Here is where my opponent got unbearably intellectually dishonest. My refutation was simply that the verse doesn't say anything about God's nature, as in the nature defined by my opponent himself. I'm going to repeat Pro's definition: 'Nature means "totality of qualities/traits in a person" In God, this is omniscience, eternally, immutability, to name a few.' So basically, Jesus could have God's goodness and personality but not his immutability, and thus have a slightly different nature. The nature we're speaking of is what my opponent defined as nature in the first round: qualities + traits.

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son... who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." [Hebrews 1:1–3]

I'm sorry, but I don't see one good reason to assume that this is talking about all God's nature; immutability, omnipresence, etc. If my opponent doesn't offer any reasonable evidence his personal belief can be dismissed without any. "Express image of His person" has a different meaning that "exact copy of God's nature."


On Goodness

In a desperate attempt to claim that I've somehow proved him right, my opponent misinterpreted my claim that Jesus and God are equally good. I said that the Hebrew 1:3 says that Jesus has an "express image" of God's goodness(doesn't mean he is equally good to God e.g radiance light analogy).

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10:18

This is a vague verse. Jesus either meant that he is not God, or he actually meant that they are unknowingly admitting that he is God. We have no way of establishing which meaning is more supported from the context, and "no one is good except God" is an exaggeration that can be understood for emphasis purposes. Many Prophets in the Bible are considered good. "Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God." [Genesis 6:11]

I have delivered the knockdown punch above with the immutability argument. If my opponent doesn't refute that by objecting to some of the premises, he surely loses the debate since I established with logic and scripture that an immutable preincarnate Jesus cannot possibly incarnate, and thus if my opponent accepts incarnation he should concede that Jesus lacks immutability and thus is not homoousios with the Father.
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

Immutability of the Son

Con's argument on immutablitiy won't work. He wrote several points of agreements/premises in which I agree and then he goes on refuting my stance on Christ's immutability, apparently, in his incarnate status.My opponent argues that the incarnation requires (1) a change of form and that (2) to incarnate without changes is impossible.

The scriptures per se refutes my opponent's Preincarnate Jesus and Immutability Argument:

In Philippians 2:6 -7, Paul said that the Pre-incarnate Jesus is existing ( Greek: huparchon) in form of God and afterwards chose to empty himself , having taken upon( Greek: labon)the form of a human slave via becoming in the likeness of men.

The text is clear, Jesus always exists in God's form and then he took upon himself the form of a human slave. As we can all see and read, Jesus did not cease to exists in God's form but on the contrary, he take to himself (to take is to add in never to give out) to himself the form of a human slave.

Therefore, the argument of Con about the impossiblity of the incarnation without changes is null and void considering that the Scriptures per se testifies that Jesus did not change in form but that he just took upon himself i.e. added unto himself the form of a human slave.

On Obedience

It seems like my opponent would not want to check out the verses that I had use for proof so that he's asking more.
So to satiate his peculiar longings here it is:

The Father is greater than I - John 14:28 (Functional Subordination)
The Word was God* - John 1:1 ( Ontological equality)

* God ( Greek: theos, anarthrous), referring to all the complete nature which God has.

On Personhood and Nature

My opponent got so unfair in this. He said that I got " unbearably intellectually dishonest" when in fact, he's the one who deserves such fury. Here's why: I elucidated in the second and third rounds that the Greek word "hupostasis" as used in Hebrews 1:3 denotes " nature and personhood" per se. I provided Greek Lexicons for verification of my proof and yet it seems like my opponent didn't even bother to consider it.

Of course, those "qualities" and "traits" of omniscience, immutability,etc. are already encapsulated in the word nature. In other words, it wasn't just a trait or a quality that Jesus is the exact imprint of but the nature itself.

Furthermore, I see that my opponent appeals KJV's translation of the said verse which has flawed in this very verse. Unless my opponent is KJV onlyists he cannot argue with the definition of the Greek word "hupostaseos" in Hebrews 1:3 as " actual being, substance,nature".

To be clear enough, let me explicate further for everyone to see my opponent's blunder in insisting the translation "express image of his person" as more authoritative than that of NIV's and ESV"s:

There is no specific word either Greek or Latin for our modern sense of the word
" person" in the first century C.E.T
he definition of person that we have today came from the theological systematization about the Trinity is the post-apostolic era.Person means " a rational and individual entity having distinct and
incommunicable existence/reality, emotion and volition"
But we have the word's that would eventually evolved into like that of today's denotation of person: Prosopon ( Greek), denotes " face" , from " mask" used by actors of old.Persona ( Latin),denotes the same thing as the Greek word prosopon.These words, however, does connote personhood per se in the first century. To be in the " face" of someone is to be "present visually" with that someone without you being that someone. That is, prosopon and persona denotes one aspect of personhood which is individuality.This sense is already in use at the time of the Apostles extending to Hyppollitus in the 2nd century. The modern definition we today has its origin in the 4th- 5th century.

Hence, my stance on Heb 1:3's hupostaseos as " nature,substance, actual being" stands and my opponent just had saw, not just one, but lots of good reasons why my argument is sound.

On Goodness

My peer readers, please enjoy the show, for my opponent is in great peril about his bane arguments:

Con, my opponent, said, In a desperate attempt to claim that I've somehow proved him right, my opponent misinterpreted my claim that Jesus and God are equally good.

Again, for everyone to see that I'm not lying or making things up I'll show that my opponent's accusation to me as desperate is utterly a escapegoat. Here's my opponent's own words per se:

My opponent has clearly misunderstood this verse, which only says that Jesus and God were equal in goodness and person, but it doesn't go anywhere near the claim that Jesus is exactly like God in all traits and characteristics.

So, my question is, did I misinterpreted my opponent? Logically and contextaully, I don't think so.

I appreciated my opponent's stance on Mark 10:18.Thank You

Concluding words:

I have refuted every argument my opponent has to me. I notice that he is not taking full attention to the facts that I've given. Nevertheless, I always answer with clarification and put forth substantial evidences that suffice. Let my opponent elucidate and bring on the real knockdown punch he's talking about and not just sugar-coated babbling words.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I thank my opponent for his rather intense response.

I'm not going to bother with the side-points because I already won this debate. My main concern is my opponent's attempt to refute my trump-card, the immutability argument.

"The scriptures per se refutes my opponent's Preincarnate Jesus and Immutability Argument:

In Philippians 2:6 -7, Paul said that the Pre-incarnate Jesus is existing ( Greek: huparchon) in form of God and afterwards chose to empty himself , having taken upon( Greek: labon)the form of a human slave via becoming in the likeness of men.

The text is clear, Jesus always exists in God's form and then he took upon himself the form of a human slave. As we can all see and read, Jesus did not cease to exists in God's form but on the contrary, he take to himself (to take is to add in never to give out) to himself the form of a human slave."

Basically, Jesus' form changed into God form + human form. This is undergoing a change in form, which contradicts the immutability trait. Which means that my argument was not refuted at all.

P1- Immutable means unchangeable through time, always in a static state, unalterable. [Point of agreement & well-cited definition]

P2- Immutability is one of God's traits. [Point of agreement]

P3- Preincarnate Jesus incarnated.
[Point of agreement]

P4- Incarnation requires a change of form/ It is impossible to incarnate without any changes. [Even if that meant your God form would have human form added to it]

Conclusion: Preincarnate Jesus was not immutable nor shared that trait with God.

To win this debate, my opponent has to prove that having another form united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change in an entity/being/god as a whole. I wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

Basically, Jesus' form changed into God form + human form. This is undergoing a change in form, which contradicts the immutability trait. Which means that my argument was not refuted at all.

My opponent thought that the incarnation caused an inevitable change of form, that is, the union of two forms became another form.

Well, this is not Chalcedonian christology found in the Bible but this is Monophysitism per se which is foreign in the scriptures.

To win this debate, my opponent has to prove that having another form united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change in an entity/being/god as a whole. I wish him the best of luck.

Having an another from united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change because just as said the form only got united not mixed with another form. The distinction, traits and reality of the two forms remains.It didn't mix up so as to produce what my opponent calls "change".

1+1+2 not 1+1=1

I already presented a clear and scriptural evidence about the Incarnation as logical in Round 3 with matching elucidations on the omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence of Christ so I don't need to repeat it here but instead, I will now provide scriptural and logical proof concerning the Hypostatic Union:

The Word in his preincarnate state can't die human death.
The Word in his incarnate state can die human death ( Acts 20:28)
This is not a change in nature because the divine nature of the Word did not become perishable to death but rather, he added unto himself the human nature that is why he can die a human death.

The Word in his preincarnate state can't get hungry
The Word in his incarnate state got hungry ( Matthew 4)
This is not a change in nature because the divine nature of the Word did not changed into having an appetite but rather, he added unto himself the human nature that is why he can be hungry and eat human food.

There is one Christ and he can only do what his nature(s) is able of.It's the same with us humans, we can't not eat food and drink water.It's our nature to consume in order to survive.

According to my opponent himself, I won.

Conclusion:

I refuted every argument my opponent has against me but my opponent did not as anyone could readily see and read in the rounds we've taken. He can still refute my remaining arguments, though. But if he didn't it would only show that either he can't refute it being irrefutable or didn't take it seriously at all.Nevertheless, I already won the debate. My opponent's so called trump-card, the immutability argument, is refuted biblically and logically.

Vote Pro!











NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Pro has not satisfied his burden of proof nor refuted my knockdown argument in a reasonable/effective manner but raised objections I can easily address here. I remain unconvinced that Jesus is homoousios with the Father.

'Having an another from united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change because just as said the form only got united not mixed with another form.'

This could be translated to, 'having an alteration in your form such a union so that your whole form encompasses another doesn't mean that you had an alteration.' The refutation of this objection is simply the law of non-contradiction. I'm refuting my opponent solely based on a law of thought. A is Not A doesn't work in logic. My opponent can probably use this argument in the white house or the theological school of the yellow mellow but not here in DDO.

'The distinction, traits and reality of the two forms remains.It didn't mix up so as to produce what my opponent calls "change.'

One of those traits as agreed by both is immutability. Incarnation is not even possible to occur if the being himself is changeless/unalterable/immutable like God is. To speak about the union is logically falicious in the first place. I have no clue why my opponent repeats that after I show him how this is a textbook example of begging the question.


Due to nature of the debate, I win by only showing one contradiction. And I think I did more than enough to satisfy my burden of proof. Voting is your choice, though if I voted I'd give conduct and arguments to me after the personal insults and weak argumentation my opponent provided, after he realized that he was defeated in this debate.

'I already won the debate. My opponent's so called trump-card, the immutability argument, is refuted biblically and logically.'

After I refuted the so-called biblical objection, my opponent simply ignored the refutation and took on the logical side. As you can see, he violated the law of non-contradiction and commited a begging the question fallacy in his 'logical' response. If that is a refuation of an argument, everything is.

You know yourself who to vote to.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
Alright. I understand. But still, that analogy you gave doesn't explain the facts as it should be. That's purely materialistic whereas divinity is not but rather, a spirit which per se is without parts (John 4:24).
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
radz,

Yes, please start a comment war after the debate ended. Sighs. I'm not posting anything after this. If you want to debate me start a new debate, and I'll decide whether you're a worthy opponent based on your attitude. I have no interest now in engaging in this comment war of yours with more than one comment.

The funny thing is that you still treat Jesus as two entities. As if Jesus is not a gestalt which changed from Godly to 'God form + human form.' It's like saying that Bob still has the same body even when he got breast implants, because his body without the breast implants was not altered, even when his body(the whole) was altered after he got them. While the breasts are physically united with Bob's body, Jesus' human and godly form have a spiritual union which you described. If you're not convinced by this analogy, nothing will. I just chose this particular one to make things more clear to you.

But as I said, this is my last comment. I debate people on the formal platform before the voting period, not after the debates ends and the voting period starts.
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
Regarding the " immutability argument of Con":

Con insisted this:

divine form + human form = changes in the two forms

What form was changed? Con never explained what was it. Hence, the burden of proof is on him.

On the other hand, Pro elucidated this:

divine form + human form = divine and human form

The two forms just became "united" without any "mixture". That is what it mean to be "added" not something that you'll stir to dissolve. Hence, the distinction, traits and reality of the two forms remains.It didn't mix up so as to produce what my opponent calls "change.'

Con just accused Pro of committing argumentative fallacies without being aware of his own fallacy of non sequitur.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
radzNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As someone who is fairly agnostic, but yet interested in theology, I found this debate incredibly stimulating--and close. Both debaters did well, with high quality arguments. I do, however, feel that the Con had a slight edge, proving more direct clash in some cases. Con also made some clever points. I also feel that the Con's semantics argument regarding how the resolution negated itself was clever. Pro also had a few glaring issues with vocabulary and spelling. One critique for both--I think, nearing the end, many of your various arguments were shunted to side in favor of focusing largely on the "immutability" point. I'm still up in the air about this topic, but, ultimately, I feel the technical debate goes Con.