The Instigator
Rasheed
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Liquidus
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Jesus is not God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Rasheed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,419 times Debate No: 19323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

Rasheed

Pro

Resolved that Jesus is not God or a part of a trinity, and did not have any authority except for what was authorized by the Creator.

Liquidus

Con

As you know, I accept. I again assume round 1 acceptance only.

I look forward to our spirited debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Rasheed

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, I know that we will have a spirited debate.

Jesus never claimed to be God."

There are two verses in the Bible from which Christians stake claim to the theory that Jesus is in fact God.

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). This is the text, but in order to understand this statement it must be seen in its context. Let us go back to verse 24 where his opponents had surrounded him at a feast in Jerusalem.

"Then came the Jews round about him and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them. I told you, and ye believed not. the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them; and they follow me; And I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand.

I and my Father are one"
(John 10:24-30). When this statement is seen in context it is clear that Jesus meant that he and God were one in purpose, not essence.

I offer two additional verses to highlight my point. When Jesus was praying for his disciples he said;

"That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and has loved me" (John 17:21-23).

The above verse clearly shows that Jesus did not mean one in essence, unless you are willing to expand the Trinity to include the twelve disciples.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

No one would argue that this statement means that a husband and wife are one person, but it makes perfect sense when understood to mean one in purpose.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1-3). The problem is that this verse has been translated out of the Greek incorrectly. "The Christian world is trying hard to cover up the correct wordings of this verse. As it is the only verse in the Bible which came closest to the concept of Trinity, 1John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”), has been detected as a fabrication and a corruption in the Bible by biblical scholars and kept out of the later versions of the Bible" (http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com...)

The correct translation is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
That is a big difference.

Jesus and God are not the same.

Jesus refused to be equated with God;

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? 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" (Matthew 19:16-17).

My opponent will have to admit one of two things in light of this statement; Jesus is either a liar, or he is telling us the truth. There can be no middle course.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not for I an not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17).

A basic understanding of the english language tells us that 'my' is a possessive pronoun. "Certain pronouns called possessive pronouns show ownership. Some are used alone; some describe a noun" (http://englishplus.com...)

In other words, my son belongs to me, he is not me.

I await your response.


Liquidus

Con

I thank you for your time and effort in this debate. I am sure we will both present confidently our views and opinions :)

You stated the verse John 10:30. I should mention that Jesus never directly says "I am God".

However, Jesus is God. And here is some of how we know:


John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now it seems that the problem with all of this is the word that links these thoughts, in this case "one".

Bellow is the Greek word for "one" that was used in the translation of the Bible:
εἷς ; heis ; hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), +
 abundantly, man, one (another), only, 

This cannot mean in agreeance, or in purpose as you suggested. This word literally means the
number
"ONE" in Greek.

The context of John 10:30 is great. Jesus was being challenged by the Jewish priests and he certainly told them the truth. Jesus said that He and the Father are ONE. This means the same. Also, it states as an occurring theme in the Bible that Jesus never broke the Law, which means that He adopted the concept of "One God". And besides, why would Jesus try to hide His will for us in His word by throwing all of these metaphoric meanings?

You also used the passage

"
"That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and has loved me" (John 17:21-23). "

However, you conveniently left out the beginning and end of that chapter. If you read the entire chapter, you will see that Jesus is praying, asking as an example, that all become one(both believers and non- believers). The entire chapter is posted bellow:

Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
Joh 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
Joh 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Joh 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

These verses are another symbol of how Jesus and the remainder of the trinity were separated at the birth of Christ.

You referenced the verse Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall beone flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

This time, the word "one" is different. The Hebrew word being used is:

אחד
'echâd
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a,
alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), +
eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Now we understand the differences between meaning.

Hebrew and Greek are two very different languages, especially from English. Its almost embarressing to use English as a reference when interpreting the Bible.

My references for the translations were "Strong's Bible Number".

I also have the original Hebrew and Greek Bible downloaded to my computer (E-Sword).

I also should mention: I have the Greek New Testament, and nowhere is it found this extra "a". I even checked your reference and there is no support for this claim beings how I have the original text! Just because your reference says it doesn't mean its true.

You used "And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? 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" (Matthew 19:16-17). "

To argue your point that Jesus wasn't equal to God. This is true. Jesus was a part of God, the Father + Jesus + Holy Spirit = God.

As I said again, American English cannot ever be used when defining words in the Greek and Hebrew format. Therefore, your information of 'My' cannot be taken in this light.

References:

E-Sword

Greek New Testament

Hebrew Old Testament

Strong's Biblical Translator

I await my opponents response.





Debate Round No. 2
Rasheed

Pro

I thank my opponent for his quick response.

My opponent says that the Greek word for one is 'heis' and 'hice', and he contends that it means one in essence. The problem that he has in making this claim is that he will have to agree that when Jesus says that he, God, and the disciples are all one (John 17:-21-23), it must mean in essence, because the Greek word 'heis' is used in that instance also.

Is my opponent willing to concede that there is in fact fifteen co equals in the Godhead? Using his argument that 'heis' means one in essence makes this conclusion inescapable.

Differences Between God And Jesus

The word 'trinity' never occurs in the Bible.

One of the clearest summaries of the relationship between God and Jesus is found in 1 Tim. 2:5: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". Reflection upon the highlighted words leads to the following conclusions:

1. There being only one God, it is impossible that Jesus could be God; if the Father is God and Jesus is also God, then there are two Gods. "But to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:6). 'God the Father' is therefore the only God. It is therefore impossible that there can be a separate being called 'God the Son', as the false doctrine of the trinity states. The Old Testament likewise portrays Yahweh, the one God, as the Father (Isa. 63:16; 64:8).

2. In addition to this one God, there is the mediator, the man Christ Jesus - "...and one mediator...". That word "and" indicates a difference between Christ and God.

3. Christ being the "mediator" means that he is a go-between. A mediator between sinful man and sinless God (from the Christian worldview) cannot be sinless God Himself; it had to be a sinless man, of sinful human nature. "The man Christ Jesus" leaves us in no doubt as to the correctness of this explanation. Even though he was writing after the ascension of Jesus, Paul does not speak of "the God Christ Jesus".

Several times we are reminded that "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9); yet Christ was clearly "the son of man", as he is often called in the New Testament, "the man Christ Jesus". He was "the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32). God being "The Highest" indicates that only He has ultimate highness; Jesus being "the Son of the Highest" shows that he cannot have been God Himself in person. The very language of Father and Son which is used about God and Jesus, makes it obvious that they are not the same. While a son may have certain similarities to his father, he cannot be one and the same person, nor be as old as his father.

In line with this, there are a number of obvious differences between God and Jesus, which clearly show that Jesus was not God himself:

"God cannot be tempted" (James 1:13).
Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15).
God cannot die - He is immortal by nature (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 6:16).
Christ died for three days (Mt.12: 40; 16:21).
God cannot be seen by men (1 Tim. 6:16; Ex. 33:20).
Men saw Jesus and handled him (1 John 1:1 emphasizes this).
For all of these reasons Jesus is very obviously NOT GOD.

I await my opponents response.

Reference; King James Version Bible (1984). Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
Liquidus

Con

I thank you for your organized and professional response. I can feel the excitement from this debate!

You stated " My opponent says that the Greek word for one is 'heis' and 'hice', and he contends that it means one in essence. The problem that he has in making this claim is that he will have to agree that when Jesus says that he, God, and the disciples are all one (John 17:-21-23), it must mean in essence, because the Greek word 'heis' is used in that instance also.

Is my opponent willing to concede that there is in fact fifteen co equals in the Godhead? Using his argument that 'heis' means one in essence makes this conclusion inescapable. "
The answer to this is very simple. Yes. But does that mean Jesus is in the Disciples? No. This is a prayer Jesus is making for the Father to grant the Holy Spirit to become a part of the Disciples. Jesus is praying that they will truly believe.

You also stated that the word trinity is never found in the Bible. Your right! But the trinity dogma is presented heavily throughout the entire Bible.

You also made the following statement:

"1. There being only one God, it is impossible that Jesus could be God; if the Father is God and Jesus is also God, then there are two Gods. "But to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:6). 'God the Father' is therefore the only God. It is therefore impossible that there can be a separate being called 'God the Son', as the false doctrine of the trinity states. The Old Testament likewise portrays Yahweh, the one God, as the Father (Isa. 63:16; 64:8)."

Please note that you only used the first part of 1 Corinthians 8:6. The entire verse is as follows:
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

As you can see the verse, again, is illustrating that Jesus and God are separate but at the same time, the same. God the Father, Jesus the Son/Lord, and the Holy Spirit.

Again you are not using the full verse. Isaiah 63:16 says "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting." This verse is showing us that the Lord (Jesus) is the same as the Father (God). Isaiah 64:8 says the same thing.

For your second point "2. In addition to this one God, there is the mediator, the man Christ Jesus - "...and one mediator...". That word "and" indicates a difference between Christ and God." You have no singular evidence to back this up. So I will move on to point three:

You stated in point three: "3. Christ being the "mediator" means that he is a go-between. A mediator between sinful man and sinless God (from the Christian worldview) cannot be sinless God Himself; it had to be a sinless man, of sinful human nature. "The man Christ Jesus" leaves us in no doubt as to the correctness of this explanation. Even though he was writing after the ascension of Jesus, Paul does not speak of "the God Christ Jesus".

Several times we are reminded that "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9); yet Christ was clearly "the son of man", as he is often called in the New Testament, "the man Christ Jesus". He was "the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32). God being "The Highest" indicates that only He has ultimate highness; Jesus being "the Son of the Highest" shows that he cannot have been God Himself in person. The very language of Father and Son which is used about God and Jesus, makes it obvious that they are not the same. While a son may have certain similarities to his father, he cannot be one and the same person, nor be as old as his father."

Jesus is portrayed differently in each of the gospels. Matthew portrays Jesus as a king. Mark portrays Jesus as a servant. Luke portrays Jesus as the Son of Man. And John portrays Jesus as the Son of God. All of these are true. Jesus was Man and God, and Servant and King.

You finished up with these last closing remarks:

"In line with this, there are a number of obvious differences between God and Jesus, which clearly show that Jesus was not God himself:

"1. God cannot be tempted" (James 1:13).
Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15).
2. God cannot die - He is immortal by nature (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 6:16).
Christ died for three days (Mt.12: 40; 16:21).
3. God cannot be seen by men (1 Tim. 6:16; Ex. 33:20).
Men saw Jesus and handled him (1 John 1:1 emphasizes this).

For all of these reasons Jesus is very obviously NOT GOD."

This should clear things up: Jesus was God; He came to earth and became man, limiting himself; after becoming the "ultimate man"; He ascended into heaven where He is still God.

If you can accept that Jesus is God, there is nothing in the Bible that wont make sense.

I look forward to your response.

Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by maninorange 2 years ago
maninorange
@Mr.Infidel
Thanks. I was about to do that myself.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
I'm new here myself. Your avatar looks familiar.
Posted by Renascor 2 years ago
Renascor
I am a debater who does use Liquidus style of debate. An archaic style known as "Estair". I dont know it or not, but do you remember me? I used to be on here a while back.
Posted by Renascor 2 years ago
Renascor
You know you cant escape me wiploc :) I going to be here till the end.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Thanks, Liquidus. That's flattering from the person who was in this debate.

At other times, though, you have a belligerent bullying style that I find entirely offputting. And your claim that we only say we're atheists because we want to be different, and your claim that we have to acknowledge god in order to believe he doesn't exist? Trolling, baiting. You aren't the kind of guy I want to try to have a straightforward discussion with.

Consider our last interaction, where I pointed out that you had phrased the resolution far in your favor, "Somebody's going to walk into a buzzsaw," and you started jabbing at me as if I was a wimp for not volunteering to be slaughtered. You're a difficult person.

I wouldn't have voted in this debate, wouldn't have read it at all, if I hadn't been halfway thru it before noticing that you were in it.

I renew my offer to try to avoid commenting or voting in your debates if you'll try to avoid commenting or voting in mine.
Posted by Liquidus 2 years ago
Liquidus
wiploc, I am very impressed by your excellent review of this debate. If you are ever interested, I would be willing to debate you on "contradictions" within the Bible. I have been wanting to debate that topic for some time.

Again, thanks for the feedback, I wish more people would get as involved.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Con! It's one instance of _Con_ providing justification for believing that Jesus is god.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Rereading my FRD, I notice that there's almost nothing in there about how Con won the debate. The bit about the word being god is one instance of Pro providing justification for Jesus being god.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
I didn't click who I agreed with before and after the debate. I believe gods don't exist, but I have a very lightly held belief that Jesus did exist. So, arguably, I should have said I agreed with Pro before the debate.

But, I don't think that's the right spirit. If the debate were about whether Luke is really Darth Vader's son, we would be expected to take certain facts as given. For instance, we'd assume that Luke and Vader were people, capable of having fathers and sons.

So I assume that those voting on this debate should assume that much of the bible is true. The fact that the bible is shot thru with contradictions makes this a problem, but I assume I'm supposed to do the best I can.

However, after reading and rereading the debate, the problem of contradictions remains. Pro offers verses clearly proving that Jesus and Jehovah are separate characters. Con offers verses that equally clearly prove that they aren't.

What is the voter supposed to do?

First, I'll laud Pro for his persuasiveness. I've always assumed (without reading the bible) that the doctrine of the Trinity was supported by the bible, that Christians were justified in that belief. Now, though, it seems to me that believers in the Trinity support that only by cherry-picking which verses the want to believe.

Shall I call it a tie because each side produced arguments that the other side couldn't refute?

The resolution is, "Jesus is not God." Neither side prevailed over the other. But Pro had the burden of proof. It was his job to prevail.

I'm going to call this for Con, but, wow, what a good job by both sides.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Pro's case was impressive and educational. I don't buy that, "I and my father are one," means that they share purpose, but his other arguments were persuasive. God cannot be tempted, but Jesus is tempted; and God cannot be seen, but Jesus is seen. Strong stuff.

I didn't understand Con's point about the word "one," but Pro refuted it anyway. If Jesus is one with god and also one with the disciples, then, by Con's logic, the disciples must also be god. Con's response to this point was unpersuasive.

Con refuted Pro's point about, "... the word was _a_ god."

Pro claims that Jesus isn't god because he owns god. Weird. Not persuasive. There's a point to be made there: why would he need to ascend to his father if he and his father are the same person? But this point was not made clearly. Rather, Pro invested strangely in the English language's conflation of possessive and genitive cases. (If I'm remembering my cases right.)

Pro offers evidence that god is not a man but Jesus is. And god is highest, but Jesus only next to the highest. Persuasive stuff.

Pro claims that if Jesus is god then there are two gods. Not persuasive, since this is the very point being argued. Con's response, quoting, "there is but one God, the Father," seems self-defeating; Con's claim that this means Jesus is also god is not born out by the text.

Pro says Jesus mediates between god and man, and therefore isn't god. Con says there's no evidence of this, but Pro's reading is the plain meaning of the words.

Con argues that the different representations of Jesus in the four gospels somehow supports him, but he doesn't explain how.

===Continued in another post===
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mirza 2 years ago
Mirza
RasheedLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar/spelling to Pro. Arguments to Pro for refuting Con's points. Pro made several claims that Con did not touch properly on. Furthermore, Con does not take a close look at the different words Pro uses: essence, purpose.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
RasheedLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb. Renascor, please quit voting based upon your pre assumed beliefs.
Vote Placed by Renascor 2 years ago
Renascor
RasheedLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con addressed all disposition's in an organized and intelligible matter. Pro used the Bible as evidence but clearly took it out of context in many different ways; thus nullifying the many quotes you provided as proper sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
RasheedLiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro made some good points at the start of the round but then just like all of these debates involving god turned into a frenzy of just trying to define bible verses to use their meaning to support their own side instead of offering definitive counter evidence.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
RasheedLiquidusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a good job of explaining his quotes, such as explaining how they are one in purpose, and jesus is a conduit between god and human. Meanwhile, Con explained matter-of-factly, without giving support to his claims, such as saying jesus is god, he came earth to limit himself, then returned to heaven as god. he didn't explain this but expected the reader to accept it.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
RasheedLiquidusTied
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: RFD in comments. Close debate, impressive on both sides. As I work my way thru my RFD, I find myself wavering: I may come back and change my vote.