Jesus is not God
Debate Rounds (3)
Jesus is not God because Bible say God raised this jesus[Acts 2;32] and God has made this jesus ,whome you crucified, both lord and christ[Acts 2;36]. In the both passage the title God turned away from jesus. Peter said -God raised up his servent[Acts 3;26].Peter declared -The God of Abraham ,Isac , jacob, the God of our faters has glorified his servent jesus[Acts 3;13].So according to peter jesus is not God but servent of God.If jesus was God , his disciples should havesaid this clearly, instead they kept preaching that jesus was God"s christ.Day after day , in the temple, courts and from house to house they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that jesus is christ[Acts 5;42] The Greek word christ is a human title ,it means anointed , from this verse clearly prove that jesus is not God because if jesus is God they should not continually refer to him with human title like servennt, lord or christ of God.Again Bible say jesus and God seperate being- " My God , My God why have you forsaken me"[Mathew 27;46] if one of them forsook other than they must be seperate entities.In the book of Luke [22;42-43] - Father,if thou art willing ,remove this cup from me, nevertheless not my will, but thine be done. And there appeared him an angel from heaven , strengthening him.'Tthis verse jesus prays to God hence they are two seperate beings of unequal status to the extent thatone has to pray to the other.They have two seperate will, will of jesus is subordinate to that of God and God will must prevail.Jesus being man ,loses heart and weakens and God Almighty ,as the sourse of all strength ,sends an engel to strengthen him. Here I quoted from the bible 1] When the people saw the sign which he had done ,they said-thi is indeed the prophet who is to come in to the world."Jhn [6;14] 2]-But when they tried to arrest him ,they feared the multitude, because they held him to be a prophet,'[Mathew-21;46]. 3]- And the crowed said 'This is the prophet jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.'[Mathew 21;11]From all these verses it proved that jesus is servent and prophet of God not God.
Thank you, kaisor, for initiating this debate. It's a topic I'm pretty interested in but haven't argued with anybody about in a long time.
Before I begin, I want to establish some preliminaries.
First, since kaisor initiated this debate as Pro, he affirms the resolution, so the burden of proof is on him to prove that Jesus is not God. The burden is not on me to prove that Jesus is God. My burden is simply to refute Pro's arguments. However, I may provide a couple of arguments showing that Jesus is God in order to further undermine Pro's case.
Second, given the nature of Pro's arguments, I take it that this debate will be held under the mutual assumption that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. In other words the debate will hinge on whether the Bible, when correctly interpreted, teaches that Jesus is not God, or whether Jesus' non-deity can be properly derived from the Bible.
Pro's case against the deity of Jesus
Pro's entire case against the deity of Jesus begs the question against the Trinitarian concept of God. The reason is because his arguments are only sound if we assume a unitarian view of God, i.e. that God is only one person. His arguments all take this basic form:
1. Only the Father is God.
2. Jesus is not the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.
Take his first argument for example. He argues that because God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus is not God. Pro and I would both agree that "God" refers to the Father. That means Jesus and the Father are distinct. But it doesn't follow that Jesus is not also God unless you assume that only the Father is God.
After all, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father and Son are distinct persons, but they are the same God. With that in mind, we can see that it is perfectly consistent to say God raised Jesus from the dead while at the same time saying that Jesus is God.
4. Both the Father and Jesus are God.
5. The Father raised Jesus from the dead.
6. Therefore, God raised Jesus from the dead.
To a Trinitarian, it makes perfectly good sense to say that God raised Jesus from the dead. After all, the Father and Jesus are distinct persons. Since the Father is God, and since the Father raises Jesus from the dead, it follows that God raises Jesus from the dead. But it doesn't follow that Jesus isn't God since Trinitarians believe both the Father and Jesus are God. So Pro has simply begged the question against the Trinity.
The same line of reasoning holds for all of Pro's arguments. Since there is a personal distinction between the Father and the Son according to the Trinity, it makes perfectly good sense to say that Jesus is the servant of God while at the same time saying that Jesus is God. So none of these passages Pro brings up are inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. That means none of these passages are inconsistent with Jesus being God.
Pro's argument about the Christ being a human begs the question against the Incarnation. According to the doctrine of the incarnation, Jesus is both God and man. With that in mind, none of the passages which state or imply that Jesus was a human entail that Jesus was not God unless you assume that the doctrine of the incarnation is false and that Jesus is only human, but that is to beg the question.
Pro points out that Jesus and God must be separate entities because Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Again, this argument begs the question against the doctrine of the Trinity since he's assuming that only the Father is God. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, both the Father and Jesus are God, though they are distinct persons. Since it's perfectly consistent according to the Trinity for Jesus to refer to the Father as his God while at the same time being God, this passage does not prove that Jesus is not God. Pro's argument begs the question.
The same thing is true of Pro's argument from Jesus praying to God. Since the Father and Jesus are distinct persons under the doctrine of the Trinity, it is perfectly consistent for Jesus to pray to God even if Jesus is God.
The same thing is true of Pro's argument from Jesus being a prophet. There is no inconsistency between Jesus being a prophet of God and Jesus being God since the Father and Jesus are distinct persons.
Since all of Pro's arguments beg the question against the doctrine of the Trinity, and assume unitarianism (i.e. that God is only one person) they are all fallacious arguments.
Some arguments for the deity of Jesus
There are several arguments for the deity of Jesus. In fact, whole books have been written on it. I'm just going to give a few short arguments.
Jesus is explicitly called "God."
Jesus is explicitly called God in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Titus 2:13 "...out great God and savior, Jesus Christ."
2 Peter 1:1 "...our God and savior, Jesus Christ."
Jesus is the uncreated creator
According to John 1:3, "All things came into being by him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." That means everything that came into being did so through Jesus. That makes it impossible for Jesus to have come into being. After all, the only way Jesus could've come into being through himself is if he existed before he existed, which is impossible. So it follows from John 1:3 that Jesus could not have come into being. He is eternal, and all things that came into being did so through him. So here is the argument.
1. God is the only being that is uncreated.
2. Jesus is uncreated.
3. Therefore, Jesus is God.
Jesus is YHWH
YHWH is a transliteration of the tretragrammaton, i.e. the Hebrew name of God. Jesus can be identified with YHWH through several means. Here is one.
1. YHWH created the heavens and the earth by himself; he was all alone.
2. Jesus created the heavens and the earth; he was with God.
3. Therefore, Jesus is YHWH.
The first premise can be supported by Isaiah 44:24, which says, "Thus says YHWH, your redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, YHWH, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone.'"
The second premise can be supported from John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-17.
John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being."
Colossians 1:15-17 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
I have shown that all of Pro's arguments against the deity of Jesus are question-begging arguments since they all assume a unitarian view of God and that only the Father is God. In other words, they have all assumed, rather than proved, that the doctrine of the Trinity is false. That means Pro has failed to prove that Jesus is not God.
I have also given three arguments showing that Jesus is God. So Pro needs to refute those arguments if he is to defend the resolution.
 See for example The Forgotten Trinity by James White and Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by Robert Bowman.
Thanks con, In this matter we should approach from a scriptual point of view -is the oneness of God -God is constantly ,repeatedly and emphatically stated to be one never three not philosophical pont of view. The word trinity never appeared in the bible.It was Athanasius formalation for the trinity which was adopted by the catholic church at the council of Nicae in 325 A.D. Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was deeply rooted in platonism.
Secondly, you said jesus is uncreated but it goes against the scripture .Bible say - jesus is begining of God creation[revelation 3;14].Jesus was God agent through whom God created everything else , it does not mean jesus was God himself. Jesus is not co-equal to God because bible say that "Father is greater than I "[john 14:28].God is self-existent -means ,He does not derive His existance from anyone but jesus is not self-existant , jesus existence caued by Father ,I live because of Father[ john 6:57] So jesus is not God.When jesus raised his friend Lazarusfrom te dead , he had to ask God to do it .Lazarus sister Martha knew this , she said to jesus- I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask john 11:22] . Martha knew that jesus was not God and John who reported this with approval knew it also, jesus had a God. So accoding to Martha jesus is not God
When jesus asked by a man which is the most impotant commandments ,jesus answered - Hear O Israel , the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[ Mark 12:28-30]. Here jesus stressed that God is one -he did not thought that he himself God.The man who questioned jesus understood this and what the man said next makes it clear that God is not jesus, he said to jesus "Well said teacher ,the man replied -you are right in say that God is one and there is no other but Him.'[Mark 12;32]
When jesus saw that he had answer wisely, jesus said to him "You are not far from the kingdom of heaven ."[Mark 12"34]. If jesus knew that God is trinity ,why did not he say so ? Why he did not say that God is one in three.
In the book of John chapt.5 verse 37 jesus told the crowds that they have never seen father ,nor they have heard the voice of Father,At the time jesus many people saw jesus ,heard the voice of jesus ,notice that if jesus was God , his statement here would be false.On the Mount of olives to which jesus fled hunted by the jews - in seclusion prayed to God -Father , if thou art willing ............and angel appeared to him and strengthening him.[Luke 22:42-43]. Here God sent angel to strengthen jesus , it means jesus is weaker than God , so jesus is not co-equal to God .
In the Acts of aposles -Stephen said-Behold ,I see the heaven openedand the son of the man standing at the right hand of God,[7:56]The son of man , as jesus preferred to call himself , is seen by Stephen to be standing at the right hand of God; Hence he cannot at the same time be God.; and this is a discription of sitution in heaven, he is no longer the jesus of this world described by in Hebrew 2 as having been - made like his brethren in every respect ,so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God.So in conclusion from the above biblical verses proved that jesus is not God nor equal toGod.
In the last round, I showed that all of Pro's arguments against the deity of Jesus begged the question against the doctrine of the Trinity by assuming God is only one person. So in this round, he attempted to shore up his arguments by arguing that the Trinity is false and that God is only one person. So let's look at those arguments.
Arguments against the Trinity
God is emphatically stated to be one throughout scripture
Pro is right that God is said many times in scripture to be one. However, the scriptures do not say that God is one person. All of the passages speaking about the oneness of God are monotheistic affirmations meant to emphasize the utter uniqueness of the one God. The Old Testament doesn't address the question of whether God is one person or three. Pro is reading his theology into the passages.
Pro brought up Mark 12:29 where Jesus recited the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 which says, "Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God is one YHWH." Most translations put "LORD" in all caps to indicate where the name of God is. It doesn't follow that because there is one YHWH that YHWH is therefore one person.
Pro also brought up verse 32 of the same chapter where one of the scribes agreed with Jesus and affirmed that besides God, there is no one else. Again, this doesn't tell us anything about whether God is one person or three. It only tells us that there's one God.
Pro goes on to point out that this would've been a good opportunity for Jesus to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, but he didn't. This is a fallacious argument because (1) it's an argument from silence, and (2) Jesus was frequently cryptic in his teaching, not explaining himself. The bread of life discourse in John 6 is a good example. Thats where Jesus tells his listeners that to have eternal life, they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus actually let people walk away in disgust rather than explain his meaning to them. So the fact that Jesus didn't give an explanation of the Trinity when Pro thinks he should have is not a good argument against the Trinity.
The word, 'Trinity,' does not appear in the Bible.
It's true that the word, Trinity, is not in the Bible, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true. There are lots of theological terms that were invented to codify Biblical concepts. If the concepts are Biblical, then it doesn't matter whether the words we use to codify them are found in the Bible or not. The Bible doesn't have the word "monotheism," but Pro and I nevertheless both subscribe to monotheism and believe it is Biblical.
Athanasius formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, and his philosophy was rooted in Platonism
This is a genetic fallacy. Pro is attempting to discredit the Trinity by pointing to it's supposed shady origins. But that is fallacious. The Trinity could be true even if Athanasius believed in it for all the wrong reasons. I and every other Trinitarian believe in it because it can be deduced from the Bible, not because Athanasius believed in it, and certainly not because our philosophy is tainted by Platonism. You can pick up any book defending the Trinity (like the ones I mentioned in the last round) and see that the Trinity is defended strictly from the Bible.
Arguments for the creation of Jesus
In the last round, I gave what I think is an air-tight argument showing that Jesus was not created. Since all things that came into being did so through Jesus, Jesus himself could not have come into being. Pro completely ignored that argument.
But Pro did bring up a few scriptures that he takes to mean Jesus was created. Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the Beginning of the creation of God." The Greek word translated "beginning" is "arche," which can mean beginning (ESV), origin (NRSV), source (NAB), or ruler (NIV). Any of these translations are possible, so this passage does not prove that Jesus was created.
In John 6:57, Jesus said that he lives because of the Father. But this does not mean Jesus was created. In this passage, Jesus is telling his hearers that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life. So this whole passage is about the human body of Jesus. When Jesus said the he lives because of the Father, he was talking about his human life, not his pre-existence.
Argument from the subordination of Jesus
Pro quoted John 14:28 where Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" to show that Jesus is not co-equal with the Father. But there are different senses in which one person can be greater than another. An officer is greater than an enlisted person in rank, but they are both human beings with equal value and worth. The equality of the Father and the Son is an equality of being, not of function, so it is perfectly consistent to subscribe to the Trinity while acknowledging that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.
In 1 Corinthians 11:3, it says, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ." This passage makes it clear that God is the head of Christ in the same sense that the man is the head of the woman. Men and women are ontologically equal. So God is the head of Christ in a functional sense, not an ontological sense.
Jesus asked God to raise Lazarus
Pro apparently thinks the fact that Jesus asked God to raised Lazarus means that Jesus is not God. But that doesn't follow. When Jesus became man, he voluntarily took on the form of a servant and made himself subordinate to the Father (Philippians 2:5-8). Since Jesus was subordinate to the Father, it makes perfectly good sense that Jesus would pray to the Father and ask Lazarus to be raised. That doesn't mean Jesus isn't God. It only means that the persons of God have a relationship between them in which one is subordinate to the other.
Nobody has seen the Father
Pro brings up John 5:37 where Jesus said of the Father, "You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form." Pro then points out that lots of people have heard Jesus' voice and seen his form, then concludes that Jesus is not God. But it doesn't follow that Jesus is not God. All that follows that Jesus is not the Father. But, of course, that is perfectly consistent with the Trinity since the Father and Son are distinct persons.
The angels strengthened Jesus
Pro points to Luke 22:42-43 where God sends the angels to strengthen Jesus, and Pro concludes that Jesus is therefore weaker than God and is therefore not co-equal with God. But this passage is consistent with the Trinitarian notion of Jesus taking on the form of a servant when he became a man. As a man, Jesus experienced all the same emotions that humans have, including fear and dread. Jesus was strengthened because he was in fear and dread of the cross. Again, that does not entail that Jesus isn't God. It merely entails that Jesus was truly human--an essential aspect of the doctrine of the incarnation.
Jesus is at the right hand of God
Pro argues that because Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God, that Jesus is therefore not God. But this argument begs the question against the Trinity since it only works if you assume God is one person. If only the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus is not God. But if both the Father and Jesus are God, then it's perfectly possible for Jesus to stand at the right hand of God, i.e. the Father.
Besides that, Stephen was seeing a vision. Nobody can actually see the Father, as Pro has already pointed out. What Stephen saw was an apocalyptic vision, so you can't draw ontological conclusion from it anymore than you can draw ontological conclusions from John's visions in the Book of Revelation.
Arguments for the deity of Jesus
In the last round, I gave three arguments showing that Jesus is God. Pro ignored all three of those arguments. So those arguments still stand unrefuted. I'd give a few more except that I'm just about out of characters.
Thanks con ,your all argument going under the doctrine of trinity. In respone to Fathe is greater than I , you gave example that an officer is greater than an enlisted person in a rank but both are humanbeing, this example make no sense because it indicate jesus and God same substance, God is omnipotent . creator not creation .Its belittle His attribute.
In the book Acts ch-2,v- 21-22 ,statedt-Man of Israel,listen to this jesus of Nazerath was a man accredited by God to you by miracles ..... wonders which God did among you through him. From this statement it is clear jesus is not God.
Another place you mention that jesus told his listener to have eternal life,they must eat his fleh....... It is not logical to accept because it goes against the teaching of jesus ,- In the book of Mathew ch-19, v-16-17, one asked how have eternal life ,in reply jesus said -if you want to enter int life keep the commandments, he did not say eat flesh and drink blood, so is it not contradiction ?
Next you quotedJohn 1;1- these statement were not made by jesus christ ,nor were they attributed to himby the author of the gospel according to John , consequently , these verse do not constitute evidence for jesus divinity ,especially considering the doubts held by christian scholars who authored the The five Gospels said- The two picture painted by john and the synoptic gospel cannot both be historically accurate.
The Greek word for God used in the first phrase is the definite form hotheos,meaning "The God" in the second phrase Greek word used for God is the indefinite form :tontheos which mean a god. if the word was a god in the literal sense, it would mean that there are two god not one.
In conclusion I point out about trinity , according to new bible dictionary- The term trinity is not itself found in the bible. It was the first use by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century.but received wide currency and formal elucidation only in the 4th and 5th centuries [1996, trinity].
Religion writer A.W.Tozer, in his book :The Knowledge of the holy: -state that the trinity is an incomprehencible mysteriesand that attempt to understand it must remain forever futile.
Cyril Richardson ,professor of church history at Newyork union theological seminary, though a dedicated trinitarian himself , sai his book The doctrin of trinity- My conclusion about the trinity is that it is an artificial construct -it produces confusionrather than clarification.......it has posed for many christian dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless.[ 1958,pp 148-149].
At the end I like to quoted from the book of john ch-5 v-30. I can do nothing on my own authority,as I hear....... Iseek not my own wil but the will of him who sent me.Here jesus submit his wil to the will of God , s he is subordinate to God he cant b God at the same time or equal to God. jesus is not God but prophet and servent of God.
Pro's contradiction and self-refutation
Throughout this debate, Pro and I have been basing our arguments on the Bible as if the Bible were the authoritative word of God. In the first round, I said that I took Pro to be arguing from this point of view, and in his reply, he said, "In this matter we should approach from a scriptual point of view."
But now he has contradicted himself. I made an argument from John 1:3 that Jesus is uncreated, and I made an argument from John 1:1 and Isaiah 44:24 that Jesus is YHWH. Pro's response is to reject the authority of John 1:1-3. He claims that because Jesus didn't write John 1:1-3 that it's therefore not evidence of Jesus divinity. He goes on to say that the synoptic gospels and John's gospels cannot both be historically accurate.
So Pro is essentially denying the authority of Scripture. In doing so, he is undermining all of his arguments. All of his arguments are based on scripture, and Jesus didn't write any of them! Even the words of Jesus found in the gospels were written by the authors of those gospels, so if Pro wants to doubt the authority of the authors of the gospels, then that throws everything into question that they attributed to Jesus.
So not only has Pro contradicted himself (by subscribing to the authority of the Bible through most of this debate, then rejecting it), but he has made a self-refuting argument. His argument against the authority of Scripture undermines all of his scriptural arguments since they all depend on the authority of scripture.
The mysteriousness of the Trinity
Pro quotesd both A.W. Tozer and Cyril Richardson as saying the Trinity is hard to understand. Pro does not explain how this works out as an argument against the Trinity. Just because something is mysterious and hard to understand doesn't mean it isn't true. After all, Richard Feynman once said that "Nobody understands quantum mechanics," yet Coleman Miller, professor of Astronomy at the University of Maryland, says that "Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced." Clearly, something doesn't have to be comprehensible to be true.
Despite being hard to conceptualize, the Trinity is not hard to define. And it's not hard to prove from the scriptures, either. If these three points are true, then the Trinity is true because the Trinity follows deductively from these points:
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is not the same person as the Son, the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father.
From 1 and 2, it follows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God. From that and 3, it follows that the one God is a tri-personal being. In other words, there is one God who is three distinct persons. That's the doctrine of the Trinity in a nutshell. You don't need to be able to conceptualize it to know that it's true and to clearly define it.
So Pro's argument from the confusion of the Trinity is fallacious. It doesn't follow that the doctrine of the Trinity is false.
The term, Trinity, is not found in the Bible
Pro repeats this argument and doesn't add anthing new. I already responded to this argument, explaining why it was fallacious, and Pro didn't interact with my refutation, so that refutation stands.
A couple of arguments already responded to
Pro cites Acts 2:21-22 where it says Jesus was accredited by God and that God did miracles through him, and he concludes "From this statement is is clear that Jesus is not God."
Later, he cites John 5:30 in which Jesus says he does nothing on his authority, and that he seeks the will of the one who sent him rather than his own will. From this, Con concludes that Jesus is subordinate to God and cannot therefore be God.
But I have already responded to this type of argument. Since, under the Trinity, both the Father and the Son are God, the fact that the Son submits to the Father does not mean the Son is not God. The only way you can use these passages to prove Jesus is not God is if you assume that God is only one person. So these arguments are question-begging since whether God is one person is the issue under dispute, and I maintain he is three persons.
The Father is greater than I
Pro originally used this to prove that Jesus is not God. I responded by explaining two different senses in which one person can be greater than another and explained that in the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father and Son are ontologically equal, but not equal in authority. I used the relationship between an officer and an enlisted person as an analogy to explain this distinction.
Pro responded by saying the example "makes no sense" because it indicates that Jesus and God are the same substance. Although I think Jesus and God are the same substance, that was not the point of the analogy. He also claims that the example belittles the attributes of God since God is omnipotent and uncreated. Again, I'm not sure how he thinks that follows. It doesn't seem to me that Pro offered much of a refutation of my point. It's a pretty modest point. The point is simply that the Father and Son can be co-equal ontologically without being co-equal in authority, so the fact that Jesus said "The Father is greater than I" does not amount to argument against the deity of Jesus.
The bread of life discourse
In an earlier round, Pro attempted to argue that Jesus was not God on the basis that Jesus missed an opportunity to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. I responded by showing that Jesus often spoke cryptically, and I pointed to the bread of life discourse as an example where Jesus let people walk away with a misunderstanding rather than explain himself to them.
In this last round, Pro responded by saying it was not logical for Jesus' hearers to accept that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life since Jesus had said elsewhere that they must keep his commandments to have eternal life. But that doesn't address my point. The people clearly took Jesus to mean they should actually eat his flesh and drink his blood. That's what caused them to walk away. Jesus could've easily explained his meaning, but he didn't. So the fact that Jesus doesn't always explain himself in detail is no argument against the Trinity.
Pro has raised a number of arguments against the deity of Jesus. Almost all of them commit the fallacy of begging the question since they assume that God is only one person and that only the Father is God. Pro attempted to patch up these short-comings by giving specific arguments meant to refute the Trinity and show that God is only one person. But I have refuted all of these arguments.
I gave three arguments for the deity of Jesus: (1) an argument that Jesus is explicitly called God in Scripture, (2) An argument that Jesus is the uncreated creator, and (3) an argument showing that Jesus is YHWH.
Pro completely ignored that first argument throughout the debate. Since it stands unrefuted, Pro has failed to establish the resolve.
Pro attempted to prove that Jesus was created by pointing out scriptures he takes to mean Jesus was created, but I explained why those scriptures do not show that Jesus was created. Then Pro made the self-refuting argument that since Jesus didn't write John 1:1-3 that it cannot be invoked to prove the deity of Jesus. But that argument failed because it undermined every other argument he made from scripture since none of scripture was written by Jesus.
Pro partially responded to my third argument since I used John 1:1 to show that Jesus was with God in creation, and Pro rejects John 1:1. However, I also used Colossians 1:15ff to show that Jesus was involved in creation, so Pro has left this argument unrefuted.
Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con made much more convincing arguments, and actually went into detail on scripture. Pro just slapped down verses without answering them. Because Jesus is God and he proved it, Con showed how he proved it.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: pro made it clear that god is not jesus.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.