The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Jesus is the True God accoring to the Bible

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,620 times Debate No: 18197
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




I'll argue that the Bible teaches that jesus is the true God. First round is for acceptance only.


I am, once again, excited to be debating Daley. It is my contention that Jesus is not God according to the Bible.

My proofs will be as followed:
  1. Jesus sinned;
  2. He does not have [all] the attributes of God; and
  3. None of the early disciples believed he was God.
Thank you for this debate and I await your evidence.
Debate Round No. 1


(1) The Bible says that Jesus is God himself:

The Bible says there is one and only one God in all of existence. (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19) It also says that there is only one true God. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20) This means all other gods are false. The Bible certainly doesn't present Jesus as a fase god. Jesus approved when Thomas called him "my God" (John 20:28-29), and expressiong used only of the true God in the rest of the Bible. Isaiah also identifies him as "the Mighty God," another title of Yahweh (Isaiah 10:21; Jeremiah 32:18). The term "mighty God" is in itself indicative of Jehovah since not only is He the only God (Isaiah 43:10–11), and there cannot be two mighty Gods for there is only one true and mighty God (Isaiah 45:22).

The Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe a person, and these nouns are connected by the word "and," the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article then they refer to the SAME PERSON. (*the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Here are two verses which unequivocally qualify Jesus as both God and Savior.

Titus 2:13 - while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

2Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

Notice in both verses the noun "God" (theou) has the article (tou) and is connected to the second noun "Savior" (soteros) which does not have an article, by the word "and" (kai). Thus "God and Savior" both refer to the Person of Jesus. Grammatically this is irrefutable. So not only is Jesus Savior, He is God!

Jesus is further identified as God at Hebrews 1:8, Acts 20:28, John 1:18 where the oldest Greek manuscripts call him monogenes Theos - onlybegotten God; and John 1:1-3, 14 where the Word was God and became flesh as the man Jesus. In fact, Jesus is called "the True God" in 1 John 5:20.

(2) The Bible says Jesus does acts only God can do, or did things only God did:

"For thou (God), even thou ONLY, knowest the hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings 8:39 KJV; also Jeremiah 17:9-10) Here it says God is the only one who can know or read the heart, which is the very thing Jesus does in Mark 2:6-8; John 2:24-25 and Revelation 2:18, 23.

Isa 44:24 tells us that Yahweh made all things, streached out the heavens alone, spread out the earth by himself; yet Scripture reveals the Son as creator. (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 8-10; John 1:1-3, 10) This is why God said "let US make man in OUR image," for God was a plural being, the Father and Son being included in this one God. If Jesus isn't God, it means that God had help and did not create all things alone, by himself, as he said in Isaiah 44:24. The fact that Jesus created all things shows he is not a created being, and hence is God.

At Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh declares, "I myself am Yahweh and besides me there is no Saviour." (WEB) Scripture tells us palinly that Jesus is the Saviour, therefore Jesus is God. (Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2 Pet 1:11, etc) Acts 4:12 says of Jesus, that "there is no salvation in anyone else." Now, if Jesus is not God, then there can be no salvation in God, for there is no salvation in anyone else but Jesus. Othewise, the Bible is saying that Jesus is God.

(3) The Bible says Jesus posesses the attributes of God:

God is eternal (Ps 90:2), so is the Son (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2)
God is omniscient (1 John 3:20), so is the Son (John 16:30; 21:17)
God omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27; Ps 137:8-18), so is the Son (Matt 18:20)
God is omnipotent (Dan 4:35), so is the Son
God's nature does not change, he is immutable (Malachi 3:6), so is Jesus. (Hebrews 13:8)

The Bible says that Jesus existed in "the form of God," a clear reference to his having God's nature. (Philippians 2:6)

(4) The Bible says Jesus is equal to God and that he is the Yahweh of the Old Testament:

John says Jesus is equal with God. (John 5:18)

Exodus 34:14 says: "For thou shalt worship no other god." All true believers refuse worship (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14; Revelation 19:10; 22:9), but not Jesus. (Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52) He accepts worship which only beongs to God. Hebrews 1:6 says of Jesus "And let all the angels of God WORSHIP him." Paul is here quoting under inspiration from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:43 which says of Yahweh "Be glad, O heavens, together with him, and let all the angels of God WORSHIP him." (Septuagint, with an English translation by Sir I Brenton, S. Bagster & Sons, 1851) Deuteronomy 32:43 was talking about Yahweh (Dec 32:36-39), so the Yahweh of Deuteronomy 32:43 is Jesus. Yet, worship only belongs to God. (Matthew 4:10)

At John 17:5 Jesus says he shared glory with the Father before the world was, yet, God doesn't share his glory with others, hence, Jesus is not another beside God, he is God. (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11)

Romans 10:9-13 says of Jesus that all who call on his name will be saved, yet, this is quoting from Joel 2:32 where the "name" one had to call on was that of Yahweh. Hence, the name of Yahweh Christians were calling on in the 1st centuy C.E. was the name of Jesus. (1 Corinthians 1:1-2)

Hebrews 1:8-12 specifically says it was talking about "the Son" when is says he created the heaven and earth, yet, this was quoting Psalm 102:24-27 where the Psalmist was talking about Yahweh. So again, Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of Israel.

Yahweh is the First and the Last (Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:2), but so is Jesus. (Revelation 1:17-18; 2:8; 22:12-13) Can there be more than one "first" and "last"? In fact, Jesus says that the Fathe gave him all authority in heaven and earth, that surely makes him God. (Matthew 28:18)

It is clear from the foregoing texts that the Bible writers and even disciples in the accounts, i.e. Thomans (John 20:28), believed Jesus was God. If they didn't, then these monotheistic Jews would not have worshipped him. (Matthew 28:9, 17) Con must therefore present a strong case to show that the believers didn't believe Jesus was God.

These facts create a strong case for Jesus' diety. I look forward to Con's opening argument.



I am excited to be debating with my good friend once again. This is a very important question: "Is Jesus God?" I contend that he is not. It is my contention that there may be verses that may suggest he is God, and many verses that say no. Therefore, I will be presenting MY case.


Contention 1: Jesus does not posses G-d's attributes

(P1) God is all-knowing.

(P2) Jesus is not all-knowing.
(C) Therefore, Jesus is not god.

To defend p2, I wish to direct your attention to Mark 24:32-36
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

Contention 2: The Bible Deny's Jesus' divinity.

Acts 2:22, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

What can we glean from this verse? WE know that God did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus had authority from God. Peter did NOT see these miracles as proof that Jesus is divine.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is NOT God. Notice that he always turns the title of God away from Jesus. For example:

"God has raised this Jesus..." (Acts 2:32)

"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36).

Why would God need to make himself Lord and Christ???

Peter believed Jesus was a servant of God. Acts 3:26 states: "God raised up his servant..." The title "servant" refers to Jesus. This is very clear from this other passage in Acts 3:13, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus."

The most important command in all of Judaism is this: "Here, O Israel, the LORD our God is one..." Jesus emphasises this command.

“‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:28-30).

The man replies:

“‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.’ (Mark 12:32).

Contention 3: Jesus prayed

John 17:3 states: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

John 17 is a prayer from Jesus to God. One must only wonder why Jesus called God the only true God if he is God. One must also wonder why he is saying that Jesus Christ (himself) was sent by God if he is God.

On a final note, Jesus said on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" One must pause to wonder how God can forsake God!

I rest my case.

Debate Round No. 2


This debate is not about if Jesus really is God, but rather, does the Bible teach that he is God. I presented 4 lines of proof that it does. How does Con respond? Well, all he says is that some verses 'may suggest' that he is God, but this isn't good enough because the verses I gave are very explicit that he is. Terms like "my God" and "our God" as I gave in my first contention are not only unique to the true God (being given to no one else in Scripture), but are uttered in a context of monotheistic, Jewish worship, and it is this which solidifies the fact that Jesus is the true God in the mind of the Bible writers. (John 20:28; 2 Peter 1:1) Con said nothing against the fact that all Bible writers agree that there is only one God, making all others false. So if Jesus is called "God," yet is not the true God, then the only thing he could be in the mind of a monotheistic Jew, is a false god, but Con has given us proof the Bible writers or early disciples ever thought of him in such a way. Hence, it stands as good evidence in this debate that the Bible teaches Jesus is the true God.

He said nothing against my second point, that Jesus is said to do what "only" God does, namely, to read hearts, create the world, and be the Savior, all of which are roles or activities that belong solely to God, and Con didn't deny this. Thus, again, it stands as proof of Jesus diety.

My third line of evidence was that Jesus posesses the attributes. I gave the verses which have Jesus as eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and immutable, and Con made no rebuttal to these claims. They stand as proof that Jesus posesses God's nature until Con does respond to these. Con also made no explanation for the clear passages I gave showing Jesus was omniscient just as God the Father it. (1 John 3:20; John 16:30; 21:17) He did however, try to refute what these verses say erecting a case that Jesus was limited in knowledge. He uses Matthew 24:36 where "only" the Father is said to know the day and the hour. But this fails as an argument against Jesus being God for 2 reasons. First, if the Father "only" knowing the day and hour implies that Jesus didn't know and thus that Jesus isn't God, the same argument could be turned against the Father in cases where there is information "only" Jesus knows. Accoding to Revelation 19:12 Jesus has a new name that no one know but he himself. Using Con's logic, this should imply that the Father didn't know and thus, the Father isn't God, but such an interpretation never entered the writings (and one assumes) the mind of the Bible writers who affirmed the Father as God. At Revelation 3:17 those who conquer are given a pebble with a new name which no one knows except the one receiving it. Does this imply the Father isn't God? Not to the first century Christians it didn't. So we have no reason to think from Matthew 24:36 that the Father "only" knowing something is evidence agaisnt Jesus' diety anymore than other individuals "only" knowing certain things being evidencee against the Father's diety. Clearly, Bible writes didn't make such interpretations.

Second, Jesus was not only a man according to the Bible, but he was God. He experienced the fullness of both natures. As Philippians 2:5-8 have him in both "the form of God," and "the form of a servant," exeriencing both humanity and divinity. This may sound like a contradiction, but the debate is not about if the doctrine makes sense to Con or other unbelievers. Its about what the Bible teaches. In his humanity, Jesus could experience human limitations such as lalck of knowledge, but in his divinity, he was omniscient; and I've already given the verses which say that Jesus knows "all things," so why does this mean omnisciene for the Father and not for the Son? So limited knowledge in humanity, doesn't prove Jesus didn't posess the divinity and hence omniscience of God.

My fourth contention, that Jesus is equal to God and is the Yahweh of the Old Testament also met no response and hence is still valid in this debate until Con can knock it down. These texts are very clear that Jesus is worshipped, has titles that belong "only" to God, and Old Testament texts that are speaking about Yahweh are applied as being fulfilled in him.

What about Con's own case? His first contention that Jesus doesn't posess God's attributes had only one point, omniscience, so I'm guessing that since he had much more space left to build a better case he is tacitly admitting that Jesus does posess God's other attributes of eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence and immutability. But I've already shown this lack of knowledge doesn't work as evidence against Christ's Godhoood, so what about his second point?

He contends that the Bible denies Christ's divinity. He uses Acts 2:22 to show the Biblel mentions Jesus separate from God, and concludes therefore that he can't be God. But Bible writers and early Christians didn't draw such conclusions from such references as Con does. For example, at John 1:1 God the Father is mentioned separately from God, yet, this didn't convince Christians the Father couldn't be God. At Hebrews 1:8 God the Father refers to his Son as "O God," in effect making himself separate from God, yet this didn't mean the Father wasn't divine. Even in the Old Testament Yahweh speaks of God in the second person or as another Yahweh aside from himself: At Genesis 19:24 the Lord [YHWH in Hebrew] rains fire and brimstone from the Lord [YHWH] in heaven. God speaks of himself as another person, "his" (Exodus 20:7), "he" (Genesis 18:19) None of this made Bible folks of that time think Yahweh couldn't be God because he was mentioned separate from him, so if being mentioned separate from God doesn't disprove the Father's divinity, neither does it deny the divinity of the Son.

What I find noteworthy, is that the Bible also mentions Jesus sepatately from "men" at 1 Timothy 2:5 and Mark 13:32, but that doesn't imply that Jesus isn't a man, does it? Being mentioned sepate from man is no proof that Jesus isn't also human, posessing full human nature, so too, being mentioned separate from God the Father doesn't prove Jesus doesn't also posess divine nature like his Father, that is, it does mean Jesus can't also be God. The "servant of Jesus Christ" is mentioned separate from James. (Jude 1) Does this mean James was not a servant of Jesus Christ? Both Jude and James in that same verse are mentioned as separate from "them that are sanctified by God the Father;" does this mean Jude and James were not sanctified? Such arguments from 'separation' don't prove the two subjects can't share the same nature, for these were all men; so too, it doesn't stop both Father and Son from being God.

Con goes on to comment on Acts 2:22 that "Peter did NOT see these miracles as proof that Jesus is divine," and neither do I. Miraclles alone do not prove divinity. Even the majic practising priests of Pharaoh did miracles. (Exodus 7:11-12) I never claimed it was Jesus miracles that proved Jesus was divine. But just because his miracles didn't prove his divinity doesn't mean there were not other proofs of his divinity such as the ones I outlined in this debate. In any case, it was Peter himself who claimed that Jesus was "our God" in a sentence much like the context of Acts 2 that speaks of him as a servant: "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." (2 Peter 1:1 NIV) What we have in Acts in God the Father working through God the Son to do miracles; this in no way dispoves Jesus divinity.

Why woud God "need" to make himsef Lord and Christ? He didn't. We sinners were the ones in need of a Messiah/Christ, not God. We needed a Lord. Just becase God doesn't "need" to do a thing doesn't mean he won't do it. The sam is true of us. I'm out of space, but I will respond to the rest of Con's argument in the next round.


I am sorry to Daley but I misunderstood the scope of the debate. I must forfeit. I apologize, but not only did he refute my claims but changed my views completely.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank Con for his professionalism and courtesy in these debates. Please make brief responses so that we can use up the remaining rounds quickly and won't have to wait too long to start another debate.


Thank you again for allowing me to debate with you. Again, you proved me wrong and I admit it.
Debate Round No. 4


I've been proven wrong before too. Thanks for your honesty.


Not a problem. Vote for my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lotus_flower 6 years ago
according to the bible, yes.
is he really? I don't know about that...
Posted by Calvincambridge 6 years ago
He is
Posted by lotus_flower 6 years ago
I usually eat this shuff up, but I am not quite sure how to disprove this one...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Con gracefully concedes.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Con forfeit and conceded Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: FF