The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Jesus was not the god of 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 22903
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I propose that we debate this topic.

Round 1: Acceptance

The rest is for arguments and rebuttels. No new arguments in the final round please. And all evidence must be from a King James or New King James Bible.

God will be defined as is written the Bible.
Calvincambridge

Con

I will start with this argument

The old testament says God is more that one being yet singular
The plurality was referring to Jesus Christ
Therefore Jesus Christ is the God of the Bible

The Old testament says God is more than one being yet singular

my argument relies on one word Elohim (אלהים ) The word elohim means gods. it is however used with singular verbs.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com...

the plurality was referring to Jesus Christ.

Jesus says many times in the bible that he is God or Yahweh. Even though it never says in the New testament

"Και Ιησους ειπεν αυτων Ειμι θεος" ( And Jesus said to them i am God) there are many other ways he says it.

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."- King James bible from http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro


===>Rebuttel<===

My opponnet states the following:

my argument relies on one word Elohim (אלהים ) The word elohim means gods. it is however used with singular verbs.

But there is a problem with my opponent's translation. If we are to translate the word literally it would mean the word 'Gods', which controdicts the whole of the trinity which states that there is only one God(three in one). My conclusion is that the word Elohim could just as easily refer to a plurality of respect, as it could to a plurality of individual Godheads within one God.

My opponnet then brings up John 8:24. However, this could mean anything. It does not clearly state that Jesus was stating that we had to belive he is God.



===>My Case<===

Contention 1: Jesus Was Not All-Knowing.

My argument goes as follows:

P1: The God of the Bible is All-knowing.
P2: Jesus was not all-knowing.
C: Therefore, Jesus was not the God of the Bible.

P1: I am sure my opponent will not argue against this fact.

P2: 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. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

By not knowing this he fails to meet the requirement for being God.


Contention 2: Jesus was sent to a specific nation only not to man kind, God is for all Man kind.

If Jesus was truly the God of the Bible then he would have been sent unto all the nations not just Israel.

"I am sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew: 15:24


I will add on to these in my next round as for now I will await my opponent's response.

Calvincambridge

Con

As I already stated the verbs and adjectives are singular so my opponent has still failed to destroy the Elohim (אלהים ) argument. It is pretty clear that Jesus meant God when he said " He" (αυτος ) Jesus meant God. http://www.sacred-texts.com...

If the chapter is read in full context it is clear he is talking of Yahweh.

1. This is true
2. Jesus was probably talking about the man part of him. Jesus purposely withheld this information from himself.

1. Jesus was a godly man
2. when people called him "Lord" (κυριος ) he would have rebuked them if he was not god
3 Therefore Jesus is God or Yahweh.
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

===>Rebuttel<===

I would like to introduce my opponent to Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows thatelohim, ~yhla (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says:

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:


“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality inElohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

This is over all evidence to disprove my opponent's claim.

(Note: That since this is pertaining to the interpretation of the Bible. It is not breaking the rule.)

Also, If you take a look close at the whole of the scriptures that Jesus never explicitly states that he is God. He could have easily ment someting else by that statement. It is also good to note that in English any word pertaining to God is capitalized and the word 'he' is not capitalized.

===>Defense<===

My opponnet states:

Jesus was probably talking about the man part of him. Jesus purposely withheld this information from himself.

This is claim is ubsurd since he would be God, he would have known everything and being human would have not restrained him since he also all-powerful.


He says also:

when people called him "Lord" (κυριος ) he would have rebuked them if he was not god

Yes and people also called David lord. Is he God? The term 'lord' ment master. Jesus was a teacher and supposedly brought the message of God. He also supposedly was given power to work miracles. He was their master, he just wasn't God.


Contention 3: Jesus never explicitly says that he is God.

In the whole of the Old Testament God spoke he explicitly said that he was God. For example here are some verses:

Gen. 35:11-- And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.

Exd 16:12-- I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD your God.

Psa 46:10-- Be still, and know that I [am] God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Isa 45:3-- And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel.

Now when you look at what Jesus says. He never really says explicitly that he is God. This proof that he was God.


I will now await my opponnet's response.
Calvincambridge

Con

Can you show me an example in the Old testament of David being called Lord so I may refute it?
This was because the Israelite or Jewish people worshiped many gods and Yahweh needed to make that clear tom these lost sheep. Your source agrees with me.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Do note that my opponent is not being very clear on every thing he says. He hasn't really said how my 'source' agrees with him (i had more then one source).

Also, I am sorry I have apeared to have made a error in the part of my rebuttel concerning David. However, I will just replace it with the fact the word 'kurios' is a heteronym. a word used to signify different, sometimes related, meanings. This explanation seems to fit the actual usage of kurios in the New Testament.

Also, it is important to note that if it woere true that Jesus was called God around his fellow Jews they would have surely killed him long before he was executed. However, that kind of trouble never happened to him. Even though there was a few stories in the Bible where certain Jews were on the verge of killing Jesus, it was never for this specific reason.

My case still stands.

===>Conclusion<===

In conclusion, I have shown how my opponent's arguments are not proof that Jesus was the God of the Bible. I have proven to the exact contrary since I proved that God up intill that time always explicitly told the people that he was God, while Jesus never said that. I also proved that Jesus was not all-knowing and therefore, is not the God of the Bible. And since Jesus only came to Israel and not to the whole world this is another proof that Jesus was NOT God.

I thank the readers for reading.

http://www.questioningchristian.com...
Calvincambridge

Con

originally God was only with the people of Israel or the Jewish people. There are many prophecies in the Bible that the pagan cultures of the day would come to accept Yahweh for who he is the God of the human race. Judaism has never succeeded at this. Only Christianity has made the large majority of the world follow the Abrahamic religions. This shows that Jesus was God. actually Jesus Christ was stoned for saying he was God or Yahweh.

"30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (KJV from http://www.sacred-texts.com...) John chapter 10 verse 30-33.

My opponent stated "He" would be capitalized if Jesus Christ was referring to god or Yahweh when he said 'He" however this is not true because "HE" is a substitute used for the tetragrammaton (יהוה).

" the word 'kurios' is a heteronym. a word used to signify different, sometimes related, meanings. This explanation seems to fit the actual usage of kurios in the New Testament."

Κυριος was used as a substitute for the tetragrammaton (יהוה). Κυριος (curios) is a Koine Greek word meaning Lord or master. Much as we have in our English bible "LORD". It is a substitute for the 4 Hebrew letters that spell the divine name of God Yodh-hey-Vav-Hey יהוה (YHVH). In the Greek Septuagint the Greek translation of the Hebrew tanakh the word Κυριος is used to replace god's name. The apostle would have been very familiar with this and thus simply called him something else.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
1.> The debate resolution concerns the deity of Christ, not the establishment of the trinity. Con showed clear evidence of Jesus (subject) calling himself God (Resolution) in the Bible (source).
2.> Pro made the remark concerning the lack of Christ's omniscience. Con replied with the human nature of Christ. This is also rooted in scripture.

Con's singular burden was to establish that Christ is the God of the Bible. Pro did not sufficiently refute scripture with scripture.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Rebuttal*
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Conduct: Con showed poor conduct by not refuting his case and breaking the rules of strucutre

S/G: Obvious, con needs to use the spell check!

Aruments: NONE of pro's arguments were refuted whereas Con's arguments were

Sources: Obvious
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Haha I went to the Library 5 days ago. ;D
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I know. However, I have evidence that can refute that. Plus, this is a debate just for the heck of it. I do not take it as serious as you do. :P
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol pro con can easily defend his case by saying they used it in singular form, similar to using an (s) at the end of a word, and essentially same concept. They took of the plurality ending.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
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: Conduct: Con violated terms of agreement, 1st round = acceptance. S
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
DeathbeforedishonourCalvincambridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: A landslide win for pro. Analysis in comments