The Instigator
smartyskirt
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Kethen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Jesus

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
smartyskirt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 18960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

smartyskirt

Con

The subject of the debate is whether Jesus is indeed the son of god.
I will be arguing that he is not.
My position is that Jesus is not the son of god, and the bible which says that he is, is either: a)inaccurate, or b)not literal.

a) inaccurate:
The authors had clear motive for writing the bible, as they were trying to start and spread a religion, and the bible was a way of doing so. It may be based on facts but that doesn't mean all contained therein is true.
A sample of some inaccuracies in the bible:
Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever", that doesn't seem to be true; I am a Jew, from the house of Jacob. We did not accept Jesus. Rather his disciples made him popular amongst the pagan nations of the world. The house of Jacob rejected him.

Contradictions:
Mathew 1:17 "from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." For a total of 28 generations from David to Jesus.
Luke 3:23-31. Lists 43 generations from David to Jesus.

The location of his appearance: Mathew 28 and mark 16 place it in Galilee, while Luke 24 and john 20 place it in Jerusalem.

b)Not literal
The reason to assume it is not meant literally is based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1:
"Ye are the children of the LORD your God" This was said to the entire Jewish nation obviously figurative, so to in the case of Jesus it is probably meant figurative. Not only that but Jesus was a Jew so when the new testament says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god.

Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:
Matthew, Chapter 1:"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
It is also interesting to note that in 1:18 it says the Holy Ghost and not simply "the lord" or "god".
In Luke as well 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" ... "thee shall be called the Son of God"
It is interesting to note that it says "he shall be called", indicating that he wasn't literally son of god.
Luke 3:23 ...being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... indicates he had a human father.
That chapter ends with, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was not literally the son of god.
Lastly in the new testament Jesus is referred to as "son of man".
On the basis of all this it would seem to me that when it says son of god it is not literal, but rather as in the verse in Deuteronomy 14:1.
Kethen

Pro

I am not going to try to prove Jesus is the son of God because in three hundred years I couldn't prove to you let alone three rounds. You don't want to believe it. So instead I will show you were your reasoning is misguided.
I am Catholic and so I do recognize your faith as a member of the Jewish religion as the beginning of mine. Just to show I do respect you and your beliefs. If we were forced to become something other than Catholic I would without hesitation learn the Jewish faith. I am using my bible "Good News Bible" Catholic Study Edition (different than Protestant bibles)

1)The bible was not made to be used as a tool to spread religion. It is a guide to life and how to live. It is merely a bunch of stories wrote out to compare your life too. That is it. Technically the child books that tell you to be good are the same thing except their writers are a lot less important.

2)Luke 1:33 "and he will be the king of the descendants of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." And this is were the bible being used as a source gets a little funky. If you have never read the bible in context in its original language then we can only guess what this sentence really means. It could mean your hypothesis that the Jews would know of him as their King and he will rule that way forever, but since Luke is accepted to been written between 62-70 AD ( http://www.beginningcatholic.com... ) Then we can assume he already knew that wasn't true and by saying the descendants of Jacob he could have meant the Catholic church being a descendant of the Jewish religion.

3)Matthew 1:17 "So then there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David and fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon and fourteen from then to the birth of the Messiah" Problem with this time period is who's calendar are you going off? We don't know exactly who wrote these books so we don't know which calendar they were using. If one was using Caesar calendar and the other was using an astronomically correct calendar they could have been greatly off. It is hard to use exact numbers like that in these times because standards weren't accepted by all like now. Just as the old testament said the 7th day he rested. He could still be resting this could still be the 7th day we have no idea what 7 days are to them. Heck it could have been the 4th day cause earth is slowing down or even still be going on because he was using the days in context to how God sees them.

4)In all three of these: Mathew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20 Jesus was heading to Galilee the problem is in the confusion of were he encounters people because by reading it in English it seems as if he made his showing multiple times but without reading it in its original language I can not tell you if it had other meaning like he just ran into them and was going to show everyone that he rose or what was meant by it. So I believe this one should be ruled out because we can't read it for what it is. He could have just happened upon them and then they followed to Galilee or it could be human error (it was written by humans ) or it could just be wrong.

5)"The reason to assume it is not meant literally is based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1:
"Ye are the children of the LORD your God" This was said to the entire Jewish nation obviously figurative, so to in the case of Jesus it is probably meant figurative. Not only that but Jesus was a Jew so when the new testament says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god."
Here arises two problems.
#1 In this verse if read as is it is speaking of God using Lord as another name. In the Christian religion God the father, Jesus the Son, and the holy spirit are one. So calling Jesus the lord, God, the almighty, or he who is everlasting are all correct.
#2 You could be right he could mean Jesus is the son of God, which would be true because he was made by God but he is also part of God. I am not saying he is I am just saying that makes that part of your argument invalid.
Yet, either way I don't see were this part of your argument is valid because either way he could still be part of God.

"Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:"-meaning Human

"Matthew, Chapter 1:"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."- I do agree he was born of a Human. Mary

"It is also interesting to note that in 1:18 it says the Holy Ghost and not simply "the lord" or "god".""- the holy ghost is God

"In Luke as well 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" ... "thee shall be called the Son of God""- because he is a Human child born of God therefore he is Human(son of man) and God (son of God)

"It is interesting to note that it says "he shall be called", indicating that he wasn't literally son of god."- I don't read anywhere that it says he shall be called but assuming your source is valid then unless you read it in Aramaic you are nitpicking words that cannot be directly translated. The bible is less than 50% accurately translated. That is why the Catholic church doesn't like (not against) people interpreting the English bible. Heck, we hardly read it because it has too many words that are just not in the English language. So no more nitpicking words.

"Luke 3:23 ...being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... indicates he had a human father.
That chapter ends with, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was not literally the son of god."
I can not nitpick but I will point out that in the Bible right before were you started quoting it says so people THOUGHT.
Since I can not nitpick I will say that more than likely it was saying he was the son of Joseph meaning his stepfather and the one who raised him. Many people have people that are not their parents that they call mom and dad. My cousin calls me her brother. It is a form of speech but either way we are nitpicking a translated version.

"Lastly in the new testament Jesus is referred to as "son of man"."- the new testament is large...where did it say this? Where does it say Jesus is the son of man.

"On the basis of all this it would seem to me that when it says son of god it is not literal, but rather as in the verse in Deuteronomy 14:1"- As I said earlier either your interpretation or the Christian interpretation would be correct in saying Jesus is God, manifested in flesh

Please don't make this a personal thing!:) Good day.

I will also say that I do not speak any languages other than English and some Latin and Some Spanish not enough to even be slightly into translating so I can't speak of your knowledge of other languages.
Debate Round No. 1
smartyskirt

Con

Thank you for accepting.
My opponents opening line begs explanation, it reads:
"I am not going to try to prove Jesus is the son of God because in three hundred years I couldn't prove to you... "
The BOP is to prove that Jesus is the son of god.

Rebuttal:

1) Irrelevant.

2)"...and by saying the descendants of Jacob he could have meant the Catholic Church being a descendant of the Jewish religion..."
Okay, but a little farfetched.

3) It appears that my opponent misunderstood the term generations, in the context of Mathew. If you look over there, in the beginning of Mathew, you will see generations was not referring to period of time, But, rather, a single step in natural descent, (i.e. father to son).

4)"...it could be human error (it was written by humans) or it could just be wrong."
Exactly.

5)
1st of all, my opponent seems to have missed my point. What is being presented here is reason to believe that when the NT says Jesus is the son of god it is not to be taken literal. As we find in Deuteronomy 14, which says, all Jews are "children of god". What makes this argument more compelling is the fact that Jesus was a jaw's saying Jesus is son of god is really a derivation of the verse in Deuteronomy, which is not literal.

A 2nd point is that my opponent seems to contradict himself:
He takes the position of trinity but writes, he is human. And I quote:
""Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:"-meaning Human"

BTW it says son of man all over the NT with regard to jesus here is one example:
Matthew 16:13 . When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
Kethen

Pro

I was purely saying that I am not going to change your belief system. If it hasn't been done yet it wont be done by a few arguments on Debate.org

1) If my statement was irrelevant then yours is too.

2) Everything in both of our religions can be viewed as far fetched! We are talking about religion a thing built of faith and different views of the same words! You can rule one idea as far fetched just because it is different then yours. I haven't been unfair to you. Everything view as equal relevance.

3)I didn't misunderstand generations. Generations can be a time and it changes.....So who says you didn't misunderstand it? I could be right, you could be. In context in the English version it doesn't specify. Who says in its original context it didn't say something completely different?

generations plural of gen�er�a�tion (Noun)
Noun:
All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: "one of his generation's finest songwriters".
The average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children grow up and have children of their own.

4)Don't use my words out of context. That is what dirty politicians and the news does. If you want to have a polite debate don't use my words out of context. I said "So I believe this one should be ruled out because we can't read it for what it is. He could have just happened upon them and then they followed to Galilee or it could be human error (it was written by humans ) or it could just be wrong."
Meaning that neither of us know the true meaning so it is pointless to argue about. You can waste your breath (fingers?) but to me the argument is done because they all agree he is going to Galilee he just meets people at different times. It could be our misunderstand or a loss in translation

5)I didn't misunderstand you at all. You just are not listening (reading?). The Lord is God, Jesus is God, Calling God the Lord is the same as calling Jesus the Lord. The only reason people call Jesus Lord more is because it is a way to keep them separated. Your argument that it is a figure of speech makes no sense because it isn't a figure of speech it is a word used to represent God.

Lord
a. God.
b. Christianity Jesus.

a. A man of renowned power or authority.

Deuteronomy 14:1
"You are the people of the Lord your God......" It is saying .....You are the people under your most powerful, authority God.

Where does your idea that calling Jesus Lord is not literal come into play? They are calling God the Lord and then they call Jesus the Lord. If anything it is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

6)If you didn't notice you wrote ""Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:" and I replied meaning Human.
No where do I say he was not human.
He was God BORN UNTO MAN!
He is man he is God he is both! That is the whole point of him.

7) I asked where it was so I could point out where you use things out of context which you have repeatedly (even my own words) this entire debate.

8)"BTW it says son of man all over the NT with regard to Jesus here is one example:
Matthew 16:13 . When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippe, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?""
Way out of context. Also not right.
Matthew 16:13( It says where Jesus went).....where he asked his disciples "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" " Some say John the Baptist" they answered " Others say Elijah....." (They then proceed to say other prophets. )
"What about you? Jesus asked " who do you say I am" Simon Peter answered " You are the messiah (savior) the living son of God (other contexts say the Son of the Living God but that makes no sense to me and it is nitpicking words that don't translate) " Good for you Simon the son of John" Jesus said For this truth did not come to you from any HUMAN BEING but was given to you directly from MY FATHER in heaven."

So now that I pointed out to you how you use things out of context to mislead people I will begin my attempt at proving to the audience that in this Debate I can prove that my debate for Jesus to be God is more believable.

1) I don't NEED to use things out of context
2) I don't need to use the Bible. Jesus is a known fact he is impossible to prove that he never existed.
3) It is accepted he performed miracles in the act of God and is accepted that he did.
4) You are arguing he is nothing more than a prophet, but if that is true then.
(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell
(b) He wouldn't have came back from the dead because why would God support a false god?
(c) Assuming that he isn't God and assuming God rejects him for saying he is then he is a true magician with true magic because God would have taken away his powers granted by him.
(d) He would be equally powerful as God because God couldn't take away his powers.
5) Don't believe Jesus was part of God if you don't want to. But then you have to admit he was more powerful, or equally powerful to God.
6) Then you are against both of our religions and Muslims because then you are refuting the three largest and longest lasting religions' God.
Debate Round No. 2
smartyskirt

Con

Thank you, again, for accepting. Due to your lack of comma usage; I had difficulty understanding some of your points.
I know, I also have a problem putting in commas, but please try.

"2) Everything in both of our religions can be viewed as farfetched! We are talking about religion a thing built of faith and different views of the same words!"

1ST of all, this debate is not, comparative religion. It is whether or not there is evidence that Jesus is the son of god.
(My religion, contrary to popular belief is not based on faith. We can discuss that some other time.)
2nd of all, faith is not evidence. Faith is by definition "belief that is not based on proof."

"3)..."
It seems obvious to me, that you did not bother looking at the context, as I suggested. For your convenience I will copy the verses here so everything will be obvious.

Matthew chapter 1:
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uria s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

So, 14 generations is clearly, as I said, as it lists a chain of 14 people.
This contradicts Luke where it lists much more.

"5)..."
I am saying, that, the same way the old testament calls the entire Jewish nation "sons of god", so is the NT calling Jesus "son of god", as he was a Jew.(As a Jew, I can ashore you, Jews are not god, nor literally sons of god.)

My opponent writes:
"Deuteronomy 14:1
"You are the people of the Lord your God......" It is saying .....You are the people under your most powerful, authority God."

I am afraid that you have an incorrect translation. (I am not shore what translation you have, most English bibles say, "You are the children of the LORD your God".) I have, and, understand the original Hebrew. It says "bunim" which means sons.

"6)..."
LOL. It comes out from my opponents words, that, god is human.

"7)..."
Sorry about that one, it was not a good example, here are some:

Matthew 9:6
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Matthew 17:9
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Matthew 17:22
And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

Mark 10:45
"The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 20:18
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,

Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Matthew 24:27
For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mark 2:28
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

John 12:23
The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

My opponent writes:
"2) I don't need to use the Bible. Jesus is a known fact he is impossible to prove that he never existed."
LOL.
Anyway, I am not arguing that he doesn't exist. I am just arguing that he is not literally (son of) god.

"3) It is accepted he performed miracles in the act of God and is accepted that he did."
Accepted by whom?

And even if he did do miracles, that doesn't prove he is god, son of god, prophet, or even necessarily a good person.
Here is an interesting passage from the OT regarding miracle doers: Deuteronomy 13:1-5
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."

We see here miracle does not necessarily mean anything.

"4) You are arguing he is nothing more than a prophet"
I said no such thing.

"(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell"
What does that have to do with whether he is son of god?

"(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell"
1st of all he didn't.
2nd of all even if he did see the passage from Deuteronomy 13 which I quoted before.

"(c) Assuming that he isn't God and assuming God rejects him for saying he is then he is a true magician with true magic because God would have taken away his powers granted by him."

"6) Then you are against both of our religions and Muslims because then you are refuting the three largest and longest lasting religions' God."
Factually false. Judaism (and other religions) was around much longer.
And moslems, as well as many christians, do not believe christ is god. Some believe he was a prophet.
Truth does not follow #'s. Most of the world thought that planet earth is flat.
Kethen

Pro

Sorry I am horrible with punctuation!
1) Maybe you just didn't look at what I was talking about or you just don't read all of what I say.

"2) Everything in both of our religions can be viewed as far fetched! We are talking about religion a thing built of faith and different views of the same words!"
1ST of all, this debate is not, comparative religion. It is whether or not there is evidence that Jesus is the son of god.
(My religion, contrary to popular belief is not based on faith. We can discuss that some other time.)
2nd of all, faith is not evidence. Faith is by definition "belief that is not based on proof."
This is one you using my words out of context again and two has "

If you would have read what I said or looked back to what I was talking about I was referring to where I showed you another way a bible verse could be viewed. Your rebuttal said nothing more than that it was " Okay, but a little far fetched", I was doing nothing more than pointing out you have no possible right or support to say any statement is far fetched.

"3)...." Sorry I didn't read all of Matthew 1. But Ill show how we are both using it wrong and prove that the bible can't be nitpicked by saying this. Would you agree the definition of Generation is a group of people that lived at the same time and were relatively similar age? If you would agree then our views are wrong in the bibles context. Maybe just because they didn't have better words in English to use. We count 14 ancestors to the time of David. Not 14 generations because brothers are in the same generation. Only 6 generations. Who ever wrote Matthew wasn't going to screw up counting so their word that wasn't generation had to have another meaning. Maybe it was ancestors. I can't read it's original writing. Also like I said in Luke it said SO THEY THOUGHT, that's what the people thought meaning it wasn't correct. That is probably not a direct translation so they had to infer somehow it wasn't correct in the original context.

"5)...." You do read Hebrew then? I understand what you are saying now more. The reason I misunderstood is because you referred to Deut. 14:1 which doesn't say Jews were sons of God anywhere. It said you are the Children(people or any other translation) of the Lord our God. But, if direct translation reads sons it doesn't make much of a difference. I can see were your view that it could be used not so literally with Jesus. I am using the Catholic bible accepted by the Catholic church to be used for study. Most of the English bibles are protestant bibles to be exact King James. Can't use those they have been edited. (don't be stupid and try arguing that they haven't it is history, that is why it is called KING JAMES). Not saying the Catholic bibles hasn't been it just has been the least (when I say edited I mean changed from its original words) I am not saying I don't believe you or that you are a liar or incorrect or anything I just need a source or like type it and show it or something because this is the context ( I DO NOT KNOW HEBREW EVERYONE)
א בָּנִים אַתֶּם, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם: לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ, וְלֹא-תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם--לָמֵת.
and no translator I used said sons. Also I tore it apart (which I don't think you can do) because it said "a boy" not son. I also can't find "bunim" anywhere or find a translator that recognizes it. Problem arises again since there is any number of translation to English and most are technically right, just there is many ways the sentence is structured. If you directly translate it over. 1 you can't because some words just don't exist in English and 2 it makes no sense. because the way it is constructed

"6)..." I don't understand were you got "God is human". You are either putting words in my mouth or using things out of context. Press ctrl-F I never said "God is Human" (until now) I said Jesus is Human but he is also God. That is the whole point of him God in the flesh. I don't understand why that matters because if we didn't need God in the flesh then Jesus wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your argument makes no sense. That was literally the whole point of Jesus, to be God in human form. I don't get were you are going with this. Are you trying to say Jesus wasn't human at all? Because if he wasn't then he was pointless. God literally made Jesus and became part of him.

HOLD ON QUICK QUESTION.....Do you believe you have a spirit. If you do I have a better explanation.
(God-) God is well God infinite being.
(Jesus-) a human born of 1 human and GOD. Has the body of a human and the spirit (Holy spirit) the Spirit of God that is in Jesus.
So Jesus is God with a form. Without Jesus God has no form. Just a being that is. Not female, or male. Not a human or a cow. With Jesus God took form.

There we go I don't know if that ends that or not but what ever.

"7)...." Haven't quite figured out why you keep bringing up Son of man because we know Jesus is human and that is basically what Son of Man means but anyway.

All of those but did use Son of Man in a better way but still I don't understand why calling him Son of Man matters.
(a) We already accept he is human
(b)That is how everyone referred to him, not saying he liked it.
(c)Why does it matter if it says he is son of man we know Jesus is the son of a human (Mary) that isn't hidden
(d)It is his spirit that makes him God. Man with God's spirit (soul, whatever you want to call it)
I do agree they call him son of man though. I just don't understand its relevance

I am skipping 3 for now.

""4) You are arguing he is nothing more than a prophet"
I said no such thing."

Sorry you didn't say that I should have said you are saying he is just a man. Not literally the son of god

""(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell"
What does that have to do with whether he is son of god?"
Why would he knowingly send himself to hell.

""(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell"
"1st of all he didn't."- Didn't what realize God is real? realize he would go to hell? That seems kind of obvious that he would realize those
2nd of all even if he did see the passage from Deuteronomy 13 which I quoted before." - Ill refer back to here later.

"6) Then you are against both of our religions and Muslims because then you are refuting the three largest and longest lasting religions' God."
Factually false. Judaism (and other religions) was around much longer.
And Moslem's, as well as many Christians, do not believe Christ is god. Some believe he was a prophet.
Truth does not follow #'s. Most of the world thought that planet earth is flat.

Sorry I worded that wrong. I meant to say the 2 largest religions believe in the same God. Judaism can be viewed as the parent of Islam and Catholicism so that makes their God one of the longest lasting of the gods and in History on of the most believed in (Hinduism might be it out)

Now lets assume God wanted to give us a huge test and bring Jesus back to life. If Jesus was trying to test us why wouldn't he call himself a NEW god he says that he is part of the existent God.

This all trickles down to one problem though.
How do we know Jesus wasn't one big test (other than faith)
Awhile back I had this problem (made me stronger actually)

Here is how I look at it.
First the trilogy. God is one being with 3 persons- God the Father(God), God the Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit(the essence of God)
The only thing I can say in 313 words is...God never fought back. If it were true God wouldn't have let it continue. he wouldn't have been resurrected something only God can do and if it was a test then my faith is wrong. But I am very blessed so God must care and he probably does for you to and that is all that really matter I need to right more but I can't right anym
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
O okay thanks... I want to learn hebrew but it is hard to learn it right if there isn't people around you that speak it. Then I wil learn an English version of it and I don't want that I want to learn the words that cant translate over too. I also want to learn Latin. Hebrew seems pretty hard. Is it?

BTW voter I don't see how I ever slammed my opponents character. Exspecially in my opening.
I read all three rounds and I don't see a single point I didn't contest. (all be it the end I ran out of characters)

But I do contest that I am really bad at explaining things and am trying to improve on that. That is why I joined this.
If I did seem to "slam" you I am very sorry. I only got offended once in this whole deal but I didn't think I ever "slammed" you.
Posted by smartyskirt 5 years ago
smartyskirt
here is another idea I had:
google the word "בָּנִים" .
If you can't type in hebrew just cut and past.

www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=199

9 posts - Last post: Oct 4, 2010
Literally, the word for son, and sons is בֵּן, בָּנִים. ... It is a shortened form of the word בָּנִים ...

בראשית 5 Hebrew OT: BHS (Consonants and Vowels)

bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/genesis/5.htm

- Block all bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com results

6 וַיְחִי־שֵׁת חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיֹּולֶד אֶת־אֱנֹושׁ׃ 7 וַיְחִי־שֵׁת אַחֲרֵי הֹולִידֹו אֶת־אֱנֹושׁ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאֹות שָׁנָה וַיֹּולֶד בָּנִים וּבָנֹות׃ 8 ...

בראשית 11 Hebrew OT: BHS (Consonants and Vowels)

bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/genesis/11.htm

14 וְשֶׁל&#14
Posted by smartyskirt 5 years ago
smartyskirt
type in the word "sons".
Posted by smartyskirt 5 years ago
smartyskirt
got it. here is the link.
http://translate.google.com...|iw|sons
Posted by smartyskirt 5 years ago
smartyskirt
I am looking for a way to show you that my translation is correct. I know bec. I am fluent in Hebrew, but I can't have you just take my word for it.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
Sorry I didn't get to talk about Deut. I can here if you want. And thank you for strengthening my knowledge in the Bible and my faith.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
Sorry I got my definition of Google. No source just Googled
Definition:Generations
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
I might take this argument. Have you ever read the bible entirely in context and in its original language?
Are the facts you are using to say he is NOT the son of god coming from the same source that says he is?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
smartyskirtKethenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro opened with a pointless slam at Con's character. RFD: Pro tried to forfeit over and over, insisting that he couldn't prove his case, that his points were far fetched, and that he may be wrong. He didn't seem oppose Con's points. He was sometimes impossible to understand. Con made some tolerably good points which mostly went uncontested. Disclosure: I don't believe in either god or Jesus, so it's misleading when I had to click above that I agreed with Con.