The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Jews and Christians worship the same God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,029 times Debate No: 25677
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




I want to debate with a Christian on this, but atheists/agnostics/Jews who are well versed are welcome to accept as well.

I am suggesting that the ties that are normally considered between Jews and Christians are not supported by the Holy Bible, and specifically, the New Testament.
The God that is worshipped by Jews and by Christians cannot be considered the same God. Plainly, saying that Jews worship YWHW and Christians worship YWHW+Jesus+Holy Ghost is not an acceptable viewpoint.
I am arguing that the God that is worshipped by Christians is now and always was a separate God than YWHW.

Additionally, the God of Islam (Allah) is separate as well, but I don't think I'd find as many takers to argue that they are one-in-the-same... but this debate is welcome to side-debates regarding that fact.

My main contention is that until Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the bond that is held between Jews and Christians, is one that is not supported by the Bible. Meaning, that once Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they thereby become Christians and are accepted as worshiping the same God.

Additionally, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the Jewish people claim to "the chosen people" (in the eyes of the New Testament and thus Christianity) should not be accepted.

Lastly, I'm contending that with the coming of the the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, all responsibility of humanity to follow the laws and commandments set forth by the Old Testament (the Tanakh) have been eliminated.

It should be mentioned that I am not a Christian/Jew/Muslim, but was raised with a Christian upbringing and still attend Christian functions occasionally with purely familial or secular interests.

First round is for acceptance and the last round for closing arguments (no new arguments)

I hate having to say it, but I really want to hear good arguments so, please... no trolls, arguing over semantics, and if you accept the debate, please take it seriously and have the time to answer fully.

BOP is entirely on CON here since I think PRO is the status quo. If you think you can estabilish proof, by all means. But, simply effectively refuting my arguments will be sufficient for your win.

Additionally, one argument that I will not accept is that they are different descriptions of the same God (meaning, that they just misunderstood what was being told to them by their creator). This argument can be extrapolated to all Gods (including even calling science a God) and it doesn't help the purpose of the argument... which is ultimately, there is no religious reason that Jews and Christian should be on the same "team" as compared to other religions.
However, at the request of my opponent, we can save a round for why the difference between YWHW and Jesus is different than the differences between the sects of Judiasm and Christianity.

This arguement assumes that all things in both the Old Testament and New Testament are true.

Thanks! and I look forward to hearing your arguments.


Many thanks for the interesting topic on Judaism Vs Christianity to my opponent. I was so eager and wondering if there are some unbelieving Jew or rather counter missionary Jews on this website so that we can have those debates. I don’t think about the counter missionaries; but the topic suddenly came and it was clearly meant for me. Though Con, my opponent is not a Jew but a secular person having a Christian background.

I am sure this debate will be interesting and educative for many readers. Let me make some clarifications with Con beforehand to make certain arguments and terms straight.

To summarize his contention, it is quite clear that when he is arguing Jews and Christians don’t worship same God; that actually means his contention is – Jesus is a false Messiah and Christianity therefore is a false religion.

Some points are not clear like when he said “My main contention is that until Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the bond that is held between Jews and Christians, is one that is not supported by the Bible. Meaning, that once Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they thereby become Christians and are accepted as worshiping the same God.”

If I understood correctly; I think he meant that if majority of Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah, the debate is finished and we should believe that he was the true promised Messiah and Christianity is true. That would be confusing Jews with Judaism. The source of Judaism is the Scripture, and not the majority of their community beliefs. However he correctly understands the authority of Judaism and Christianity that is the Bible, Canonical Scripture. And it is good that he also assume the textual integrity of the New Testament, not questioning it’s textual authenticity, as some argue that NT was written in later centuries and disciples falsely wrote things about Jesus (That is a poor contention actually).

I assume then he will be mainly raising the Theological objections to Jesus, arguing only on doctrines, and that the Prophesies are not fulfilled by him hence he is a false Messiah. I’d also suggest him to point out the major contentions and arguments he will be defending to make the case clear.

Also I’d like to remind readers: if any counter missionary Jew or Rabbi or ex-christian Jew wants to have a topic against Christianity, then contact me or send me the debate challenge.

Let us hear his case.

Debate Round No. 1


I'll clarify a few things first, before I start my argument

I only intend to mean that "Jesus is a false Messiah and Christianity therefore is a false religion" insofar as it would concern Judaism [he is not the Messiah referred to in the Tanakh]. This is no way means that Christianity is not a valid religion, and that Jesus (in the eyes of Christianity) is our Lord and Savior, Christ, King of the Jews, Son of God, Son of Man, and Lamb of God, Immanuel (God with us), and the Messiah of the Christians (with no connection to the Messiah of the Jews)

"Some points are not clear" - What I'm saying here, is basically, they are in fact two ENTIRELY separate religions, and there are NO BONDS between them at all (religiously)... however, once a Jew accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he thereby becomes a Christian and is no longer a Jew. Hence, Jesus was not a Jew (religious, not ethnic, obviously). He could be argued to be one, much in the way that Julius Caesar is not the first Emperor of Rome, but, in fact, Julius Caesar was de facto the first Emperor of Rome, he just never acquired the title. I'm saying, after the completion of Jesus's journey, he must, in fact be a Christian, if he believes in his own divinity and not a Jew(religiously) as popular culture has called him (though, again, he was still ethnically a Jew).

It is not relavent to this debate, and if you would like to on another occasion argue the authenticity of the Bible, I would be happy to, but as I listed in the challenge, we accept that both the Old Testament and New Testament are true. (Though, I should have specified, when speaking from the Jewish Point of view, the Tanakh is true, when speaking from a Christian point of view the New Testament is true)

I hope I answered all my opponents questions, and now onto my arguments.

First, I will argue from the viewpoint of the Jews (R2). In the next round, I will argue from the viewpoint of the Christians (R3), and the final round of arguments I will rebut, clarify and combine the arguments as is necessary to fully get a breadth of the debate (R4)... then, of course, the conclusion which will have no new arguments

Jews -

For starters, for anyone in Christianity who believes that Jesus was indeed God, Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly states:
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!".

Also, no where in the Tanakh when talking about the Messiah, does it say that he will be
(1) God incarnate
(2) The Salvation
(3) Resurrected and Opening the Gates to Heaven
(4) He will be crucified

Indeed, it warns against those who are crucified

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
(Which, regardless of the resurrection, he most certainly died)

It's not hard to imagine that (given only the Tanakh) that Jesus would not be their Messiah.
It requires the New Testament to give that picture. Which, I will talk about later, once the New Testament is in the picture, there are many things in that which refute the Old Testament veracity.

I'll go on to explain more,

It is hard to argue that Jesus brought about the "Messianic Age" prophesied in the Tanakh. At least, so far as we can tell on Earth.

The God of the Tanakh is one that is very different then the one that Jesus touted.

As Psalms 119:89 claims
"Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens."

However, Jesus would go on to claim that many things that God proclaimed no longer stood.

He worked on the Sabbath and promoted others to do so as well John 5.
In Matthew 5, when Jesus gives his Antitheses.

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."


Math 5:38-39
""You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

These are directly opposing commandments

These are things that change the word of God, which according to the Tanakh, isn't allowed by the Word of God.

That isn't to say that he didn't fulfill some of the prophecies, as many people in the history of world have, but the Messiah is to fulfill all the prophecies, and Jesus failed to do that.

There really is less to prove from the Judaism side, as clearly those who only follow the Tanakh do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, let alone the Lord and Savior that Christianity touts him as, so... As it appears my opponent agrees with Messianic Judaism, I would rather prefer the Burden of Proof on this side to be on him. If you are to only follow the Tanakh, why should Jesus be considered the Messiah? (You can use references in the New Testament for Jesus's actions and sayings, but you can't say "The New Testament says he is!" or "The New Testaments says the Tanakh says so and so", when the Tanakh doesn't actually say that.)

I'll stop this side of the debate here, and wait to continue onto the New Testament and why it is an ENTIRELY separate religion.

So, if you will, refute my arguments from this round, and also give me reasons why Jews should recognize Jesus as the Messiah as he is defined in the Tanakh.


Let me begin by clarifying the simple truth: if Jesus is not the promised Messiah of the tanakh, it means he is not the Messiah of anyone – and Christianity would be false religion of a false prophet. We are dealing with the truth of Jewish scripture and the Messiah, not a relative Messiah of anyone’s mind.

Jesus was in his humanity indeed a Jew (See Christ cannot be a Christian just as Muhammad cannot be muhammdan. The Messiah isn’t follower and worshiper of himself.

Trinity (Triunity)

Jesus did not preach of any other God, he affirmed the scripture all the time including the doctrine of monotheism (Mark 12:29) It’s a mistake to assume Christians have more than one God. As Dr. Benjamin Sommer, professor in the Department of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary says “any Jew who is true to the scripture and their tradition should have no problem in understanding the doctrine of Trinity.” Trinity does not mean three gods, but Complex Monotheism; where there is only one divine being in plural personalities and mysterious fluidity. The doctrine is made more explicit in the incarnation and life of the Messiah who is designated as the Son of God for the redemption of man.

"Some biblical authors embracing a theological intuition common throughout the ancient Near East, maintained that God differs radically from human beings because God’s body and self are completely unbounded. For these thinkers, who include the J and E authors of the Pentateuch, God has many bodies, and God’s person finds expression in more than one self, even as the underlying unity of the being called Yhwh endures…" – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p.124-126

Do not assume that echad necessary refers to one person. It also express unity and oneness, just as in Gen 2:24 the two became one (echad). The nature of God is not as simple as any creature, since he is ultimately unique there is nothing like him. He, the one God is not like a stone, tree or human; his nature can be understood as ncomprehensible for humans to fully grasp. For example consider a creature limited in realm of two dimensions witnessing something three dimensional, he will not be able to fully comprehend it in his limitations. The One God is infinite yet he can manifest before his mortal creation. The God of the Bible should be understood the same way.

See how the Jewish literature, Targum the paraphrases of the scripture dealt certain passages; they are just same as apostle John wrote for Jesus being the Word of God.

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

Psalm 33 :6 By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The Aramaic word 'Memra', which means the ‘Word’ or ‘The Word of the Lord’, is used when physical manifestations of God appear or when God is mentioned more than once in the same verse. Read the details how the Memra is understood by the Jewish literature.

Elohim is a plural noun; in Semitic language refers to the plural powers of the singular one God. Genesis 1:2 The Spirit of God was moving on the surface of earth. Elohim manifested his presence in the tanakh see Genesis 18:22 Abraham was standing with God, God again talked to him 19:1, other references of the angel of God who is later identified as God himself Judges 13.16-22; Zechariah 1.8, 11; Daniel 9.21.) See Details and explanations by Scholars, from two books: Two Powers in Heaven by Alan F. Segal and The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel by Dr. Benjamin D. Sommer; also by Dr. Michael Brown. [1]

Daniel 7:9-14 are explicit on the divine picture of the Son of Man, same what Jesus claimed to be in Matthew 26:64. Skeptics argue that the son of man here is Israel, but it can’t be if you see the context. Even second century Rabbis Akiba and Yosi were perplexed in interpreting the plural figures having divine nature; Yosi agreed that both figures described in the passage, as found in the Talmud. [2]

God incarnate and Salvation: Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to the child who is born as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal father, Prince of Peace having eternal kingdom”. Same title Mighty God is used for YHWH in Isaiah 10:21. Skeptics argue that the child was the son of Ahaz. But the messianic prophesies sometimes have dual implications. Some may have an immediate fulfillment in short term and also imply to the promised Messiah ultimately. For example all eternal promises to the kingdom of David are ultimately Messianic allusions. David was projected as a prototype of the Messiah; all promises for the kingdom of David are ultimately allusions to the Messiah and his final achievement. If you are open to the possibility that those passages could be actually allusions to the Messiah even if these were meant for immediate context of a king, then you have great reasons to see their fulfillment in Yeshua. Isaiah 7:14 the child referred to as Immanuel meaning God with us; fulfilled in Jesus: Matthew 1:23. The titles for the child in Isaiah 9:6-7 and 7:14 can’t imply to a mortal king, the description transcends mortal man.

Con didn’t give a single ref from Tanakh as to show what the Messiah is to fulfill still he claimed that Jesus didn’t fulfill the Messianic prophesies. Let me explain: the expectations from the Messiah by a traditional Jewish person even today are no less than a Savior. They expect their Messiah to come and transform whole world like a heaven where there is no hatred but ultimate bliss and peace. The only problem unbelieving Jews have in their discerning is they don’t realize that the Messiah is to come twice. Once riding on a donkey meek and lowly (Zach 9:9 fulfilled in Luke19:28-44) [3], and finally on the clouds as the ultimate king. Jews understood the two different comings of the Messiah see (Talmud Sanhedrin. 98a) The Messiah is yet to come final time sitting on clouds when the kingdom of heaven will come giving the believers ultimate peace. The expectation of today’s Jews that there will be earthly heaven like environment transformed magically by the Messiah is just incoherent which doesn’t fit in the nature of the world.

His suffering sacrifice and prophesied in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12, where in v53:10 onwards he is shown as being restored, prolonging his days and seeing his offspring (spiritual children) after being sacrificed as a guilt offering, and will intercede for the sinners. Also see the amazing allusion to the crucifixion in Psalms 22; the objections on the translation of few words are refuted since even some pre Christian Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls confirm them.[4]

The merciful teachings of Jesus didn’t contradict old Law but strengthened it. He did not abolish anything but established the new covenant of grace by his authority. The commands of Love are the old. [5]. He didn’t come to abolish but to accomplish or fulfill the law Matt 5:17. It is important to understand the new covenant was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:27-34 it clearly says the new covenant will not be like old; and God will put his law on the hearts of believers. It is evident in light of Scripture that none of today’s Jews who reject Jesus, reject him on theological grounds but only by their traditional grounds that go against the scripture, they put their trust in man rather than God. A sincere study of the tanakh necessary leads to the real promised Messiah, Yeshua.Thousands of Jews still continue to accept the promised Messiah who is the Lord and Savior of mankind by learning the truth of scriptures.

Please study the Sources for details:

Debate Round No. 2


I truly want to thank my opponent for his depth of knowledge and elegant writing.
Your passion is clear and your message is focused.
As a messianic Jew (or at least one that understands them well)... you have made many very good arguments.

With the exception, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to argue for... Jesus is not the son of YHWH
YHWH and the Trinity are two entirely separate entities.
Of course, by saying that the Tanakh and the New Testament are 100% true in the same framework, this would mean polytheism, but for the sake of this argument, that's allowed, because we're arguing from different frameworks, and each framework argues for monotheism (as they are mutually exclusive).

I am not a Jew myself, nor have an in-depth understanding of why they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

According to this is a list of reasons why

1.Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2.Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3.Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4.Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

1: The Messiah was to
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

You can follow up on the others, as I don't want to waste space... but I think it is suffice to say that although Jesus had many characteristics of the Messiah prophesied in the Tanakh, he did not match them all... and thus... he is not the Messiah prophesied in the Tanakh

Regardless, you are arguing from a Messianic Jew standpoint, and not a Jew standpoint. You must at least agree that the Jewish people today do not consider Jesus as the Messiah, and thus.. as Christians view him as divine, Jews believe that Christians worship a different god (YHWH =/= Jesus from the Jew perspective)

Onto Christianity,

I will start with this, in the Greek version, nowhere does it say YHWH, JHVH, or any other form of the tetragrammaton. Jews often also use the term Adonai (Lord) or HaShem(the Name) to identify their god. YHWH specifically is listed 6,828 times in the Old Testament, but NONE in the New Testament. Terms like Adonai (Lord) are generic terms and can be used in many contexts. The only way to be perfectly clear to identify the Lord and YHWH as one in the same would be to use his proper name YHWH. Of course, YHWH was forbidden for use outside of in the Temple by the High Priest, but if these are Religious text that are supposed to be clear and meaningful.. it would make sense to use his Name (YHWH) and not his title (Adonai). Also, as Christians are not forbidden to use the term YHWH, it is curious that they never used it. It most certainly opens the door that possibly when they refer to "the Lord", they are not talking about YHWH.

So what else?

Luke 24:46-47 - "[Jesus] told them, "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations"

Except... that ISN'T written anywhere in the Tanakh... so what exactly is Jesus referring to here? What Messiah had it been written about that would die and be resurrected (Psalm 16:10 is NOT talking about the Messiah)? and would forgive sins (the Messiah was to ERASE sin, not forgive it.. there's a clear difference there).. let alone that the Tanakh does not say the Messiah will cause forgiveness of sin to be preach among all the nations...

Clearly, in this instance, he is speaking about a different prophesied Messiah than the one that is Prophesied in the Tanakh.

John 5:46 "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." - This is a strong argument, but it's too vague...Deuteronomy 18:15-22 identifies a Prophet, but no mention of a Messiah... so, you can be in line with Judaism and say "Jesus was the Prophet of whom Moses spoke".. but maybe Jesus isn't referring to this prophecy (if you are a Christian, you should believe this). I can not tell you which prophecy, as there are many that can be attributed to him that don't cancel the idea that Jesus is not the Son of YHWH, but the Son of some other God.

So, in all of this.. I agree with everything in the New Testament... John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here they are describing the Christian God, the Trinity. Which is very much not the same god as YHWH, as I've explained.

Psalm 33 :6 By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Here, as the capitalized LORD is translated from YHWH (as it always is) they are referring to YHWH and not the Trinity.

These are both true within their context. Which is true from the perspective of the real world? As I am neither a Christian, nor a Jew, I say neither... but that is irrelevant to my case. I'm arguing what is true within the confines of each separate religion.

I would like to note as well, that Jesus had a perfectly good time to announce who he was (if he was, in fact, YHWH)... John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" A GREAT time to announce "Before Abraham was born, YHWH".. but he doesn't.. he used the Greek term "ego eimi" which means "I am", but not in the same sense as YHWH. It could just as easily be translated in meaning (as Jehovah's Witnesses do) to "I have been". In either sense, he isn't saying that he is YHWH, merely saying that he is eternal. Which isn't counter to saying that he is a entirely separate god.

In all of this, I do realize very well that Jesus talks of the prophets and patriarchs of Judaism when speaking to his crowd... but doesn't this make sense if he is preaching to the Jews? He never claims to be YHWH, nor does he ever explicitly state that he is the Messiah claimed in a Tanakh verse (where the verse is actually describing the future Messiah). He always just uses terms like "It is written" and "[Moses] wrote about me"... very vague on something that doesn't need to be (as a test of Faith, or whatever people claim as reasons for the Bible to be vague)

For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus =/= YHWH from a Christian perspective... He is God, and a Trinity... he is God the Son, and is one with God the Father, and exists as God the Holy Spirit... but none of these (including God the Father) are YHWH.

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, and I was very happy to see his comments on the Jewish view of Christ and God.. and I really can't directly refute what he is saying... I just come to a very different conclusion from him... and I'm interested in his rebuttal to the argument from the Christian side.... Thank you


Thanks however I don’t think I have as deep knowledge of the scripture as most of other brothers and sisters have. I am a gentile Christian not a Jewish believer.

I’d remind that it is simply false to assume that the majority of the beliefs of Jews become true for Judaism. As I stated Jews are not Judaism. There are all sorts of Jews: Budhist, atheists, secular and all. Many Jews have been believers of Messiah based on the scripture. We for the topic have accepted the textual integrity of the NT to judge it with respect to the OT to find out whether Jesus is real Messiah or not and whether the God of NT and OT are same.

I have already explained the concept of God according to Tanakh and I will continue to prove that the doctrine of Trinity perfectly fits with the Jewish scripture. It’d recommend the 5 Volume books “Answering Jewish objections to Jesus” by Dr Michael Brown who has dedicated decades of his life in the study of various aspects of theology tradition and he has written the best work to explain all the objections of Jews and answered them; those books are treasure for the topic.

The skeptic might say Jesus didn’t fulfill the prophesies, if I ask them to show explicit prophesies of the Messiah that clearly talks about the role of Messiah, they will not give me a single reference. Because there is no such content list of the roles of Messiah in the tanakh; there are allusions and prophesies. The Jews before Jesus did recognize many prophesies like I mentioned in Daniel and Isaiah, Jesus fulfilled all those, but the hostile Jews are embarrassed for those same Talmudic ref where the ancient experts recognize prophesies.

There is no national revelation in Judaism; the Scripture is only authority- Sola Scripture. I’d encourage the readers to read this website of my Jewish brother in faith; he has done excellent work to refute the objections of skeptics. For my argument read particularly the details of why there is no Oral Law given and suggested in the Scripture, why the Heb Bible hold Sola Scripture for authority which goes against the orthodox and rabbinic Judaism today.

For the common objections see the overview of the answers of Dr Brown

Objection “Jesus can’t be the Messiah because the Messiah had to rebuild the Temple, yet the Temple was standing in Jesus’ day.”
Answer: “There is a fatal flaw to your objection, since we know for a fact that many religious Jews in Jesus’ day were expecting the coming of the Messiah in their lifetimes. This means that they were not expecting the Messiah to rebuild the Temple; the Temple was already standing! As for the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures associating the rebuilding of the Temple with the work of the Messiah, we should point out that they were delivered during the time of the Babylonian exile and pointed to the rebuilding of the second Temple – and that Temple has been destroyed for more than 1900 years now. This means that we must reinterpret these passages if we are to apply them to a future rebuilding of the Temple. In that case, it can be argued that these prophecies await the return of the Messiah, when he will establish his kingdom on the earth and build the third Temple.” (Messianic Objections)

The world peace will be brought in his final coming. The absurdity in their expectation that the absolute transforming peace will form on earth like turning into heaven is that human being by flesh have possibilities to sin, moreover such an amazing expectation entails a divine Messiah who will slide his magic wand and whole world will change. However Jesus has brought the peace in spiritual life of the believers from the time of his mission. The name of the God of Jews has already spread in the whole world only because of Jesus, to the most tribal and in the interior parts of the world peoples’ life has been transformed because of him, so the objection is absurd that the name of Yahweh is not known to whole world.

Let me show how the three persons of trinity are YHWH or that Jesus is YHWH himself.

Notice in John 12:37-43 in v41 John says Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke of him. The passage of OT quoted by John is Isaiah 6 and in that chapter Isaiah claims that he has seen YHWH by his eyes. According to John he saw the Manifestation of the Word of God- Jesus. I’m not saying just because NT says so it becomes true; but the objection is refuted that Jesus is not presented and believed as YHWH himself in NT.

Septuagint or LXX, the Greek translation of tanakh was in common use for Jews during and before Jesus’ time. Every place for the name YHWH the Greek Septuagint states “Kurios” which is specific term LORD for YHWH, and “adonai and theos” is a generic term for Deity and God in general also for Elohim. In New Testament theos is primarily used for the Father and Kurios is for the Son. Once Jesus is called theos by Thomas in John 20:28 he spoke the exact wordings of Psalm 35:23 that is referred to YHWH. So both terms for YHWH are used for Jesus and they followed the Greek OT that time for Greek. There is no objection possible for terminologies. Moreover read Psalm 45: 6-7 “Your throne, O God, is permanent. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.You love justice and hate evil. For this reason God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy, elevating you above your companions”.

It’s not about some pagan God. This is clearly referring to the Messiah- He is called Elohim God. The same verses are used to refer to Jesus in NT, in Hebrews 1: 8-9. Watch a very interesting panel debate between Christians and Unitarians on YouTube by name “Deity of Messiah” of 14 videos.

Here is an extensive article on the term ego eimi (I AM sayings of Jesus) used by Jesus and its implication must read-

In Luke 24 in those verses he didn’t quoted any verse rather he opened their minds to understand the scripture to see that whole Scripture was pointing towards him. There is an amazing video series “Passover to Pentecost” is highly recommended. The suffering and resurrection of the Messiah is in Isaiah 52:13 to 53; I already gave. Psalm 16:10 is again Messianic if not it’s an interpretation difference. If some Jews argued that Messiah was supposed to erase sin but not forgive, ask them for some reference. It’s just baseless denial. Isaiah 53 clearly talks about the servant being guilt offering and he intercedes for the sinners; by his wounds we are healed. Tanakh doesn’t say the Gospel to be preached whole world? That’s just argument from silence; for how come they expect him to bring God’s name to whole world? With no message of salvation but through the magic wand alone?

I gave ref from the rendering of Memra in the Targum that explains their understanding of God’s Word. In Psalm 33:6 the “WORD” of YHWH is emphasized, the “Word” Memra of God is understood to be having a distinct personality of God- the Word is divine, just as the Wisdom of God- Prov 8:22-31. Mind you “YHWH” could refer to the Father or the Messiah; or to the (tri)unity of Godhead; The understanding of the Memra of God is exact what John wrote for Jesus; study that link carefully.

In John 5:46 he did refer to Deut 18 prophet only whom Moses wrote. There is no conflict unless you hold that the Prophet and the Messiah should be two different individuals. Jesus is that prophet but not merely a prophet. Read 2nd speech of Peter in Acts 3:11 onwards, and his quotations and allusions to tanakh prophesies he mentions Deut 18

Jesus identified himself as the Messiah, the Son of God and divine many times clearly Matt 26:63-64; John 5:15-18; John 11:23-27 Matthew 16:13-20. Read all promised are fulfilled through Jesus, what Joel 2:28-32 it happened in Acts 2:14 onwards)

Let me see more objections. As we continue to study more of the scripture we can't help but to see Yeshua is the Promised Messiah, Savior of the World.
Debate Round No. 3


Regardless of your heritage, you clearly are well versed, and your devotion is admirable.

"As I stated Jews are not Judaism." I did blur that line, but I did so intentionally, because I do not have the knowledge of their message as clearly as my own. I know they don't worship the Trinity and yet Christians persist in worshiping YHWH. And this makes me quite uneasy... and it is disheartening that Christians view Jews as brothers, but I don't think it is true the other way around (and if so, Christian's are certainly the younger, possibly adopted, brother)

"There are all sorts of Jews: Buddhist, atheists, secular and all" - Apologies for not making it clear, I should have defined better... for the purpose of this debate, Jews = Religion (unless otherwise noted) and therefore, Jews can't be Buddhists, atheist, or secular.

"Answering Jewish objections to Jesus" by Dr Michael Brown - I will attempt to read this, but I can only suppose that he, like everyone, including myself... has an agenda, and I think the only use for things like that are the verses sourced, which.. I might add.. you yourself have done marvelously on.

I really want to thank you for this, I never took much notice to the "Jewish Messiah", but not that you bring it up... you're right... there is no Jewish Messiah. At least, not in the way that Jesus declared himself, and Christians consider it. There were future prophets, but not a "messiah" That entire concept is solely Christian, and not Judaic scripture based.... thank you for revealing that to me.

The closest thing I found is "Genesis 49:8-12". But the First Temple fell in ~590 BCE and the house of Judah didn't gain full control of of Jerusalem again until ~190 BCE. I think that counts as the ruler's staff falling from the feet.

"Notice in John 12:37-43" - This is a GREAT argument... it is a direct reference to a OT verse, word for word (via translation)... except one... YHWH... in all of this... I think this is more the case of the fact that he is proselytizing Jews, and as he isn't reference something to the messiah, but to Isaiah himself... Is the New Testament trying to say that Jesus was Isaiah? No.. he's not.. he's just describing the correct way to be a prophet... which they are saying Jesus is.

Septuagint use of Kurios - This is true for most surviving copies... but things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest texts we have, and they are in Greek) do write YHWH. I don't think we can know which version they were reading based off of what we know now, outside of the fact that they use similar wording

"Jesus identified himself as the Messiah, the Son of God and divine many times clearly Matt 26:63-64; John 5:15-18; John 11:23-27 Matthew 16:13-20." - I don't read a single one of these and have Jesus saying that he is the Messiah... other people are saying it and he isn't confirming or denying it... the closest thing you got is Matthew 20 - "Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah."

Telling people "don't tell people I'm the messiah" ... I say not to tell people that I'm the Messiah (especially if they are saying I'm the Messiah) without being the Messiah... watch Life of Brian for that one... "Only the TRUE messiah would deny that he is the messiah" - "Fine, I am the messiah" - "HE IS THE MESSIAH".. (love that scene!)


I understand you have done a lot of study for your points, and for that I am grateful.. I'm actually submitting this without being able to read all your references because of time, but I can promise that I will go through them.

You have proved to me at least, that the OT doesn't properly define a Messiah at all (I used to think they did) and thus Jesus cannot be him (as he isn't defined)

But there's more than that too.... to me at least.. I have moral issues believing in it

And this is where faith trumps all.

I refuse to believe that the same God who would Flood the Earth, slaughter the innocent Egyptian firstborns, DEMAND the massacre of the Canaanites, allow the massacre of the Hivites...

this SAME GOD would preach eternal forgiveness... this SAME GOD would look upon the Roman Soldiers crucifying him and declare "Forgive Them Father, for they know not what they do"

That one phrase has stuck with me... he's not talking to just the Roman Soldiers here.. if the rule is "Forgive us for we know not what we do"... this is true for every case until we meet our maker.. this is eternal forgiveness

And I just can't accept that these two very opposing actions are the same... they can't be... they must be sprung from different gods... To turn the other cheek as oppose to slaughtering those who slight you in even the tiniest way.

You can rationale anything you want... but to me... unless it states it explicitly anywhere... if there's any wiggle room in the text.. I can't believe they are the same entity... I can refuse to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob... and still believe in Jesus as the redeemer


I’d like thank my opponent for acknowledging the detailed comprehensive picture I provided for his sincerity and open mindedness. Let me begin with reminding that if we are concerned for the Jewish religion which is Judaism, then it might be possible that many of them are still mistaken on the foundational truth of Scripture that leads to the Messiah who is Jesus. Con is not able to comprehend how the God of Christianity and Judaism can be same and that Jesus be the promised Jewish Messiah, when the majority of Jews reject him. He is forced to think that it can’t be possible; this whole concept of Jesus being the Messiah and Savior, and doctrines like trinity must be invention of some people rather than fulfillment of Jewish law and prophets as they claim.

It is important to understand- the sole authority for Judaism is the Tanakh (OT), and not today’s Orthodox and Rabbinic Jewish camps who claim some rabbis and the so called oral torah of tradition to be authority for interpretation of scripture. So that they can have whatever interpretation they want. The line that divides Christian’s belief and majority of Jewish belief is then the interpretation of the Scripture. Unless one gets a deep reading and investigation of the Scriptures both Old and New Testament, and the analysis of both side’s arguments it is not safe to form premature conclusions. If we read Matthew 13:13-15 Jesus quotes Isaiah, that he was right in saying about the spiritual blindness of hearts those people have; by rejecting Jesus, they reinforced their rejection and blindness that they have been doing from the ancient times. In Matt 23:27-38 Jesus lays out the history of hypocrisy and rejection of the prophets the Jewish leaders have been doing. The Parable of Landowner rightly explains this again, Matt 21:33-45. So I want you to understand that this rebellion and rejection among them is nothing new.

Con has again misunderstood some simple arguments of mine. I never said that there is no prophesy and concept of Jewish Messiah in the tanakh; rather I gave references where Jewish rabbis way before Jesus understood some explicit prophesies of the Messiah, it is noted in the Talmud. Jews at the time of Jesus were also awaiting the Messiah. So there are many passages of Messianic prophesies, all we need is to understand them and see how they fit in the life of Jesus as the NT claims. Again, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah as promised in the Old Testament. The disciples and all early thousands of followers were Jews.

He also misunderstood and misread what I argued in the point of John 12. John said Isaiah saw HIS (Jesus’) Glory. In Isaiah we read he wrote he saw God the Father, YHWH. That means John says that Isaiah saw Jesus on that occasion. Hence it’s explicit that NT testifies the Messiah to be YHWH.

Then, he is mistaken to think Dead Sea Scrolls are the Greek version of OT rather it is Hebrew itself. At the time of Jesus, they were using that Hebrew as well as Greek Septuagint. Further he denied many passages where Jesus claims and affirms to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and even God. He only restricted the disciples for not to tell that, for a particular time for a reason, that’s no argument at all if you know the very basics of the Bible.

Then Con tells he find the moral nature of the God of OT and NT to be conflicting on ethical grounds hence he is not able to harmonize and accept that Christianity is fulfillment of the tanakh. That’s another reason that many might hold for rejecting the doctrines based on lack of understanding of the fundamental theologies—It is a naïve view. The Israelis were living under the covenant of theocracy and monarchy, where God ruled and the law including judiciary law was based on the scripture, it was limited in geography and for a period; whereas the coming of Jesus brought the New Covenant that I mentioned earlier, the New Covenant that the authors of NT mentioned in Hebrews 8 and Acts 2 quoting Jeremiah 31. The covenant has superseded the old by fulfilling the old. New Covenant is the covenant of Grace. Refer to the link I gave earlier explaining that teachings of love and mercy from godandscience website. The new covenant is abiding for all nations till the end times.

It should not be the matter that you prefer and like certain moral teachings of Jesus, hence you choose to deny the whole theology of not only NT but also of OT. If one studies in detail he would find that there is no theological conflict. Here is more detailed study for the doctrine of Trinity
Debate Round No. 4


It appears reading the scripture alone will not resolve this. Anywhere we go, we get stuck in a "he's [not] talking about the same thing"... I will remain victim to this shortly, but will change it up in a conclusion.

"I never said that there is no prophesy and concept of Jewish Messiah in the tanakh" - That is true, you didn't say that explicitly, but after you challenged my reference on the Messiah in the Old Testament.... I began looking for them (as I admit, my knowledge of the Old Testament isn't complete) But I did not find them... I couldn't find anything in the Old Testament about a coming Messiah. There are prophesied future kings, there are future prophets that will come, but "Messiah" (mashiach) is used to refer to contemporary kings, contemporary prophets.. not of foretold ones. Apparently, the word "Messiah" was attributed to the future prophet and future king only in the New Testament... which is kind of my point. So, in that way, we can only call Jesus "the Messiah" after the fact.

OK, I will concede from John 12:15, that the New Testament is EXPLICITLY calling Jesus "The King" as is described in Zechariah 9:9... this in no way means that Jesus and YHWH are the same... as I said, he is preaching to Jews, and the Jews can have made references to him. Until now, I have not conceded that he was "the King", but now I have... I don't think that directly follows that Jesus/God the Father = YHWH ... you'd have to connect that somehow for me ("the King" in Zechariah being YHWH, or a servant there of)

"Dead Sea Scrolls are the Greek version" - I haven't read the Dead Sea Scrolls (as I don't know Greek or Hebrew or any of that)... but I do believe that included in the Dead Sea Scrolls were Greek translations of the OT

I do understand that the Old Testament does refer to future coming where Peace where prevail (given that it is under the rule of YHWH). My main contention on morality was that I could not harmonize them. I can't harmonize a God who is so focused on the Bloodlines and descendants, to a God who doesn't care about that at all. Historically, in the Old Testament, his covenants became MORE restrictive, not more open.... from Noah to Jacob to Moses... I think it is contrary to practice then, to believe that after basically favoring a smaller and smaller group of people over time that he we turn around and choose to bless anyone that thinks he's an alright guy.

Coming from a personal standpoint - you have said you are a Gentile. Is it to us to believe that a God that once commanded Harem on our fellow Gentiles would ever come to be our Savior? Does this make sense to you? For those Gentiles who do worship Jesus and the Trinity... can they really just forget that? Why? Because he came down and died on a cross? That is his penance? He taught forgiveness because he wished his own in our eyes? That is a lovely story, but I don't think that's the one he's telling. That wasn't an apology to Gentiles... was it? I don't think that's the story that Christians believe it is saying either. At least, no one has ever explained it to me in that way... I don't know that I can continue on in this debate until I resolve myself of that question.

I'll actually go so far right now to say... if you can answer that question in the affirmative, I will concede the entire debate... Was Jesus an apology for all the terrible things that God did to us and commanded Jews to do to one another and to Gentiles? If it was.... then OK, I'll accept that as making sense.

If it wasn't... then I can in no way find, from a personal standpoint, how a person could say that Jesus is the continuation of the Old Testament.... that he was the next chapter... if he wasn't an apology, he was a different path that does not relate to YHWH.

I realize this might be a bit different from the debates you are used to... but I do honestly want answers to these questions... I want my message and understanding to be complete.

I thank you for your time and effort and hope we can do something like this again sometime.... we all have plenty to learn.


I want to remind one thing to the non-Christians on the topic. It is one thing to show what the Biblical theology ‘says’ and it’s another to show how the theology is true. The debate is on the first; on whether the theology of NT suits and fits correctly in OT, is Jesus the same Messiah promised in Hebrew tanakh? I presented good reasons to think he is.

Con misunderstood certain points again. I never meant that there is no concept of the promised Messiah in the tanakh. I said the Jews today reject Jesus by saying he didn’t fulfill the prophesies and criteria; they claim this as if they have a list of prophesy explicitly stating “The Messiah will do this, he will do that” and so on. There is no such list and description of him, rather the prophesies are seen by interpretation. Ancient Rabbis understood many passages to be clear indication of the Messiah, some are allusions; that’s how we find out what are the Messianic prophesies in tanakh. Anti-Missionary Jews obviously ignore the main prophesies and stress some particular ones to deny Jesus. I gave examples from Talmud where Rabbis clearly saw the passage of Daniel 7 was Messianic. Isaiah 6 was also, and you can see some Rabbis even interpretation Isaiah 53 to be alluding to Messiah- This means the objection against Messianic prophesies that the unbelieving Jews give has no weight.

I explained him how John 12:38-41 claims that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, in the passage where Isaiah saw YHWH in Isaiah 6, which proves Jesus the Messiah is YHWH himself according to the New Testament very clearly. Con ignored it again.

Con says it’s his personal grievance that somehow he is not able to accept the God of NT to be same as OT because of conflicting nature. But I explained it from the beginning that such arguments are caused from lack of knowledge of the theology. I said the first and second covenants are two different covenants. First was theocratic in nature limited in geography and the Jewish tribes; God prepared them and taught them about value of divine commands, objective truth and He chose them prepared their bloodline only to send the Son, the Savior, Messiah ultimately, who brings the new covenant of grace. In him was the fulfillment of prophesies and whole Mosaic Law which are incredible evidence for humans as the proof for theology. Through him(Messiah) all nations knew about the God of Abraham. Gentiles receive the salvation becoming the descendants of Abraham through faith (Romans 4). Read Galatians 4, Paul says when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, meaning it was all divine plan of God. Messianic prophesies indicated that all nations will come to light through him Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 2; Isaiah 45:22-23; Isaiah 40:1-11; Isa 42:6; Isa 51:4-5 ; Luke 2:29-32.

God doesn’t show partiality and favoritism to anyone (Rom 2, Galatians 2) read what happened in Acts chapter 2 and 10. God punished everyone when he punishes, he is the author of life, he allows evil and good to let people choose him freely and get salvation. The history of Israel might look way persecuted than any other nation if you compare them. So that objection is really bizarre one based on misunderstanding of the basic theology. That should be easily corrected in the minds of those who thinks anything like the Salvation plan of the Biblical theology was some political agenda of God, to sort out previous conflicts with all nations. I see majority of audience has a huge misconception on the Old Testament problems, please see if you can read “Is God a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan for those objections. Also the basic understanding of the Bible will not lead you to think God suddenly changed plans and came up with a different mindset whatsoever. I encourage you to seek, as Yeshua the Messiah said you will find if you seek.

I enjoyed the debate, hope readers enjoyed as well.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
I thought I did make that clear, that I was constantly trying to say that Jesus =/= YHWH... wasn't I? It was my opponent who was confusing that repeatedly, and I had to continue to remind him that isn't what we were debating.... also I was being nice and generous about his knowledge because I didn't want to insult him on the fact that he didn't understand my argument, even if his depth of knowledge on the general subject was admittedly, more than mine. I kind of wish he would have responded to my "Jesus is an apology" statement in the end, because it's something I want to discover if people feel that way (and I have been asking people, but I don't really know anyone who has the depth of knowledge my opponent appeared to have). Like I said, if we would have responded in the positive, I would have conceded the entire debate... but since he didn't even respond to it (in the affirmative or negative), I don't know how Voting Pro makes sense.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago

I thought this debate was not very organized in directly addressing the resolution. The debate resolution was whether Jews and Christians worshipped the same God. What both sides should have sought to establish first is a framework. Christians do believe in many of the things in the nature of God that Jews do, but they also differ on certain subjects. How much difference is enough to say they don't worship the same God, this is what the framework was suppose to address.

The debate topic is on whether Jews and Christians worship the same God. Most of the debate was argued about a topic that is irrelevant to the resolution:

--> Jesus divinity is mostly irrelevant for the debate, even if Jesus is God and the trinity is true it doesn't mean Jews and Christians worship the same God.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-- Spelling and Grammar --

My vote in this category isn't based on who actually had better on spelling and grammar, but on formatting. Pro's formatting is more superior than Con's especially in the second round. Pro also made better paragraphs and breaks where as Con made breaks (spaces) between every 2-3 sentences of text.

-- Arguments --

Even though most of the debate did not have a sound foundation on which to argue, Pro did make a couple of points which Con conceded. Con also conceded that Con was better and more well-versed. Being courteous is one thing, but to be too courteous implies a kind of concession on Con's part.

The rest I think is tied. The only really relevant source in this debate is the bible.
Posted by Paz 4 years ago
ok, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
thats not true Paz; the debate whether Christianity and Judaism has the same God is judged by testing whether the NT's concept and doctrines match with the Hebrew Bible. The question whether or not the doctrines of Judaism(OT) are true is irrrelevant and the debate is independent from their truths. It's a theological debate where the debaters need to judge NT with respect to OT, the basis is interpretation.
Posted by Paz 4 years ago
I like this debate very much. One angle which I dont see is anthropological data which predates both religion. I feel that using scripture will result in a stalemate unless you both end up agreeing the same thing. I wont give my own opinion here and throw the jury (lol) but the 3 popular religions Judaism, Christian, Islam have the same roots (indisputable since its referenced in all the books), thus there is alot of subject matter to debate there.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
That's no problem at all.
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
I would like to apologize to my opponent for my Round 4 argument... it was hurried and didn't give justice to the effort he has put in to this whole debate.. i was quite hurried.. i hope he can forgive this inexcusable offense... and as he doesn't have much to prove/refute for Round 4, I won't hold anything against him for not putting in as much effort either.. hopefully I will be able to get in the time to give a full thorough conclusion in Round 5 to round up my arguments.. again, I apologize and truly commend my opponent for his time and effort
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
I'm not saying exactly that (though, it certainly would be the case today). It would be in the interest then, of Christians, to no longer confess to following YWHW (or the same God as the Jews) as they currently do. They would remain monotheist (or tri-theistic I guess you can call it? I never figured out the trinity thing) by no longer following YWHW and abandon the Old Testament as it has no barring on their religion, Christianity (besides reference).
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
thanks for a wonderful topic.I will post my first round in around 10hrs. This is to inform you that i will using arguments of Dr Michael Brown, hope u know of him. His debates are there on youtube website is askdrbrown dot org; Radio podcasts I dnt have his books but still i am aware of the common arguments.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
Interesting potential here. I have long maintained that all Christians are atheists or criminally insane. This discussion adds a new element: that those people who say that they think there are gods are not monotheists. That will hurt.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ahmed.M 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Analysis in Comments. UPDATE: When I voted initially I intended to give 4 points to Pro so I shifted some points to neutralize the Votebomb and so the Pro is still ahead by 4 points.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: clear victory for Pro in arguments and more sources too.