The Instigator
JTSmith
Pro (for)
Winning
60 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
53 Points

Like Father Like Son: God's Relationship with Jesus Christ

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,004 times Debate No: 3350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (23)

 

JTSmith

Pro

I am completely dedicated to the idea that the Holy Trinity does not exist, being defined as follows:
"trinity - the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being."

To be more specific, I do not believe that Jesus Christ is in incarnation of God, but an entirely seperate being who is literally the Son of God.

1. Jesus Christ throughout the new testament refers to himself as the Son of God, not god himself. Further more, he refers to god as his father. Now what would be the point in that if Jesus was really God???
2. Jesus repeatedly spoke to God throughout the New Testament. If he is God...then who is he talking to? For example, in Luke 23:46 Jesus speaks to God:

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Why would Jesus look up and commenf his spirit to god if he was god? It doesnt make sense.

3. God himself refers to Jesus as his son. As Jesus is baptized in the river Jordan, god speaks of his son:

Matt.3:16
"And lo a avoice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

God himself speaks of Jesus reffering to him as his beloved Son. Further more he is pleased with him as one being is with another.

4. In Acts 7 Stephen has an experience in which he sees all 3 seperate beings at once.

"But he [stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the bglory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" -- Acts 7:55

Stephen himself sees them all together and as seperate and distinct beings.

These are my starting points. Cant wait for my opponents argument!
Tatarize

Con

I concur that the holy trinity does not exist. However, I disagree that Jesus is an independent creation of God. There is no evidence of a historical Jesus in the first place and God is nothing more than myth.

As there is no God, this topic fails horrifically.
Debate Round No. 1
JTSmith

Pro

Tatarize...
Im not here to debate the existance of Jesus Christ, nor am I here to debate the existence of god.

I want to debate the idea that Jesus Christ ,fact or fiction, is described in the bible to be a seperate being and the literal son of god.

If we were to debate from a strictly biblical source (which is my intention), the existence of God or Jesus Christ doesn't matter. All I'm trying to prove is that Jesus Christ's relationship to the Father in the Bible (again, fact or fiction. It doesn't matter.)should be interpreted differently than most christian denominations interpret it.

If you want to argue the existence of God your going to have to find someone else because thats a debate I dont engage in.
Tatarize

Con

The existence of God is a clear problem with the debate topic. You're resting the entire thing on an unsupported premise.

I understand that your advocacy for Arianism is well supported in the younger texts and the later texts are strongly in favor of Trinitarianism. This is because the earlier books were Arian and the later works Trinitarian. Mark makes no mention of the Trinity and John pretty robust in the doctrine: John 10:30 "I and my Father are one.". Things like Colossians 2:9 "For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." start cropping up.

A full understanding of the Biblical scholarship explains what we see in the text as a whole. Mark was written first perhaps as fiction or based off a general story. The gospels of Matt and Luke adding some details (from Q and M) to the story and fleshing out some of the prophecy requirements (if it says Jesus was born of a virgin add a virgin birth, if it says he'd need to be a direct descendant of David add a genealogy). John pushes a fairly distinct view, written considerably later than the other works.

Arianism was an early heresy of the early church. The earlier books had a different religious understanding than the later books. Trinitarianism finally won out after First Council of Nicaea (the Emperor of Rome had some massive influence even with defining the relationship between Jesus and God and even when the Sabbath should be (remember it and keep it holy (Saturday))). So any argument on the subject is simply going to pit the earlier works against the later works, ignoring the underlying reasons why this occurs: they are fiction.

One could have a lengthy argument as to whether Superman can fly through a star but without a good understanding of bronze age superman and post-crisis superman you aren't going to have a very good debate as both debaters could point out issues where that exact situation occurred and the man of steel could or couldn't do such a thing.

Similar scars shine through with the earlier OT works showing henotheistic (many different gods but this God is our god) patterns where there are clearly many God but this the God of the Israelites is the one you need to worship. The depictions of God in the earlier OT texts contain stray reference to the Elohim (the gods) as well making humans like "us". The story of the Fall under the light of all-powerful all-knowing God doesn't make much sense. However under the light of reasonably powerful deities like those of the various Greek gods the story makes a lot of sense.

Adam and Eve are created and told that if they eat the forbidden fruit they will die. The serpent comes along and says he's lying and you'll know the truth about good and evil. They eat the fruit and the serpent was telling the truth and God was bluffing. He boots them out of the garden in order to make sure they don't eat from the Tree of Life as well and be like the gods. This could be straight from Greek myth where betrayal of gods is possible and common.

The later Pauline application of Original Sin to this story gives it a number of odd twists. Now everybody afterwards, who didn't do anything, are punished for the sins of others. In order to fix this problem God takes human form, lives a perfect life and He sacrifices Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to fix a problem He could have prevented. Because of the blood sacrifice of God to God for the forgiveness by God of crimes against God we can avoid needing to live a perfect life ourselves and exploit this now created loophole. In the end we have an odd barbaric sort of religion which will not punish you for your own sins but will punish you for the sins of other.

The doctrines seem remarkably makeshift and held together by claims which fall apart upon a short review. However all of these things are required for a shift from an Arian view to a Trinitarian. If Jesus is simply a finite creation of God, below God but above the Angels, then the sacrifice of this creation is actually a sacrifice (rather than a day and a half before floating up to sit as his own right hand). Then if we overlook the odd reliance on the notion of blood sacrifice to atone for sins and the crimes of the parents befalling children we start to understand the underlying story and how it came to be.

Which brings us back to my point about the non-existence of God. The Bible bears the scars of early heresies, different texts, beliefs which fell away, and beliefs which became central even after the canon was established (and couldn't incorporate them properly (free will, Trinitarianism, doctrines about Mary). There are a number of notably late additions to the Bible which prooftext the Trinity as well as a number of earlier texts which clearly show Arian influence. These are all exactly what you should see coming out of a slowly developing religious view and an during the evolution of the religion.

The story is clearly established in the way it is to make it conform to Trinitarianism. As such, Trinitarianism is certainly an acceptable view.

By attempting to make on the unacceptable acceptance of a Biblical understanding, the debate itself becomes incoherent. You would be pitting one part of the Bible against another part of the Bible while holding the inerrancy of the Bible itself. The non-existence of God is *CENTRAL* to the topic at hand. I understand the need not to have your beliefs challenged. If I based my life on a house of cards, I wouldn't want people blowing on them either. I care whether or not my beliefs are true and challenge them constantly and rely upon the evidence as that seems to be the best way to accept the most true things and the fewest false things as possible. However, I do ask that you understand that there is considerable importance to the objection I raised to the topic at hand. And, to concede this point is concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
JTSmith

Pro

JTSmith forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Would you prefer Jesus had not died for your sins?

If it came down to it, cleaning your sins in the blood of Jesus, would you nail him to the cross yourself?
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
This was me! huzzah!
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Mangani,

I have not failed to prove my point, you fail to see it. My point is this:

1) The Bible says there is one God. Isa 45:5; 43:10; 44:6,8; etc

2) The Bible says that the Father is God. John 1:1-5

3) The Bible says that the Son is God. John 1:1-5, John 20:28, etc.

4) The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is God. Acts 5:3-4, Cor. 3:17, etc.

5) The Bible teaches that there is one God, but also that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each individually God.

You on the other hand have not even made a point. You say that we today do have a word refering to one almighty God, but what do you mean exactly? Christians capitalize "god" out of respect for Him. When speaking however, one could say "I believe in God", but who is going to know that they mean god with a capital "G"? Nobody. They would then have to clearify. It would have been the same back then. They had only one word for god, so they used that word and expounded on it.

Jesus is said to be "god", the Father is said to be "god", and the Spirit is said to be "god". Yet you can open to almost anywhere in the Bible and find at least one referance to there being onlt one almighty God.

It would follow then, that if you believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, you accept the Trinity doctrine. You would have to, otherwise you would have to believe the Bible contradicted itself.

You have yet to support you claim scripturally. You cannot simply say "the Bible says such-and-such" without backing your claim with scripture referances. So the greeks didn't have a word for almighty God... so what? they can use the somple word for god just as easily. I will go through my points one more time...

1) The Bible says there is one God.

2) The Bible says that the Father is God.

3) The Bible says that the Son is God.

4) The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is God.

5) The Bible teaches that there is one God, yet calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit God.

Renz
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Renzzy,

The fact that someone speaks a language does not change the philosophy of the language. Again, you fail to prove your point. Just because the Jews, who were monotheistic, spoke Greek does not mean they "created" a word meaning "God" in the "One Almighty God" sense of the word as they themselves DID have. Because of this they intentionally left distinctions within the grammar and context. If the meaning of the word was not questionable, there would not have been people advocating for either side FROM THE BEGINNING.

As for your theory about the statement "I believe in God"- modern English, and more importantly American vernacular English was developed under monotheistic culture. That's why you capitalize God- which one wouldn't do if they believe in various "gods". So like I said- you have still failed to prove your point.
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
Encyclopedia Britannica, cites "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus"

There are more. You can find them better then me. I don't know where to find solid facts that are unpredjudiced either way. If you could tell me those sites I would be most indebted to you.

YOu won't change your theories, I cannot imagine living life thinking there is no afterlife. Why would you even be on here, not doing something dramatic or living life to the fullest. I will not be budged from the absolute truth of the Bible. If there is no solid ground, we have societies like ours now. I believe in hope, love and absolutes. If I have said anything that you feel degrades you, please inform me and my deepest apologies. I just speak what must be said.
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
Tatarize,

I understand you hate God to your core and everything related to Him, because you don't see Him working or how He could possibly exist. However, the argument was on the validity of the Trinity, not the existence of God.

As to your remarks on the Fall of Man, God gave us something special. He gave us the Freedom of Choice. That means we, humankind, can choose what we want to do with our lives. Adam and Eve, having walked with God on the trails and paths of Eden, did not doubt the existence of God, but rather, wanted more, a bane that all people suffer from. Regardless, God knew what was going to happen. He knows all. God let all this happen, because he gave us the Freedom of Choice. He didn't want a bunch of mindless robots running around the Earth, doing whatever He told them to.

What makes you confident in the fact that God is nonexistent? Is it because you haven't seen Him at work? Or is it because, "there isn't enough supporting arguements on the existence of God"?

What are your reasons for the impurity of the Bible? Why do you discredit them? All I hear is you dismissing other religions, but you don't back up those statements with truth. Of course, do you believe that truth is "relative", if so, please, forget that point.

Why do disbeleive that Jesus never walked on the earth? Is just too improbable, or is it because, "there isn't enough evidence"?

A well respected historian, a Roman non-Christan by the name of Cornelius Tacitus, during the Fire of Rome, when widespread use of torture on Christians was the norm, cites "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus"(15:44) There are others as well. You know your stuff. You are extremely intelligent. Jesus existed, if he existed, he was not a goo man. He was either the Son of God, or he was an impostor and liar.

New page.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
John 1 says that The Word (refering to Jesus) WAS infact God, yet the Bible makes it clear that there is only one God. The JW's as well as Calvinists accept God the Father as God, yet the Bible teaches only one God. Three distinct persons, yet only one God. The fact that pantheistic greeks used the word "theos" differantly makes no differance at all.

You have yet to counter me scripurally. You have used one argument, and that simply says that theos could be refering to any god, in which case the Father, the Son, and that Holy Spirit could be three different Gods. I have already showed verses that can get around that relatively weak argument. If you can show me verses that say anything about the three not being one God, please put them out, and I will do my best to counter.

Thanks, Renzzy
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Mangani,

May I point out that the language spoken by the men who penned the bible was koine greek; the language in which I do some studying of the Bible.

The Jews spoke hebrew, but they also spoke greek, which was the common language of the time, and penned the New Tesement in koine greek. Are you saying that the Jews were not monotheistic? I should certainly hope not, because if you are, you are sadly mistaken. Whether or not the men who wrote the Bible had a word that would directly translate refering to one supreme God does not matter, because we don't even have a word like that today. We can say "I believe in God", but you are being completely ambiguous as to what god you are refering to. This is why one would expound on what they mean by "god".

The men who wrote the Bible, then, would do the same thing. They would use the common word fora god, in this case "theos" and expound on it in order to explain what exactly "god" means.

Remember, we are not refering to the greeks that invented the olympic games, but we are refering to the JEWS who simply SPOKE greek. Just because pantheists invented the word does not mean it can't be used by monotheists in such a way as to refer to one God.

Can you simply say that I am wrong without trying to counter my verses? You say that the JW's proved that the word "theos" does not refer THE God, but rather to A god. Well, what about the verse that says "I and the Father are one"? What about the verse that tells us if we lie to the Holy Spirit we are lying to God? Don't these tell us in plain ENGLISH that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, refering to THE God? Do you think that Peter, the one who told them they were lying to God would not be refering to THE God? Peter believed that Jesus was God, and that He came from God the Father, who was still in heaven. Peter told Ananias and Saphira that they had lied to God, and this tells us that The Holy spirit is in fact God, when the Bible says there is only one God. ...
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Renzzy,

You have failed to prove your point. You have provided no biblical references to the trinity. You have also failed to connect any theology behind the trinity to Judaism. Anybody can interpret the words translated as "god" for their own purpose. I could contend that the Greeks really didn't have an equivalent word because they believed in many "gods", and therefore a word used to discribe an Omnipotent, Individual God would not exist, and so their understanding of the word "god" is not equal to that of monotheists who believe God to be the creator.

Knowing the "philosophy behind the language" allows us to better interpret the word. We can compare to other languages used throughout biblical texts, ie. Hebrew, and compare similar words, but from the point of view of a monotheist. The word Elohim, for example, has been translated as "God", "gods", and "sons of God" on seperate occasions throughout the Old Testament. With all three meanings the same word is used, but it is the context where we derive our definition.

With that, logic would have the translator take this into consideration and apply the same philosophy, at least if not that of the Greeks who were NOT monotheistic, and we would at least come up with Jesus's own references to being a "god" and the prophets being "gods"- ""Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John10:34-36).

The Jehova Witnesses have long since pointed out that logic in translating the words "theos" and "ho theos". Rebuttals to that logic claim that the greek language doesn't "require" those translations, but these people ignore the fact that the Greeks were not monothoesitic and therefore could not have a word for a singular Almighty God.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Mangani,

There are in fact scriptural referances where Jesus is said to be God, but you cannot always find them by looking simply into the NKJ or NIV translations. If you would look into the origional greek, you will find that in many places it refers to Jesus as plural, and as being God. Take for example John 1:1. You don't even need to go into the greek to ifgure thaht one out. What what about John 20:28? In this verse Thomas addresses Jesus saying "...my Lord, my God!". In the greek, the word for God is "Theos", translated "God". This greek word is in some places translatd as "Jehovah", or "Yahweh", which are also names for God. Clearly Thomas recognizes The deity of Jesus and His equality with God the Father.

Having said this, we must recognize Jesus and the Father as equaly God, but what about the Holy Spirit? Well, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and is therefore equally God. Acts 5:3-4 says that if you lie to the Holy Spirit, you are lying to God, and 2 Corinthians 3:17 says that "the Lord is the Spirit".

Are they all one? Well, in James 2:19 it says there is but one God. "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.". In addition to this, God says many times "I am God and there is no other", like in Isaiah 45:18. Jesus Himself also says that "I and the Father are one.", meaning that they are both equally God. Here are a few more referances to there only being one God.

"THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" (Deut 6:4; 4:35,39; 32:39; Mk 12:29) "I AM THE LORD AND THERE IS NO OTHER" (Isa 45:5; 43:10; 44:6,8; etc)"THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDES ME" (2 Sam 7:22; 22:32; Neh 9:6; Jer 10:10-11) "THERE IS ONE GOD" (Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; James 2:19) "THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BUT ONE" (1 Cor 8:4; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6) "THE ONLY TRUE [WISE] GOD" (John 17:3; Rom 16:27; 1 Tim 1:17; Jude 25)

These verses make it clear that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit area all one God.

Renz
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Ironduke,

The problem with your statements is that they are not supported by biblical texts. I don't see the point in believing in something presented by a religious body (Christianity) based on a book (the bible) yet contradicts the bible. You can "look" at the trinity however you want, but the FACT is that no belief in the trinity is supported by biblical text. Christianity is supposed to be based on Judaism, but the Trinity contradicts EVERY belief in God throughout Hebrew history. When claiming to be a Christian, which Christ was a devout Jew, your beliefs must pass the litmus test of Judaism. The Trinity does not.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
JTSmithTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70