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

The Bible Does NOT say that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,222 times Debate No: 29618
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)




Being raised in first a Lutheran church and then a Baptist church, I was brought up in the doctrines of Christianity. I was taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that Jesus was God in the flesh, and that when someone died they went to either Heaven or Hell.

In my last two years of school, I took New Testament Greek as an elective study. It didn't take too long before I began to see that many of the assumptions I had about the Bible were indeed false.

It began with the teachings of my preacher. There were times when he would tell his congregation the meaning of a word in the Bible, but he would be very wrong, though his flock didn't know the difference.

Some years later, I found myself faced with the challenge of proving to a friend the divinity of Jesus. I must admit that I became a bit distraught upon finding that the evidence was rather lacking. Searching as best as I could, I found that many of the verses I had learned for the subject at hand only worked best if they came from the King James version and were taken out of context.

I decided that I would do an objective study on the topic. I first tried to disprove the divinity of Christ, which I discovered was surprisingly easy. When it came time to prove Christ's divinity, as before, I found it near to impossible. It took a lot of resistance, but after about a year, I accepted that the only reasonable thing was to go with what the Bible really says, instead of what I had been told for many years.

After all that I have seen in my study of the New Testament's original language, I have concluded that it is impossible for me to ever believe that Jesus and God are the same. And my despair slowly started to take a turn, as I looked upon the churches of today and beheld the people who claimed to be of God simply absorbing their pastors' words without question.

You see, with an estimated 44,000 different denominations of Christianity all supposedly based on the Bible, every denomination cannot possibly be a reflection of what the Bible really says. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong. So how, I wondered, could a person feel so confident in his or her Christian faith?

In the years since my discovery about Jesus, I have tried to tell other Christians the truth. Sadly, their tendency is to become defense and get angry at me. I think this is because one's set of beliefs form a huge chunk of their identity, so if I were to expose some of their deep-seated beliefs as lies, it would force them to question other assumptions in their lives and reflect harder on the nature of reality, which can be a very scary thought for some.

Here I wish to publicly debate what the Bible really says about Jesus. Is this Almighty God in the flesh? To me, all evidence says that he is not. I am looking to see if there is someone who would take up the challenge of proving me wrong, and thus save the so-called Christian mainstream from my accusation of blasphemy, for it is indeed blasphemous to say that Jesus is God if he is not.

These are the rules laid out for this debate:

1. Arguments must be drawn from the Bible, not simply from one's reason. After all, this debate is ultimately about what the Bible truly says.

2. The King James version cannot be used to make an argument for Jesus being God. This is because I recently finished a debate on the validity of the KJV and showed why it is perhaps the worst version to use if one is interested in what the original writers of the Bible were saying. You can view that debate here:

3. Join this debate only if you plan to stick around for its five rounds. My opponent bailed on my last debate and made it a bit of a dud. I want this to be as challenging and as educational as possible.

4. This first round is mainly for introduction. Arguments will begin in the next round.

5. I needn't say this, but both sides are expected to treat each other with respect and act in an honorable fashion. No name-calling and profanities, please.

Alright, I look forward to debating someone. Who will accept the challenge of defending this major tenant of the Christian church?


I accept the debate and the terms set forth by Pro. I have read Pro's story and have found many points that I am eager to discuss. I certainly hope that we will both learn something and that those watching the debate will do so with open minds, and hopefully, their faith will be strengthened. Since first round is for acceptance I will wait for Pro to post an opening argument.
I ask the Lord's blessing on both of us, as well those watching the debate!
Debate Round No. 1


I truly thank Gordontrek for accepting the challenge of this debate. I pray that the truth of what the Bible really says comes forward here, even if the truth is for my opponent.
Please keep in mind that some of my arguments stem from the Greek text of the New Testament, which effectively renders many translations moot, as you may later see. Unfortunately, the dogmas of mainstream Christianity affect the way in which certain words and phrases are translated.

The very first place most folks usually point to when in this discussion is John 1:1. The gospel of John deserves its own round, so I plan to get to it in round 4.

Once John is set aside, we face a little problem with the doctrine of Christ being God in the flesh, namely that the three other gospels say nothing to suggest it.

For those who believe in the Trinity doctrine, I suppose one could point to the conversation between Gabriel and Mary in Luke 1. There, most translations have Gabriel telling Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you...". If your Bible version is honest about the words added to the text, the word "The" before "Holy Spirit" is in italics. In fact, there is no Greek word there that can be translated as "the". In other words, Gabriel is telling Mary that a holy spirit will come upon her. Now continuing with the verse, it reads, "...therefore the child to be born will be holy, and he will be called Son of God." You see, as Paul later talks about, Jesus was a holy spirit in Heaven with God. Thus it is reasonable to say that Jesus would also be holy after his birth. Also, take note of how the verse says that Jesus will be called son of God. The Greek says this not as a command, but as a future action. Gabriel does not say that Jesus would be son of God, just that he would be called as such.

As I say in the comments section, claiming that God is your father does not make one equal with God. According to Paul, all of those who trust on God are his sons (and daughters). Are we then equal to God as well?

When Jesus uses the term "son of man", this can actually have several meanings, but I will focus on two. The first, which is used within many churches, is that this term is Jesus referring to himself in a prophetic sort of way, pulling the title from the Scripture books of Daniel and Ezekiel. However, I hold to the second view, that Jesus was using it as a way to show that the works he did were given to all men. The Greek literally means "the son of the human (race)".
An example of this can be found in Matthew 9. After Jesus heals the paralytic, verse 8 says, "When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings."
Taking a verse from John to further support this, I quote 14:12 &13: "Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
So then, his works did not show equality to God if these works were also given to those who trust in God. I point out too that both Elijah and Peter raised someone from the dead through God's power; therefore, not even Jesus' raising of dead people show him to be God.

I also want to discuss the meaning of a word. Jesus did not ask his disciples to "follow" him. The Greek word, AKOLOUTHEO, is literally translated "accompany". In other words, he did not want Peter, Andrew, James, John to follow him; he wanted them to walk along the way with him. This shows him not as being above them, but seeing himself equal to them. They were disciples who were meant to take his place when he left.

In all three of the synoptic gospels, Jesus asks his disciple who they say that he is. If they believed Jesus to be God, I'm sure Peter would have said as much. But instead, Peter's claim was, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God!"

Now, what do Peter's words mean? As it turns out, this is not a claim of Jesus being God; it is instead a messianic claim of Jesus' right to the throne of David. Let me explain.
The Greek word for Christ is KhRISTOS, and it is equal the Hebrew word MSHYKh, which refers to a consecrated person and is normally translated "anointed" in the KJV, except for in Daniel where "messiah" is used twice in prophecy. The first King of Israel, Saul, was a Christ (using Christian terminology), because he was anointed by God through Samuel. David also was a Christ, and for the very same reason. In other words, both Saul and David are refered to in Scripture as being God's anointed one. Not only so, but David, being king of Israel, was also called "son of God". God even supposedly calls him that! In Psalm 2:7, David says, "Let me tell of the decree: YHWH said to me, 'You are My son; I have fathered you this day'."
The title "Son of God" is a title for the anointed king of Israel. To say that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God is to say that Jesus is Israel's rightful king. You will find that it is on this line that much of the argument against him falls. Only in the gospel of John do we see others thinking that Jesus is claiming to be God. I tend to stick with the idea of there needing to be two or more witnesses in the case of such an important matter, but like I said, we'll get to John later.

You will also see that Jesus never claims to have any power of his own. Let's look at Matthew 28:18. It reads, "And Jesus came and said unto them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'." So here's my question: if Jesus is God, how could such authority be given to him? Did God give Himself authority over heaven and earth? I will touch more on this within the next couple of rounds.

I'm done in the synoptic gospels for now, so I wish to touch on something else in the space I have left.
The Holy Spirit is not a person. It is not a he nor a she. In the Greek text, the words PNEUMA HAGIOS are neuter, effectively making the holy spirit an it. The Greek word PNEUMA correctly refers to a current, mainly whether of air or of energy. In most Bibles it is usually translated as either "wind", "breath", "spirit", or "ghost", depending on the Bible version and the context of the word. So for it to drive Jesus into the wilderness or carry Philip to the eunuch, the holy spirit acts as a current of God's will. It is how His power is channeled through His people to perform what are called miracles.
The word HAGIOS is usually translated "holy", but in relation to the people of God, it's usually rendered "saint", as in, a holy one. It could therefore be correct in Mark 1:24 for the unclean spirit to call Jesus "the saint of God", but translators tend to want to separate Jesus from other people. HAGIOS is contrasted with that which is unclean, though the meaning of purity is only implied. The Greek meaning is one of sanctification and consecration, which ultimately is a setting apart of a person or thing for God's purpose. It could perhaps be correct, then, to translate PNEUMA HAGIOS as "sacred current", but that does sound a little horrid.
And as a side note, the Hebrew term is also not masculine, but feminine. Hebrew, like the Latin languages, does not have a neuter, so all things must be either masculine or feminine, even inanimate things. This carries into Greek where the sun is masculine and the moon is feminine, which fits in with pagan belief. So the Hebrews saw God as masculine and the "holy spirit" as feminine. When the Greek language came along, the "holy spirit" became an it. Only when the Hebrew and Greek were translated into Latin for the Catholic church did the holy spirit become masculine.
This in itself throws the "Trinity" into question, as God is clearly not three persons. So now we are down to two, and my hope is to show that God is One, and Jesus is merely a servant who was chosen to have authority over all because of his obedience.


I will go ahead and make my refutations.

In my opponent's first main paragraph, he quotes the conversation between Gabriel and Mary. Gabriel says "The Holy Spirit will come upon you.." If I interpret my opponent's argument correctly, I assume that he is saying that this verse claims Jesus WILL BE the Holy Spirit, and makes the argument that the verse only says that a Holy Spirit will come upon Mary.
The Holy Spirit, in the Trinity doctrine, is believed to be the entity that God uses to either move the spirits of men towards God or to carry out God's will. In this context, then, then Holy Spirit refers to the entity that will carry out God's will, not the Holy Child himself.

Going further:

"take note of how the verse says that Jesus will be called son of God. The Greek says this not as a command, but as a future action. Gabriel does not say that Jesus would be son of God, just that he would be called as such."

I would ask my opponent: What difference does it make if God only says he will be CALLED the Son of God? As Christians, we have no doubt that GOD MEANS WHAT HE SAYS. Am I wrong in making this statement? If God calls Jesus the Son of God, then He IS the Son of God. Matthew 4:4: "But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (NASB)

"So then, his works did not show equality to God if these works were also given to those who trust in God. I point out too that both Elijah and Peter raised someone from the dead through God's power; therefore, not even Jesus' raising of dead people show him to be God."

Did Peter and Elijah ever claim to be God? Did anybody in the Bible ever say that Peter and Elijah were Divine? Isaiah speaks quite clearly about the Divinity of Jesus: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Do we ever see Isaiah offering prophecies about the divinity of Elijah and Peter?
The ability to perform miracles through God's power does not necessarily indicate equality with God in that He gave certain disciples the ability to work them. What shows that Jesus is equal with God is the authority that God gave to Jesus, which far surpasses the ability to work miracles. Jesus is the Intercessor between God and Man, and it is through His blood that we receive eternal life in heaven. Were Elijah and Peter ever granted these abilities?

"The Greek word, AKOLOUTHEO, is literally translated "accompany". In other words, he did not want Peter, Andrew, James, John to follow him; he wanted them to walk along the way with him. This shows him not as being above them, but seeing himself equal to them. They were disciples who were meant to take his place when he left."

I question my opponent's sources here. According to the Greek Lexicon, the literal translation of Akoluthei (seen in Mark 10:21) is indeed "to follow." The origin of this word comes from "keleuthos" which refers to a road or a way. In this context, I believe the word "way" refers to the Way of Christ.

Referring to Peter's words to Jesus: "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God!" my opponent has said:

"As it turns out, this is not a claim of Jesus being God; it is instead a messianic claim of Jesus' right to the throne of David."

In addition:

"The first King of Israel, Saul, was a Christ (using Christian terminology), because he was anointed by God through Samuel."

My opponent appears to be saying that those who hold the throne of David can be referred to as a "christ," since the Greek word translates as "annointed." He goes on to say that David was even called a son of God in Psalm 2:7. That the word "christ" could also be used as a generic term is an interesting fact. You learn something new every day!
It should be noted that we are ALL sons and daughters of God, and I believe that my opponent would agree with this. However, Jesus is THE son of God, not simply a son of God. We all believe that God is THE God, correct? The generic word "god" is different from the word when it is referring to the God of the Bible. The same should be true when the word "son" is used to refer to THE Son of God.
Applying this same principle, it is reasonable to say that Jesus is THE ultimate Christ. As he is referred to, Jesus is King of Kings, or "Christ of Christs."

"You will also see that Jesus never claims to have any power of his own."

Why would Jesus need to if He is God? My opponent quotes Matthew 28:18, in which Jesus states that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Him. My opponent questions whether or not Jesus could be God if Jesus' authority was given to him.
You see, God BECAME A HUMAN in Jesus. In this verse, Jesus is saying that God gave authority to a human being, and in this case, that human was Jesus.

On to my opponent's case about the Holy Spirit.
He says that the Hebrew language does not have neutral terms when referring to gender, so even inanimate objects become masculine or feminine. The Holy Spirit, he says, was not actually referred to as masculine until the translation for the Catholic Church.
I fail to see why this "throws the 'trinity' into question." Just because the Holy Spirit was linguistically referred to as feminine does not mean that God and the Holy Spirit are completely separate. They are both divine entities, and thus do not have a specific gender. We have always referred to God as "He", yet we all know that He is neither male nor female.

Finally, I would like to make a short case for the actual divinity of Jesus. I would like to refer my opponent to Hebrews 1:8.
"But about the Son he says: Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of the kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." (NIV)
How could Jesus not be God, if Jesus is being addressed AS God BY God?? Consider also Philippians 2:6, which says that Jesus is God by nature?

An online Bible Lexicon source:
Debate Round No. 2


Con raised some good points, so I will address them before I go further.

I was saying that Jesus was not born of the holy spirit, but a holy spirit. There are many holy spirits in Heaven surrounding God’s throne. As far as Gabriel saying that Jesus would be called son of God, I was talking semantics, that this was a prophecy or sorts and not a command.

Isaiah 9:6--I will show later how it is possible to be a god but not the God. I accept that Jesus may properly be a deity of sorts, but that he is Almighty God is what I argue against.

AKOLUTHEI--Two sources are STRONG’S Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, both of which being tools in many pastors’ libraries. The “A” prefix to the root word is used here as a particle denoting union. The verb means to be in the same way with, or even more literally to road with, which has no meaning of following. Simple, biased definitions are not the best ones to accept. Therefore, I stand by my explanation of Jesus calling his disciples to walk along with him, or accompany him, in the way. It’s best to check as many sources as possible before coming to your conclusions.

And actually, in Hebrew and Greek, the words for "God" are the same when talking about "a god" or "the God". In Hebrew, ELOHIYM (normally translated “God” in reference to THE God) is plural, so some pastors claim that this in in reference to God being three persons. However, ELOHIYM is also used in reference to Baal-Berith (Judg 9:46), Dagon (I Sam 5:7), Chemosh & Milcom (I Kings 11:13), Baal-Zebub (II Kings 1:3), and several others. So that teaching falls apart.
In Greek, THEOS is used for the God, as well as Jesus and Satan (II Cor 4:3-4). The feminine is used for Diana in Acts.

My point about the holy spirit was that the Jews (at least in the centuries around the time of Jesus) saw the holy spirit as an it, an inanimate thing with no life. The Greek neuter of PNEUMA HAGIOS makes this holy spirit as full of life as a table or wall. Thus, it is not a person.

Hebrews 1:8--I'm glad you brought this up! This verse is a quote of Psalm 45:6-7. You must look at these verses in their context with the rest of the Psalm. This is a Psalm about King David, which is evident by the language used: it talks about the sword on his hip (vs 3), his arrows (vs 5), the smell of his garments (vs 8), his daughters and queen (vs 9), and it speaks of virgins and the resulting sons (vss 10-16). This is NOT God calling Jesus His son, though God did do as such at Jesus' baptism (Mk. 1:11).

This allows me to tie in with the last point. While THEOS is used in Heb 1:8, ELOHYIM is used here in Ps 45:6, and in reference to David. This is very important. David was referred to as a god, which explains the part that says “Therefore, ELOHYIM, your ELOHYIM…” (vs 7); it’s to stress that this is talking about David’s god, not David himself. But you see, it takes an understanding of the original words to grasp this meaning:

Our English word "god" ultimately comes from a verb root meaning to invoke/call. In the same way, while the surface meaning of ELOHYIM and THEOS accurately refers to a deity, the deeper meaning allows that the deity to not be supernatural. Have you ever heard of a woman referred to as a diva? It’s the same root word. Ultimately, the Hebrew words refer to a mighty one, and in fact, ELOHYIM is sometimes translated as such. Therefore, it wasn’t blasphemous to refer to David as a “god”, nor was it (as Jesus points out in John 10) blasphemous for David to refer to men as gods (Ps 82). As I pointed out earlier, Satan is called “the god of this age”. So if Satan could be called a god, and Jesus is the heir to the throne of David but over a MUCH larger kingdom now, surely so could Jesus be called a god! But my argument is that Jesus is not the God, just as David was not the God. This helps explain what Thomas was saying in John 20:28.

For an easier understanding of this, let’s look at the Greek word KURIOS. It is equal to the Spanish word senior. It could mean “lord”, as in a being of great power or wealth (Lord God; lord of Scotland); or it may mean “sir” or “mister”. THEOS works in the same way.

(You see, this topic takes one having to think outside of the usual church-speak.)

Before I get into anything else, let’s discuss “God the Father”. Not once in the Greek do you find this phrase. It is always THEOS PATER (in its different case forms). The “the” is added. By the rules of Greek grammar, this is more accurately “Father God”, which is in line with how the Greeks referred to Zeus, ZEU PATER (“Father Zeus”), becoming in Latin “IUPITER”, and then “Jupiter” in English.

So when you learn the correct term, it becomes easy to see in the Greek that God is the Father, and the Father is God. The Son is the son.

Next I direct you to the beginning of nearly every epistle. Usually within the first 10 verses or so, you find something like this: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (II Cor. 1:2,3) Notice how the second sentence says “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” You find this separation of God and Jesus toward the start of most epistles.

Revelation 1:1 reads, “A revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his slaves things which must occur in haste…” So God gave the resurrected Jesus this revelation. Jesus was no longer an earthly human at this point, yet even here we see a separation between him and God. Vs 2: "the word of God and the witness of Jesus Christ". Also notice the language of vss 4-6.

Let's look in the book of Acts. Peter's sermon in chapter 2 clearly lays everything out. Pay attention to the wording used.

Verse 22 "Men, Israelites, hear these words: Jesus, the Nazorean, a man attested to you from God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you as you yourselves know--"

Verse 24 says that God raised Jesus from the dead. This is the formula throughout the New Testament. Not once does it say that Jesus raised himself. (Acts 2:22-24, 32, 13:30; Rom 10:9; I Cor 6:14, 15:15; II Cor 4:14; Colos 2:12; Heb 13:20-21).

Something else I wish to point out is that the churches usually say that Jesus now sits on the right hand of the Father. However, this is not the language of the Bible. Acts 2:33 says that Jesus was "exalted to the right of God". (5:30-31 also says that God exalted Jesus.) In 7:55-56, it says twice that Stephen saw Jesus "standing at God's right". (Colos 3:1; Heb 10:11-12; and I Pet 3:22.) Not once does the Bible say that Jesus is at the right of the Father.

In vs 36 of Acts 2, speaking of Jesus, Peter says, "Then assuredly, let all House Israel know that God made him both Lord and Anointed One, this same Jesus whom you crucified."

In the last round I forgot to mention that in all three of those gospels, Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but one--God." (Matt 19:16-17; Mk 10:17-18; Luke 18:18-19) This alludes to him not himself being God.

We also see separation of God and Jesus in places such as I Tim 2:3-5, 5:21, 6:13; Rom 16:25-27; I Cor 8:4-6 ("many gods and many lords"); Eph 4:4-6; Phil 1:11, 2:11; Colos 3:17; Heb 1:1-4 (vs 4 says that Jesus became superior to the angels, implying that at one time he was not); Jude 1, 25.

Earlier I said that God
is the Father, and the Father is God. Further evidence is in the very last verse of II Corinthians:
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the holy spirit be with you all".
So we see not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but Jesus, God, holy spirit. Interesting.

There are other things to look into. Before this is over, I will deal with the second chapter of Philippians and the book of John.

Before I go, I give you a little bit of homework. Carefully compare I Timothy 3:16 in the KJV with any modern translation (besides the NKJV). You will see what has helped perpetuate the lie concerning who Jesus is. It really is quite sinister.



I'll start with my opponent's claims about the Gabriel/Mary conversation.
First of all, there is only ONE Holy Spirit. I would ask my opponent to clarify what he means by "many holy spirits surrounding God's throne." If you are referring to the souls of men in heaven, then you should realize that the souls of men are not on the same level with the Holy Sprit. Even if there is no Greek word in Luke 1:35 for "the," it does not matter, since there is only one Holy Spirit that the Bible could possibly be referring to.

Going further, the Bible makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person.
In Acts 13:2, the lifeless, dead-as-a-doorknob spirit
speaks to the teachers and prophets at Antioch and refers to himself as I. "While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." The Greek word for "said" is "legó," which does means "to say." Also you must read Romans 8:27: "And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will."
This is rock solid evidence that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, because a. He can speak, and 2. He has a mind of his own. With this said, I do not see how it makes any difference if the Greek text refers to Him as masculine, feminine, or in this case, neuter.

On to the word AKOLUTHEI. Pro mentions two sources, Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. I believe that my opponent's claims that Jesus simply asked his disciples to accompany him come from Thayer's. As to my point, consider the actual definition in Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
1. To follow one who precedes, joins him as his attendant, accompany him
2. To join one as a disciple, become of be his disciple
2a. to side with his party

Of course, I want to focus on the second definiton. There can be little doubt that this is the definition of the Greek word used in the verse. Even if it actually is the first one, it would make little difference, since first part of the definition is "TO FOLLOW one who precedes." Notice also that the definition says to "join him as his attendant." Webster's Dictionary defines an attendant as "one who attends another to perform a SERVICE." Does this not imply the disciple's inferiority? Whichever definition is actually used in the original Greek, it doesn't matter- they both do indeed imply that the disciples were following Jesus, not only accompanying.

"However, ELOHIYM is also used in reference to Baal-Berith (Judg 9:46), Dagon (I Sam 5:7), Chemosh & Milcom (I Kings 11:13), Baal-Zebub (II Kings 1:3), and several others. So thatteaching falls apart."
I again question my opponent's sources. According to Strong's reference, Dagon has his own Hebrew word (dagown) in I Samuel 5:7, Berith does as well in Judges 9:46, AND Chemosh and Milcom in II Kings 23:13 (not I Kings 11:13) aaand in II Kings 1:3, Baal-Zebub has his own as well. ELOHYIM is not used even once in reference to these "gods." ELOYHIM is the Hebrew word for God, of course, and since it is plural there is indeed allowance for a Holy Trinity.

Now, in reference to Psalm 45:

"This is a Psalm about King David, which is evident by the language used: it talks about the sword on his hip (vs 3), his arrows (vs 5), the smell of his garments (vs 8), his daughters and queen (vs 9), and it speaks of virgins and the resulting sons (vss 10-16)."

It is clear by reading the psalm that the first five verses are about David. Verse 6 through at least verse 9 are clearly about God. The reason being: it is clear that ELOHYIM is used only in reference to God, so there is no way that David is being addressed as such. Had verse 6 actually been about David then the inspired writer would not have used God's name.
In addition, verse 6 says that God's kingdom will last "for ever and ever." David's kingdom was an earthly kingdom, and therefore could never last for eternity. In verse 9, it says "Daughters of kings..." These kings, of course, are earthly kings. The verse says that these daughters are "among your honored women," meaning God's honored women.

On to my opponent's claims about the openings of the epistles.

"Notice how the second sentence says “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” You find this separation of God and Jesus toward the start of most epistles."

I wouldn't call this a separation, at least not in the sense that it appears to be. This is simply a restatement of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Think of it this way: God, a perfect being, took on the form of an imperfect human. Since God is omnipresent, you could say that "part" of his existence was in the form of a human. It is clear that some kind of "separation" is required here, since God and imperfection have nothing to do with each other (that's why God offers us forgiveness for our imperfect nature). Paul must, therefore, be speaking of Jesus Christ in the flesh, who was God in the form of an imperfect human.

That same point applies to my opponent's claims about Revelation, albeit in a slightly different manner. Recall that Jesus is the intercessor between God and man. The verse is simply saying that the Intercessor is speaking to his servants for once instead of the other way around, which happens when we pray.
Going on to verses 22 and 24: again, it refers to the physical form of Jesus.

"Not once does the Bible say that Jesus is at the right of the Father."
So the Father isn't God, then?

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but one--God." (Matt 19:16-17; Mk 10:17-18; Luke 18:18-19) This alludes to him not himself being God."

Modern translations (which my opponent claims are more accurate) usually have Jesus asking "Why do you ask me about what is good" but some verses do have Jesus asking why they call him good. There were many "false prophets" that the Jews had seen before Jesus came. Most assuredly they all claimed that they themselves were gods, and imagine what would have happened if Jesus had flat-out claimed to be a god or God. They already knew that he claimed to be equal with God since he said that he was the Son of God.

My opponent also cites several verses that he claims show separation of God and Jesus. I will not address all of them in the interests of saving space, but I will look at Hebrews 1:4. It may seem slightly disturbing to think about- but at one time Jesus was inferior to the angels- He bore the sins of mankind on the Cross! He virtually became sin, and all heaven was therefore separate from Him. Then after all sins were washed away He arose, and, as the verse says, inherited a superior name to the angels, that is, His position as the Intercessor!

"So we see not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but Jesus, God, holy spirit. Interesting."

Matthew 28:19- "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This clarifies that all three are One; why would the disciples be commanded to baptize men into the names of all three? If they were separate, and Jesus were simply a messenger, you would not be commanded to baptize into the Son's name, nor the Holy Spirit's.

I did my homework as you said, and I do not see much difference in the KJV and the modern translations (I used the NIV for comparison). I can take a guess though: the KJV says "God was manifest in the flesh" and the NIV says "He appeared in a body." In context, the verses leading up to verse 16 in any translation involve God, and it is reasonable to say that verse 16 is the same context.

Debate Round No. 3


I made a mistake bringing up the holy spirit. This debate is about Jesus, who he is and who he isn't. Still, I will answer my opponent.

Is it not true that the angels are holy (Matt 25:31) and that they are spirits (Ps 104:4)? Thus they are holy spirits, so your claim of there being only one is wrong. To say that there is only one holy spirit the Bible is referring to in Luke 1, and to disregard the Greek of the NT, is to set aside what the Bible says to fit your own view. I work off the Bible, not my own assumptions and beliefs.

Alright, I must say that I misrepresented my view on the holy spirit in the last round. I was so focused on the neuter form of the Greek, so I will amend myself here. I do not believe this holy spirit is dead as a doorknob. I've already said that the holy spirit is the active will of God working through people, so therefore it must be alive just as God is alive. That the holy spirit is grouped with the Father and Son does mean that it could be a separate entity from the Father, but I still disagree with calling it a person.

As for your argument on AKOLUTHEI: I refuse to explain it further. I've studied NT Greek for over a decade, and you' re trying to argue from basic definitions you find online. I broke down the word in the previous round, so I can't do it any further.

It's apparent that you misunderstood what I was saying about ELOHIYM referencing these other gods. Of course they have their own names in the Hebrew! I'm talking about the English word "god" in reference to it being the Hebrew ELOHIYM. Check out the word for "god" used in those verses in your STRONG'S. Maybe it was my fault for not clarifying that.

This being said, we see that ELOHYIM is indeed used for others beside the God. I suggest con checks out
for more info on the usage of this Hebrew word. I just found it in a search, and it explains things plainly.

See the Hebrew word for "god" in Ex 7:1. ELOHYIM here is applied to Moses. (KJV adds "as", thus why it's italicized.)

We must remove assumption from this argument and be objective. While I point out what the Bible is saying in Greek, con prefers to use his opinions to explain things. When the Gk text reads APO THEOU PATROS HEMON KAI KURIOU IESOU XRISTOU in II Cor 1:2, it is literally saying "from the God, our father, and Lord Yeshua Anointed". Verse 3: EULOGETOS HO THEOS KAI PATER TOU KURIOS HEMON IESOU XRISTOU, "Adorable is the God and father of our lord Yeshua Anointed...." I will continue with the Father being Jesus's God later on in John.

My point about Jesus being at the right of God and not the Father is an argument against the wording used in churches. If we say that Jesus is at the right of the Father. it helps keep the Trinity doctrine intact; but if we say that Jesus is at the right of God (as the Bible says) then there appears to be a separation between Jesus and God. Unless you wish to argue that God is beside Himself.

Con's explanation of the "Why do you call me good?" verses is again a way to blur what the text is saying with his own beliefs. Jesus is called "good teacher". To this Jesus questions being called good and replies that no one is good except for God. Regardless of how these verses are translated in the different versions, that's what these verses are saying. It seems that Jesus is saying here that even he is not good.

As far as Jesus being equal to God for claiming to be the son of God, this is faulty thinking. How does being the son of your parents make you equal to them? In Greek mythology, which is important in order to place the world of the NT in context, Hercules was the son of Zeus and a human woman, and he clearly was not equal to Zeus. (Although through his trials, he achieved god-like status. Much like Jesus. *cough* *cough*)

Let's look in I Cor 15:42-49. Here Paul refers (literally) to the first human and last human. He says that the first human (Adam) came from the earth, and the last human (Jesus) came from the sky. While one leads to becoming dust in the ground, the other leads to becoming one of the sky. They are placed on the same level, however, in that they are both referred to as humans (see next paragraph). And indeed, Adam was the first son of God (Luke 3:38), so I wonder if Adam is equal to God as well, by con's logic.

And yes, Jesus is the intercessor. I Tim 2:5 reads literally: "For God is One; and there is one mediator of God and humans, a human, Yeshua Anointed. The Greek work used for Jesus is ANTHROPOS, a human being. The word for "man" is ANER. So here we see Paul calling the resurrected Jesus a human being. So there is a human acting as intercessor for other humans. That's what it says.

I direct you to Hebrews 5:7-10, speaking of Jesus: "who in the days of his flesh, offering both petitions and entreaties to the One able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears, and being heard from the fear--though being a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, and being perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying him, having been called out by God a high priest in the order of Melchizedek".
I ask you to also read Hebrews 3:1-6, where Jesus is referred to as an apostle, is compared and contrasted with Moses, and is again called "a son".

I Tim 3:16--Since this verse is a separate thought from 14 and 15, con must work from assumption based on his own beliefs to determine that this is referring to God. The Greek word here is actually HOS, "who".

I wish to hit Phil 2, the main section being verses 5-11. Previous to this, Paul is urging the church to be of one mind and one soul, looking after others instead of one's self. He then uses Jesus as an example.

In verse 6, the Greek tells us that Jesus pre-existed in the form of "a god". Not God". The format is the same as in verse 7 where Jesus takes the form of "a slave". See for yourself. If you want to translate the phrase in vs 6 as "being in the form of God", then you must translate the phrase in verse 7 as "taking the form of Slave", which of course is wrong.
So Jesus was in the form of a god, and the Greek text tells us that he thought that being equal (or the same) as a god was not plunder (the thing stolen, not the act of stealing). This seems to be saying that Jesus existed at some time in a spiritual form and thought nothing wrong of it. We know from what Jesus says of himself in the gospels that he was sent by God for a purpose, so the next verse describes his obedience.
It says that he emptied himself and took the form of a slave in resemblance of humans. "He humbled himself, becoming obedient until death, even death of a cross". To whom was he obedient? The Gk word HUPEKOOS refers to being submissive. How can God be submissive to Himself? And how can we be like him if he is something unachievable to humans?
Verse 9: "Consequently, God highly exalted him and gave him the name over every name." The word for "gave" is KhARIZOMAI, which speaks of graciously granting as a favor. So if Jesus is God, this verse says that God exalted himself and graciously gave himself the name over every name. Makes no sense!
The next two verses then say that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (or profess) "that Jesus Christ is lord, to the glory of Father God." So the confession is not that Jesus is God, but that he is lord. And this is to the glory of Father God, not the glory of Jesus.
Nowhere in Philippians 2, then, is there anything about Jesus being Almighty God.

I also want to point out that Adam and Jesus aren't the only sons of God. Just a few verses: Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Gal 3:25-29.

In the next round, I finally get to the book of John, and I'll switch from telling you who Jesus is not to telling who the Bible says he is.

Another homework assignment:
Read I Cor 15:20-28 and pay attention to the language used. I would like to hear con's explanation of this.



Gordontrek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Con has dropped out (see comments), but I will continue on to the book of John as promised.

This is the book that everyone first runs to when I talk about this topic with people. I've already shown that there is little to nothing outside of John that indicates Jesus being Almighty God in the flesh. So even if this book made such a claim, I wonder how wise it would be to make "sound doctrine" off the words of one man who may or may not have actually been the disciple John.

The writer himself tells us the purpose of his book in 20:31 that tells us that the things he told us "have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of God, and that believing you might have life in his name".
As I explained in a previous round, both "anointed one" (or "Christ") and "son of God" are terms referring God's representative on earth, as both terms were also applied to King David, the throne of whom Jesus is heir. This is messianic language, not that which says that Jesus is God in the flesh.

Jesus, in chapter 17, makes his relationship with God clear as well. Here, he is praying aloud to God as he sits with his disciples. His words in verses 1-3:
"Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that the son may glorify you, just as you gave to him authority of all flesh, so that to all which you gave to him, he may give them everlasting life. And this is the everlasting life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
So we see that Jesus calls the Father "the only true God". This is aligned with my statement that the Father is God, and God is the Father. Jesus is asking to be restored to his former glory ("in the form of a god"; see prev round), and he says that God gave him authority over all flesh. (God did a similar thing for Adam, if you recall.)
Continuing on with the chapter, we see where Jesus again asks for glory (4-5), again states that God gave him his people (6-7), and tells of how he spoke the words God gave him after sending him (8). Starting in verse 9, he says that those given to him are still God's, and that all that is his is also God's. In verse 11, concerning those God gave him, Jesus uses the phrase "that they may be one as we are". If Jesus is God, then from this we must determine that he's saying here that he wants me to be you and you to be me, and for all of us to be one being. What he's talking about here is unity. Paul talks about us being of one mind and one spirit, and that's what Jesus wants of us, just as he is one in mind and spirit with God.
In verse 18, he says that he sent his disciples into the world just as God sent him into the world. This is in line with Heb 3:1 where Paul refers to Jesus as an apostle (the Gk word meaning one who is sent out for a purpose; an emissary). That's what Jesus was, an emissary of God. It's like how ambassadors, when they travel to another country, are full representatives of their home country.
Verses 21-23: Jesus speaks in more detail of us all being one as he one with God so that we could be one in them. He wants to be one in us as God is one in him. If this is saying somehow that Jesus is God, then he's praying here that we would also be God with him, for if Jesus is God for being in God, then we are also God for being in Jesus. Again, this is talking about a unity in mind, spirit, and purpose. Nothing more.

This is what Jesus is saying in chapter 14. Because Jesus fully submitted himself to God (Heb 5, Phil 2), he became God's representative (or image) on earth.. Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that he is firstborn of all creation. Just as Jesus represented God, we are to represent Jesus, since it is easier for us to represent a human than a god.

With this understanding, we must look at the first chapter of John in this same light, as the book contains continuing themes. The faulty assumption about the first verse is that the word "word" (Gk LOGOS) could be replaced with "Jesus". However, one must read it in the way that it is written in order for the writer's idea to be correctly communicated. He is merely saying that the word of God existed in the beginning with God and that the word was God. We see in the Old Testament that God originally tried to speak directly to his people, but this didn't turn out very well. He then turned to using human representatives, the judges and prophets, but the people didn't listen to them. Only God could vouch for Himself in those times.
Jesus was meant to solve that problem. He, being from heaven instead of earth, became an ant among ants to better communicate the things of a being we cannot comprehend. In this way then, the word of God became flesh, for God's words were spoken through his perfect ambassador, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only-born son of God; in other words, he was the only one to be born already as a son without the need to jump through hoops like us. No other man was ever born automatically as a son of God. The promise Paul talks about is that we ourselves can now be reborn as sons (and daughters) of God by putting our trust in Jesus, the first fruit of those to be raised from the dead (I Cor 15).

Let's look at 1:18. The earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse read "the only-born god", while the later manuscripts (as reflected in KJV) changed it to read "the only-born son" (which causes problems for the modern translations). This fits what I've said in the previous round, that Jesus was a lesser deity of sorts in heaven (as angels are also described as being) and was sent by the God to earth in human form. According to the Bible, he is the only "god" to do so.

In 6:68-69, as in the other gospels, we see that Peter believed Jesus to be the heir to the throne of David, but not God Himself.

John 8:57-58: All Jesus is stating is an existence that began before time. The Jews didn't think of "I AM" as being a reference to God because they knew him by the Hebrew name YHWH, which does not mean that. In fact, the traditional "I AM THAT I AM" in Ex 3:14 is likely better translated "I will be who I will be". So the idea of I AM referencing God to the Jews is not based in fact. What you see in verse 58 is usually the result of biased translation.

Within 8:25-30, Jesus says that he was taught by the Father and sent by the Father. So is God teaching and sending himself? Of course not!

Okay, let's talk about 10:30. Taken out of context, it could sound like a claim to be God, but we've already covered this topic and what Jesus means. He says that he and the father are one. "The Jews" take up stones to stone him. Jesus replies that he has done many great works before them, so he asked which work prompted their wish to stone him. Their literal reply is "About a good work we stone you not; but rather about slander, and because you, being a human, make yourself a god." Yes, that is NOT God with a capital g, but a god. There is no Greek article ("the") there, which in most situations points to the god.
Anyway, how does Jesus reply? He brings up Ps 82 where David refers to human beings as gods then asks why they can accept that but then accuse him of slander "because I said I am God's son". So here Jesus is not claiming to be God, but to be the son of God. This is not a claim of equality.

After Jesus rose from the dead, he tells Mary Magdalene in 20:17 "I am ascending to my father and your father, and my god and your god." This seems to be placing Jesus on a level more equal with Mary than with God.

Similarly and finally, let's look at chapter 15. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches, and the Father is the one tending the vine. Is a vine equal to the one who tends it? The branches are more similar to the vine than the vine is to the vinedresser.

I conclude by saying that the Bible DOES say that God appointed Jesus to judge and rule the world. He is our example, our high priest, our final prophet, and our king. Your salvation is only through trust in him.



Gordontrek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mstrainjr 3 years ago
Part 2 of this debate can now be found here:
Posted by Gordontrek 3 years ago
Alright, I'm ready when you are. I would recommend that the new debate be about three rounds, one for acceptance and two for the ones that I forfeited. Everything else is up to you. I look forward to it!
Posted by mstrainjr 3 years ago
I'm up for it. Sent you a private message yesterday saying as much.
Posted by Gordontrek 3 years ago
Hey mstrainjr
Would you be interested in continuing this debate in the future?? It was a really fascinating discussion and I would love to continue it. Besides, I feel kind of bad for having to drop out because I realize how much you wanted to finish it, given the course your other debates have taken. I didn't want to have to do that to you again, but I had to finish my school work.
As far as I can tell my schedule is fairly clear for the rest of this month, so if you want to start it up again, let's do it. I would ask that we wait about a week from the time of this posting due to a scheduling conflict that might be disruptive.
What do you say?
Posted by mstrainjr 3 years ago
Unless Gordontrek comes back to finish it off, this debate is at an end. There wasn't enough space allowed for me to present all of my arguments and to discuss them in full, so if anyone wishes to speak further on these things, I'll be here to answer them until the discussion eventually dies down.

I also want to say that up until he left, I thought Gordontrek did a good job representing his side of the argument in response to what I said, and I'm happy he helped to make this debate much better than the last I was in.

I look forward to hearing from anyone who wants to discuss the deity of Jesus further.
Posted by mstrainjr 3 years ago
Well, I understand. School is far more important than online debating. I've had fun here, and I think you've done a good job representing your side of this topic. I'll still post my arguments from John for the 5th round, and discussion will stay open here in the comments after the debate ends.
Posted by Gordontrek 3 years ago
I hate to say it but I will likely have to withdraw from the debate. I originally thought I would have enough time to do all five rounds but due to schedule conflicts I could not anticipate (and a chemistry class that is taking over my life) I am unable to post another argument. On top of that I have to leave home tomorrow and be gone until next week, and it is unlikely I will be able to get on the internet. It is not that I don't think I can win the debate but, as they say, life happens.
Perhaps in the future we can continue this debate. I looked forward to discussing John.
Best wishes to mstrainjr and all those who have been following the debate. I hope it has been informative and I pray that we all realize that Jesus is indeed Almighty God, and He is willing to accept all those who would follow him and keep His commandments.
Posted by mstrainjr 3 years ago
Hold on there, Peughmn. I promised in the debate that I would get to John. I will talk about those verses.
Posted by Peughmn 3 years ago
John 10:30 I and My Father are ONE
John 14: 9 He who has seen Me has seen The Father

I am showing you just how inseperable The Father and Jesus were. They were One . When you saw The Father you saw Jesus.
Posted by mstrainjr 3 years ago
Actually, Rev 1:8 specifies that it's "the Lord God" who is speaking. Actually, in Jewish fashion, the Greek reads KURIOS HO THEOS, "LORD, the God". The Greek KURIOS is in place of Hebrew ADONAYI, which replaces the Hebrew name for God, YHWH. That's a long discussion in itself.
No votes have been placed for this debate.