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

The Bible Teaches Jesus is God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 42559
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Rules: Both parties will accept the 66 books of the Bible as the Word of God. In round 1 Con will present his case why he does not believe Jesus is God before he responds to my case for Jesus as God. He may respond to my opening argument in round 1 if he has enough space left to begin a response, or he may choose to wait till round 2 to reply to my opening argument. Its all up to him.

(1) The Bible says that Jesus is God himself:

The Bible says there is one and only one God in all of existence. (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19) It also says that there is only one true God. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20) This means all other gods are false. The Bible certainly doesn't present Jesus as a fase god. Jesus approved when Thomas called him "my God" (John 20:28-29), and expressiong used only of the true God in the rest of the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 also identifies him as "the Mighty God," another title of Yahweh (Isaiah 10:21; Jeremiah 32:18). The term "mighty God" is in itself indicative of Jehovah since not only is He the only God (Isaiah 43:10"11), and there cannot be two mighty Gods for there is only one true and mighty God (Isaiah 45:22).

The Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe a person, and these nouns are connected by the word "and," the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article then they refer to the SAME PERSON. (*the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Here are two verses which unequivocally qualify Jesus as both God and Savior.

Titus 2:13 - while we wait for the blessed hope"the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

2Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

Notice in both verses the noun "God" (theou) has the article (tou) and is connected to the second noun "Savior" (soteros) which does not have an article, by the word "and" (kai). Thus "God and Savior" both refer to the Person of Jesus. Grammatically this is irrefutable. So not only is Jesus Savior, He is God!

Jesus is further identified as God at Hebrews 1:8, Acts 20:28, John 1:18 where the oldest Greek manuscripts call him monogenes Theos - onlybegotten God; and John 1:1-3, 14 where the Word was God and became flesh as the man Jesus. In fact, Jesus is called "the True God" in 1 John 5:20.

(2) The Bible says Jesus does acts only God can do, or did things only God did:

"For thou (God), even thou ONLY, knowest the hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings 8:39 KJV; also Jeremiah 17:9-10) Here it says God is the only one who can know or read the heart, which is the very thing Jesus does in Mark 2:6-8; John 2:24-25 and Revelation 2:18, 23.

Isa 44:24 tells us that Yahweh made all things, streached out the heavens alone, spread out the earth by himself; yet Scripture reveals the Son as creator. (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 8-10; John 1:1-3, 10) This is why God said "let US make man in OUR image," for God was a plural being, the Father and Son being included in this one God. If Jesus isn't God, it means that God had help and did not create all things alone, by himself, as he said in Isaiah 44:24. The fact that Jesus created all things shows he is not a created being, and hence is God.

At Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh declares, "I myself am Yahweh and besides me there is no Saviour." (WEB) Scripture tells us palinly that Jesus is the Saviour, therefore Jesus is God. (Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2 Pet 1:11, etc) Acts 4:12 says of Jesus, that "there is no salvation in anyone else." Now, if Jesus is not God, then there can be no salvation in God, for there is no salvation in anyone else but Jesus. Othewise, the Bible is saying that Jesus is God.

(3) The Bible says Jesus possesses the attributes of God:

God is eternal (Ps 90:2), so is the Son (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2)
God is omniscient (1 John 3:20), so is the Son (John 16:30; 21:17)
God omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27; Ps 137:8-18), so is the Son (Matt 18:20)
God's nature does not change, he is immutable (Malachi 3:6), so is Jesus. (Hebrews 13:8)

The Bible says that Jesus existed in "the form of God," a clear reference to his having God's nature. (Philippians 2:6)

(4) The Bible says Jesus is equal to God and that he is the Yahweh of the Old Testament:

John says Jesus is equal with God. (John 5:18)

Exodus 34:14 says: "For thou shalt worship no other god." All true believers refuse worship (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14; Revelation 19:10; 22:9), but not Jesus. (Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52) He accepts worship which only beongs to God. Hebrews 1:6 says of Jesus "And let all the angels of God WORSHIP him." Paul is here quoting under inspiration from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:43 which says of Yahweh "Be glad, O heavens, together with him, and let all the angels of God WORSHIP him." (Septuagint, with an English translation by Sir I Brenton, S. Bagster & Sons, 1851) Deuteronomy 32:43 was talking about Yahweh (Dec 32:36-39), so the Yahweh of Deuteronomy 32:43 is Jesus. Yet, worship only belongs to God. (Matthew 4:10)

At John 17:5 Jesus says he shared glory with the Father before the world was, yet, God doesn't share his glory with others, hence, Jesus is not another beside God, he is God. (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11)

Romans 10:9-13 says of Jesus that all who call on his name will be saved, yet, this is quoting from Joel 2:32 where the "name" one had to call on was that of Yahweh. Hence, the name of Yahweh Christians were calling on in the 1st centuy C.E. was the name of Jesus. (1 Corinthians 1:1-2)

Hebrews 1:8-12 specifically says it was talking about "the Son" when is says he created the heaven and earth, yet, this was quoting Psalm 102:24-27 where the Psalmist was talking about Yahweh. So again, Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of Israel.

Yahweh is the First and the Last (Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:2), but so is Jesus. (Revelation 1:17-18; 2:8; 22:12-13) Can there be more than one "first" and "last"? In fact, Jesus says that the Father gave him all authority in heaven and earth, that surely makes him God. (Matthew 28:18)

It is clear from the foregoing texts that the Bible writers and even disciples in the accounts, i.e. Thomas (John 20:28), believed Jesus was God. If they didn't, then these monotheistic Jews would not have worshiped him. (Matthew 28:9, 17)


Thanks Daley for your presentation on behaif of the topic ,:The Bible teaches jesus is God."Here I am trying to my presentation what Bible teaches that he is not God .- I did not find any single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where jesus himself said ,: I am God or where he says worship me. " Bible contains statement attributed to jesus in which he preached quite contrary. Here I will present some reason that why I am not believe -jesus is God .

Reason 1; Jesus is not all-knowing but God is all-knowing.
" But of that day and hour knoweth no man , not the angel of heaven but my father only.[ Mark- 24:32-36]. God is all-knowing ,so jesus fails this main qualification.

I can do nothing myself..........but the will of my Father which sent me .[John 5:30]
Reason 2: Jesus never said I am God.
Is this coincidence? I think ,not ,if you make a claim on someone ,then you would expect that someone to backup your claim up.If I claim somebody is a king ,you would expect that king to say ,he is a king at least once.

In OT ,God says He is God in sevsral times ,why not once with jesus in NT? Did God change His way ? OT says God does not change.

Genesis ; [35-11]- And God said unto him ,I am God Almighty."

Exodus;-[16;12]- I am the Lord your God.

Pslam-[46;10]- I am God.

Isaih-[45;51]- I am the God god beside me.

God is shy to say I am God , if jesus is God how come never he said it once like the God of OT.

Reason 3;- Bible say that God is not a man or son of man [Numbers;23;19]
But jesus called a man many times in Bible-
example- 1]- A man who has told the truth [John-8;40]
2]- Jesus a man attested to you by God [Acts-2;22]
3]- The man christ jesus [Tim-2;5]

Jesus call in Bible son of man , see-Mathew[12;40], Mark-[2;10], John-[5;27],

In Hebrew scripture ,the son of man is also used many times speaking of people;
example,see-Job-25;6, psalm-80;17, 144;3, Ezekeil-2;1, 2;6-8.

Since God would not contadict himself by first saying ,He is not the son of man , the becoming a human being who was called son of man .He would not have done this because God is not author of confusion.

Reason4- Jesus never instructed his disciples to worship him

: when you pray , say our Father which art in heaven [Luke-11;2].

Inthat day you shall ask nothing.............ask Father [John-16;23]

Jesus fell his face in the ground and prayed----my Father [Mathew-26;39].

During the days of jesus life in earth , he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death. and He was heard because of his reverent submission[Hebrew-5-7].
Whome was jesus prayed to when he fell his face ?

Was jesus crying in tears to himself to be saved from death ?

No man ,sane or insane pray to himself. Surely jesus was praying to only true God , he was the servent of God who sent, therefore, he is not God-one is subordinate to other,

Peter said , jesus is servent of God [Acts 3;13].
Debate Round No. 1


The God of the Bible is not a person, he is a family. He is a plural being, existing as three person as one being - three persons in one God. This means that within the one being we call God, there are three minds, that of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Proof:

Isa 44:24 tells us that Yahweh made all things, streached out the heavens alone, spread out the earth by himself; yet Scripture reveals the Father as creator (Isa 64:8), and the Son (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 8-10), and the Holy Spirit (Ps 104:30; Job 26:13; 33:4) Combine this with the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:16 and the trinitarian has an airtight case. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not one God with the Father, then God the Father had help and did not create all things alone, by himself, as he said he did in Isaiah 44:24. If the trinity is true, harmony comes to the texts. If the trinity is false, then the Father lied when he said he created alone and had no help, for Scripture testifies that the Son and the Holy Spirit shared in creation.

Not only did all three person do what only God did (create the universe), but all three of them possess the attributes that only God possesses:

The Father is eternal (Ps 90:2), and the Son (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2), and the Holy Spirit (Heb 9:14)
The Father is omniscient (1 John 3:20), and the Son (John 16:30; 21:17), and the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-11)
The Father is omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27; Ps 137:8-18), and the Son (Matt 18:20), and the Holy Spirit. (Ps 137:7)
The Father is omnipotent (Dan 4:35), and the Son (Matt 28:18; John 17:10), and the Holy Spirit (Isa 40:13-18)

When the Bible says that Jesus is God, it is saying that he by nature has all the attributes that makes someone God, such as the four attributes I listed above which only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share. The word God isn't always used as a reference to one of the persons of God, but also to their nature. This is why Galatians 4:8 refers to idol statutes as them "which by nature are no gods." They aren't gods BY NATURE, but Jesus is. So when we call Jesus God this doesn't mean he is the Father, but that he has the same nature of the Father, the nature which only the one God has, making him part of that divine being. But Jesus also became human when the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), so he has two natures. He is both man, and God, and experiences the fullness of both natures. This is crucial, because we cannot deny his divinity just by focusing on his humanity as Con is doing. Proving that he is fully man doesn't prove that he is not also fully God.

So when Con says Jesus had limited knowledge, of course he did (only in his humanity) for he must experience full human nature. But in his divinity he also knows all things, just as his apostles said: "Now are we SURE that thou KNOWEST ALL THINGS." (John 16:30) "Lord, thou KNOWEST ALL THINGS." (John 21:17) So Jesus knew all things according to the apostles, and I'll take their word over Con's. Is this a contradiction? No, because unlike us mere men, God is a being who can occupy two radically different positions at the same time. This is why he was both child in a manger and yet Mighty God according to Isaiah 9:6. The trinity allows me to accept both Biblical statements that Jesus didn't know some things, yet knew all things; but Con has to deny one of these statements to uphold his interpretation. He has to argue that when the Bible says Jesus knew all things, it doesn't really mean that.

He cites John 5:30 when Jesus says "I can do nothing myself...but the will of my Father," but that also proves he is God, because if he were not God, but just another created being, he would be able to disobey, and do his own thing, incurring God's wrath like the rest of this sinful world. But God wouldn't create a plan of salvation which had a possibility of failing; so he came in the person of the Son who, because he is one God with the Father, CANNOT, not just would not, but CANNOT do anything but the will of God. Because Jesus is part of the trinity he can't do anything himself, but is always working in conjunction with the Father and Holy Spirit. I he were a separate being with the free will to do otherwise, he COULD do things by himself.

Con argues even though other writers call Jesus God, Jesus himself never said "I am God," therefore he isn't God. Well, though other writers said God is love, God himself didn't say "I am love," does that mean God isn't love? The rules of this debate said that both parties agree the Bible is the word of God, so all those verses I gave where Bible writers call Jesus God must be taken as the word of God. So I'll ask Con, do you accept God's word when he himself calls his Son "O God" in Hebrews 1:8? The Father calling Jesus God should be even greater proof than if the man Jesus makes the claim himself.

In John 10:30-33 the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, and in John 5:30 the apostle John who wrote the book of John understood Jesus to be making himself equal to God; so Jesus did claim to be God. This is how those early eyewitnesses understood his claims, and I'll take their interpretation over Con's.

Con uses Numbers 23:9 to show that God is not a man, but that verse also says God does not repent; does he? In Genesis 6:7 God said of mankind "it REPENTETH me that I have made them." "And the Lord REPENTED of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (Exo 32:14) "The Lord REPENTED for this." (Amos 7:3, 6) So just as God repented though Numbers 23:9 says he doesn't repent, so too, he was a man even though Numbers 23:9 says he wasn't. In fact, Exodus 15:3 says "the Lord is a MAN of war," and we have him appearing as a man to the Old Testament saints. (Gen 18:1-3, 22; 32:30; Jud 13:22) Numbers 23:9 wasn't not even trying to say that God isn't a man, but rather, that he wasn't a SINFUL man so that he should lie, or that he should repent OF SIN...This qualification makes all the difference and removes any contradiction between that verse and all the others where God does appear as a man and does repent.

Con claims that Jesus never instructed people to worship him. Well, I have a question for Con. Is prayer a part of worship? Should we pray to anyone else but God? The fact that Jesus receives prayer proves he is God. John 14:14 says in the New American Standard Bible: "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." Not only does Jesus encourage believers to pray to Him by saying, "ask Me anything," but He is the One who answers the prayer when He promises, "I will do it." While this Scripture is a strong support of prayer being rendered to Jesus, it is complicated by the fact that some translations omits the "me" in the phrase "ask Me anything" in John 14:14. But the Greek text itself states: "If ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do."

The reason that certain Bible versions leave out the "me" is due to a textual variant in the manuscripts of the Greek text of this verse. The Majority text (most dating from around the 9th century) split on this issue with some containing the "me" and others dropping the "me." But in recent years, scholars have uncovered manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) that date as far back as the second and third centuries. The oldest manuscripts we have available today of this verse in the Gospel of John are Papyrus 66, written in 125 A.D., and Papyrus 75, written sometime between 175-225 A.D. Both of these papyrus fragments contain the "me" in this passage. Not only do the oldest fragments of John that we possess today contain the "me," but two of the oldest ancient complete copies of the entire Bible in Greek, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus written around the 4th century, both agree with the papyrus' renderings of "ask me" in John 14:14.

Since Desiderius Erasmus complied and published the Greek text (Textus Receptus) of the King James Bible version in the 1500's, he did not have access to the older Greek manuscripts that we have today. Thus, the King James Bible version and other Bible versions based upon the Textus Receptus or the Majority text do not contain the "me" in John 14:14. Indeed, John 14:14 is a strong testimony to Jesus' approval of the early Christian practice of directing their prayers to Jesus Christ. So by commanding us to pray to him Jesus is indeed telling us to worship him. We also have the apostle John commanding Christians to pray to Jesus in 1 John 5:12-16, and we have examples of Christians praying to Jesus in Acts 7:59 and 2 Corinthians 12:8, 9. And Jesus accepted worship from the disciples: "And when they saw him, they WORSHIPPED HIM." (Matthew 28:17) Further, when Thomas calls him "my God" in John 20:28, 29, Jesus doesn't rebuke him for blasphemy. Jesus blessing him for his confession of faith.

Finally, Con wants to know if Jesus was praying to himself. The answer is no. God the Son was praying to God the Father. So none of Con's arguments show that Jesus cannot be God. Jesus said: "with God ALL THINGS are possible." (Matt 19:26) So let me ask Con, can God take human form? Yes or No? If not, then why not? If he can take human form, do you believe he must stop being God in order to do so? If so, then why? Far be it from us to limit God! If God's word presents him as both God and man, by faith, I believe him. I look forward to Con's rebuttal to my opening arguments for the deity of Christ. I'll be looking most of all for the answer to this: if there is only one true God (John 17:3), do you agree all other gods are false? If so, is Jesus a true God, or a false god? Let's see if Con will answer or evade this question.


Thanks Daley, first of all ,I would like say that you should not impose on me to believe because it depend on logical analysis of scriptual and historical point of view . We should not believe blindly.Imposing rule -it means you are going against the teaching of Bible.Bible says- " Prove all things ,hold fast that which is good."-[ 1 Thessalonians 5:21].

We should agree that Holy Scripture should not contain contradictions. If there are two conflicting verse,then only one can be true ,boyh can never be true or both wrong.

Pro- mentioned his argument that God is not personel being.He has family. Icame to understand that pro perceive-one God to include -

1]-God the Father ,2]God the Son,3]-God the Holy spirit.

Based on common sense and simple logic ,Isimply ask to pro that
1]-Why do you mean by saying that God is One, while you refer to three Gods?
2]Is God One in Three or three in one?
3] How to make equation - 1+1+1=1,not 3?

However, if Jesus is God or part of God ,does not this contradict what the Bible reports that no one can see God ,nor hear His voice,

Bible say-1] You have never heard His voice nor seen His face [John:5:37].

2] No one has ever seen Him ,and no one can see Him [I Timothy6:16].

3] No one can see Me and stay alive [Exodus:33:20].
Based on these and other Biblical texts, I sincerely ask ,"How can we reconcile the dogma that jesus is God and the Biblical testimony that no one hasever seen God ,nor heard His voice ?
Did not the jews at his time ,his family ,and his followers see jesus and hear his voice ?

Is there any secret or hidden purpose concerning the truth about God?

In the Bible ,the true God emphatically testifies,1] I am the Lord ,and there is no other god, I have not spoken in secretor kept my purpose hidden.... I am the Lord ,and I speak the truth: Imake known what is right [Isaiah45:19].

2] Hear ,O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord [Deuteronomy6:4].
3]Has not the One God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?[Malachi:2:15].
4] And there is no other god besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior :there is none besides Me. Turn to Me and be saved... to Me every knee shall bow.[Isaiah:45:21-23].
5]For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man christ jesus.[Timothy2:5].
not only does the Bible affirm that God is only one ,but it also reveals that the true God , the creator, is the only Savior
" Before Me no god was formed ,nor shall there be any after Me. I, I am the Lord ,and besides Me there is no Savior."[Isaiah43:10-11].

So,according to this affirmation ,all other supposed gods or deities like jesus or holy spirit are neither gods nor manifestations of the true one God.
These above mentioned verse are simple, clear and straightforward. there is no jigsaw puzzle.

Pro, mentioned about sharp rule but many modern grammarians have insisted that sharp rule is uncertain.
For example- Greek grammarian and traditionalist Nigel Turner admitts " unfotunately , at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such rule is really decisive."

J.N.D. Kelly adds: The absence of the article cannot count as decisive,for savior tended to be anarthrous[cf.1 Tim1:1],and in any case the correct use of article was breaking down in the lat Greek.
Other grammarian claim that there is an exception to sharp rule , in which the 2nd article can be ommitted when the author knows his/ her readers presume a distinction in subject.

So, again I would like to remind my pro that we should approach on the basis of real teachings of jesus ,not on the basis of jigsaw puzzle or fallacy of equavocation.

The Illustrated Bible dictionary records- The word trinity is not found in the Bible .It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.

Encyclopedia of religion and ethics records- At first christian faith was not trinitarian.

Encyclopedia of Britannica reports- Neither the word trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the new testament.

L.L.Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History aknowledge that - The old testament strictly monothestic .God is single personal being. Idea of trinity utterly without foundation.

Pro- mentioned that jesus is equal to God but the verses of Bible say different.

For example- 1]- A man attested to you by God .........God perfomed miracles ,wonders and sign through jesus in your midst.[ Acts 2:22].

2] We went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.[Acts :10:38].
3]- My Father is greater than I [John 14:28].
4]- My God ,my God why hast thou forsaken me [Mark 12:32].
5]-I do nothing myself [John:8:28].
And also jesus wanted Gods will be done- not my will but yours be done [ Luke:22:42]

Jesus was taught and commanded by God , [John:12:49 15:10,8:28].
No one can teach God ,otherwise God cannot be All-knowing. Since jesus was taught and commanded by God -he cannot be God or equal to God because teacher and student-commander and commanded are not logically equal.

Pro, mentioned 2 Peter [1:1] - According to cordex sinaiticus which was copied between 325 to 360 A.D. and likely tthe oldest manuscript of the Bible . This manuscript does not say "righteasness of God and savior jesus christ, it rathersays -righteousness of the lord. If you read very next verse here ,jesus called Lord . Lord or God , it is suspecious. Because Lord does not necessarilly mean God . In the Biblical time period most servent reffered to their master as lord.This was common practice -it showed honour and respect for a person of such a high stature. Even today many countries around the world such as England lord is use in reffering to kings, princess,and others who deserve such lofty title,
Analysis of evidence -2 thessalonians1:12]-according to the grace of our God and the lord savior jesus christ ,
2Peter[1:1]-rightousness of the God of us ..savior jesus christ.Both case construction exactly same . It is clear that translator do not identified jesus as God at 2 thessalonians[1:12] so why 2 peter [!:1] identified jesus as God?

Pro ,mentioned about Thomas answered M y God , MY lord , it means jesus is God. There is one God ,the Father and one lord jesus .Jesus cannot be God and lord . Beleiving this verse jesus is lord and God would leave a person with unorthodox doctrine branded by the church as Sabellianism, patripassianism.The exclamation "My God" on his part was astonishment . We use such exclamation everyday life. For example- I see john cutting his finger with knife ,I say My God what are doing John? Do I mean that John is God -ofcourse not,.So Thomas use same kind of expression.
It does not mean jesus is God.

Pro -mentioned John1:1-In the beginning was the word ,and the word was with God . According to this verse pro concluded that jesus is God. I ask how many god there? Two atleast.
From the verse of Isaiah45:18]- For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it, he hath established it ,he created it no vain ,he formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord ,and there is none else.From this verse I can say that God alone was the Creator and no one else, not even jesus ,participated in the creation.

From the historical point of view I can say that the Greek term for word is logos used by anonymous author of the fourth gospel- in doing so author identifies jesus with the pagan logos of Greek philosophy,who was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos,ordering it and giving it form and meaning,. The concept defined by the term logos is also found in India, Egyptian,and Persian philosophical and theological system.[ See-New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.7, p. 440].So on the basis of this verse I cannot say that jesus is God because it connected with pagan philosophy.

In conclusion I would like to say that God by His very nature ,is self-sufficiant . He does not need anything to continue His existence, if He need something ,then He would not be God.Jesus by his very nature , he is not self-sufficiant being,he needed something to continue his existence. So God is self-sufficiant but jesus is not self-sufficiant-self-sufficiant and not self-sufficiant these two things cannot mix toghter. You cannot be self-sufficiant and not self-sufficiant all at the same time.
Debate Round No. 2


Con's argument mostly come down to rather the trinity is a logical concept, but this debate is not about rather the trinity is logical, rather, its about whether the Bible teaches the trinity. Con assumes that because this doctrine does not seem logical TO HIM, that therefore the Bible could not teach the trinity; but the Bible teaches many thing which don't seem logical to many people. It teaches people are dying today because thousands of years ago a man and a woman ate some fruit. This Adam and Eve story doesn't seem logical to many people, yet its Biblical. The Bible teaches that an innocent man had to die on a cross for us to be forgiven, and again this doesn't seem logical to many. Why can't we just repent and change our ways; why does someone have to die?

Because Con cannot comprehend how God could be three and yet one, he concludes therefore that God cannot do this, but neither can he fathom or explain how God hears millions of prayers at the same time and understands them all. Does it therefore mean God cannot do this? How does God do it, Con? Jeremiah 23:23-24 and Psalms 139:7-10 speak of God as being both far and near at the same time, as being in heaven, hell, and the earth (the sea). So if God can be in more than one place at once, I see no reason why he can't be Father in heaven, Son on the earth, and Holy Spirit in the believers. I don't need to know how God does it to believe it, I just accept what God says on faith. Con rejects the trinity because it doesn't fit into his idea of what is rational, which is the same reason why atheists tend not to believe in God. They don't find theology to be rational. Scientists think a global flood would contradict all the scientific data they have, so they reject that it ever happened.; If Con's attitude is to reject anything that doesn't make sense TO HIM, he's committing the same logical blunder as the atheists. Namely, just because YOU can't think of a way for something to be true does not mean that GOD cannot accomplish it.

I agree that Scripture cannot contain contradictions, but a contradiction is two things that cannot both be true at the same time claiming to be so. As I pointed out in the last round, ALL THINGS are possible with God. (Matt 19:26) So while it may be impossible for mere men to be three persons in one being, it isn't so for God.

Con completely ignored most of the arguments I presented in round one for the deity of Christ, even though I answered ever single on of his. For this alone you should vote Pro, but I will go on to address his other questions:

"1]-Why do you mean by saying that God is One, while you refer to three Gods?"

I don't refer to three gods. God is one being, and that being has three minds, or centers of consciousness which we trinitarians call "persons," "conscious individuals." There is a difference between "being" and "person." "...the word "being" merely refers to the totality of what a thing is....God however is... also unique from human beings in that the totality of what God is contains three distinct persons as opposed to human beings who only have one person as part of their being.";

"2]Is God One in Three or three in one?"

God is three persons in one God.

"3] How to make equation - 1+1+1=1,not 3?"

One person (Father) + one person (Son) + one person (Holy Spirit) = one Trinity (which means three person who exist as parts of one Being, the triune God.) No logical fallacy here. But in either case human reason is not a measuring stick by which we can judge God, for God didn't give up reason for that reason; rather, rationality is to be used in submission to God's word, and this is what makes it work best. I use my reason within the confines of what God says, taking his word on faith, for "the just shall live by faith." (Rom 1;17) Not logic, faith!

"However, if Jesus is God or part of God ,does not this contradict what the Bible reports that no one can see God ,nor hear His voice,"

No, it doesn't. Con looks for contradictions where none exists, and he finds them only because he doesn't understand the texts. First of all, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and of course you can't see a spirit. This is what it means when it says no one has seen God, that God, in his divine nature, is invisible, so we can't see him as he truely is. This does not mean that God cannot take on human form so we can see him. Jacob said "I have seen God face to face." (Gen 32:30) Con must think Jacob was lying, but he wasn't. He saw a physical manifestation of God. "The LORD appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre." (Gen 18:1) How many men did Abraham see coming when the Lord appeared to him? Three. (Gen 18:2) Since Pro wants to argue that seeing God would contradict Exodus 33:20, what would he say to Exodus 24:9-11? "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And THEY SAW the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also THEY SAW God, and did eat and drink." If seeing God in the Old Testament doesn't create contradictions, then seeing him in the New Testament in the person of Jesus also doesn't create contradictions. The contradiction only exists in Con's mind.

"How can we reconcile the dogma that jesus is God and the Biblical testimony that no one has ever seen God ,nor heard His voice ?"

Con, you say that no one has heard God's voice, but didn't the entire nation of Israel hear God's voice when he spoke the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20? The Jewish nation testified in Scripture, "we have heard his voice." (Deu 5:24-25) "For who is there of all flesh, that hath HEARD THE VOICE OF THE LIVING GOD speaking out of the midst of the fire, AS WE HAVE, and lived?" (Deu 5:26) Obviously, in John 5:37 Jesus was talking about the Father; indeed, they did not hear the Father's voice. But the person's who the Israelites heard speaking in Exodus 20 wasn't the Father, it was the Son! In any case, Jesus was only talking to his unbelieving enemies in John 5:37; he wasn't saying that no human in history has ever heard the Father's voice. Con, please tell us whose voice Adam, Cain, and Abraham had heard...?

"all other supposed gods or deities like jesus or holy spirit are neither gods nor manifestations of the true one God."

So would Con care to explain Isaiah 9:6? Who is the child that is called Mighty God?

Con goes on to attack the Granville Sharp rule, quoting people without citing with proper references the title and page number so we can check for ourselves. But Sharp's rule is beyond reproach:

2 Peter 1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
2 Peter 1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one questions the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's word.

Con also quotes the Illustrated Bible Dictionary out of context. Notice what he left out:
"It must be remembered that the OT was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given." ... "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Hodder and Stoughton, 1980, Part 3, p. 1597)

The authors are not saying the Bible doesn't teach the trinity. They are saying the Trinity is a revelation from God, all the elements of which are in the NT, even though not clearly spelled out as it was in the fourth century.; Con does likewise with the Encyclopaedia Britannica:;

The 4th century C.E. Latin Vulgate and Vatican Manuscript also read "our God" at 2 Peter 1:1, and I'll give more on this next round; I'm out of space.


Thanks pro, Ithink your whole argument are circling aroun one point -and this point is conception trinity. If you assume that everything in Bible must have true and originated with jesus and his early followers , but this is not the case.

According to Shierly Guthrie, jr. professor of theology at Columbia theological seminary wrote- -The Bible does not teach the doctrine of trinity ,neither the word "trinity" itself nor such language as "one in three, "three in one", one essence,or substance and three person is biblical language.
The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy . [ christian doctrine, 1994,pp-76-77].

The trinity is neither biblical nor christian rather, the platonic term trias, from the word three was Latinized as trinitus and the latter giving the English word "trinity".

The doctrine of the logos[word] and the trinity received their shape from Greek fathers......were much influenced by platonic philosophy ,its strong point was pagan theological speculations.
[The new Schaff-Herzog Enclycopedia of religious knowledge by Samual Macauly jackson,1911.vol.9.p-91].

Edward Gibbon -- He reffered to Plato as the Athenian sage who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discovery of christian revealation -the trinity.
[History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.1890, vol-1, p-574].

The Encyclopedia Britannica records- the new testament in very early times held no canonical authority and alterations and additions were actually made where the seemed improvement,[vol.-4, p-4980].

We should proceed on the basi of a real teaching of jesus not adapted doctrine which is not revealed from God.

Very notion of trinity is an affront against the concept of God.

pro, in his previous argument has mentioned the , 1John5:7 but this verse recognised as being later insertion of the church ,recent version of the Bible -- RSV, ESV,American v ,expunge this verse.
Explanation given by BenjaminWilson in his -[Emphatic Diaglott]--this text concerning heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript- it is not cited by any eccelesiastical writers, not by any early Latin Father -it is evidently sprious.

Pro also mention about word of God [john 1;1-3]- here we should not take pagan view . its simple meaning command of God which we find in the first chapter of the Bible,
Genesis 1;3- God said be the light and it was ,-no need to articulate the word , simple meaning , simple understandind , another way is ,word come from God or belong to God.

pro ,mentioned the verse - glorious appearing of the great God and savior.

In this verse translator did not attempt to describe jesus as God refer to jesus savior. in verse 10 u see God ,the father identified as saviour. paul say -we are waiting the appearing of the glory of great God and saviour jesus christ. passsage does not say ,we are waiting for great God and saviour jesus christ, and also the use the adjective :great before God means both are not same- one is greater than other.

Now we consider what Acts of Aposotles said about jesus -they say jesus is not God

Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after jesus was lifted up to heaven. Throughout this period they never refer to jesus to God . They constantly use the title God to refer to someone else other than jesus.

Peter stood up with eleven disciple and addressed the crowds saying-

Men of Israel ,listen to this ,jesus of Nazareth was a man accreditated by God to you by miracles ,wonders and signs ,which God did among you ,through him [Acts2:22].
It was God who did miracles through jesus to convince the people that jesus was backed by God . Peter did not see the miracle as proof that jesus is God, .
In fact , the way Peter refer to God and to jesus ,make it clear that jesus is not God.

Peter declared another passage - The God of Abraham ,Isac and Jacob ,the God of our Father as glorified His servent jesus,[Acts3:13].

Peter must have known that Abraham ,Isac and Jacob never spoke a triune god.

When they faced opposition from the authorities , Peter declared -we must obey God rather man .The GOd of our father raised jesus [Acts5:29-30]'

From these above simple verses ,it is clear that Peter had learnt from jesus that jesus was not God rather Gods servent and christ.

pro ,mention God and jesus co-equal and co eternal but Paul say God alone is immortal ,mean He did not die but according to Bible jesus died for three days .

Now if you believe jesus is died,it means you cannot believe jesus is God .
If yoy believe God died than my question arise- for three days who control the whole universe?

To day no more pro, Iwill gave you later more.
Debate Round No. 3


At John 20:28 Thomas was not exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" or "Oh my God!" in astonishment because it would break the third commandment against calling God"s name in vain. (Exo 20:7) Even now Christians know this practice is wrong. It was not part of monotheistic Jewish culture to scream out God"s name in such a loose way. "Thomas" utterance cannot possibly be taken as shocked profanity addressed to God (if to anyone), a kind of blasphemous version of a stunned "My word!" Despite its popularity with some modern Arians, such profanity would not have been found in first-century Palestine on the lips of a devout Jew." (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 1991, 658) Con would have us believe Thomas was swearing; the very thing Jesus commanded him not to do in Matthew 5:33-36. If Thomas was swearing in this way, Jesus would not have blessed him for what he said. (John 20:29) The fact that Con stoops to such a level of accusing Thomas of sinning, and implicating Jesus in it when he blesses Thomas for what he said, shows how desperate he is to escape the clear affirmation of Christ"s divinity in calling him "my God."

Regarding John 1:1 Pro asks: "how many god there? Two at least." Then he goes on to quote Isaiah 45:18 which proclaims there is only one God in complete contradiction to Con"s interpretation. Isaiah 45:6 also says "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." So who is the mighty God at Isaiah 9:6? Again Con has avoided this scripture even though I included it in my opening argument. Because he knows that if he says this is the true God, then he has to admit the Almighty was a child (Jesus); and if he says it was not God, then he believes there is another mighty God besides the Lord, which contradicts Isaiah 45:6. Con cannot escape the two horns of this dilemma, that why he hasn"t answered it. All these passages fit well with trinitarian theology, but not with Con's interpretation.

He also says: "From this verse I can say that God alone was the Creator and no one else, not even jesus ,participated in the creation." But again he contradicts Hebrews 1:1-2 which tells us that the Son is the one "by whom also he [God the Father] made the worlds." It also contradicts Genesis 1:26 where God said "let us make man in our own image;" who is the "us" if the Father had no help in creation?

Con says the Word in John 1:1 is the divine reason of pagan philosophy; so when verse 14 says "the Word was made flesh," how is it that divine reason was made flesh? Revelation 19:11-16 describes a person which most Christians believe to be Jesus. He is called the King of Kings in verse 16. No doubt, clear reference to a person, not some pagan concept about philosophy or abstract reason. Yet verse 14 tells us HIS name is the Word of God. So the Word is a person! In John"s gospel Jesus is also called the bread, the door, the way, the road, the life; why can"t he be called the Word? John 1:10 says about the Word that "the world was made by him." Did reason make the world, or a person? John 1:1 says "the Word was God." I can see how a person could be God, I can"t see how reason itself could be God. Con, what does it mean to be God? How could reason, be God? Your doctrine sounds more mysterious than the trinity!

Con says: "You cannot be self-sufficiant and not self-sufficiant all at the same time." But Con, why can"t the human side of Jesus be dependant on the self-sufficient divine side of Jesus? Where is the contradiction in this?

Because Con cannot refute what the Bible teaches about Jesus being God, he is driven to deny the Bible itself. He says: "If you assume that everything in Bible must have true and originated with jesus and his early followers , but this is not the case." So now he says that its NOT THE CASE that everything in the Bible is true. This violates the rules of this debate that both debaters agree that the entire Bible is the word of God. How could God"s word not be true?

Con hasn"t returned to defend himself against the charge that he misrepresented what the Illustrated Bible Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica were saying. I provided links giving readers the context of those statements, showing these sources do support the trinity. Con now turns to a long list of sources outside the Bible. Maybe this is because he can"t prove his case from the Bible, so he needs to venture outside as if the opinion of theologians can take precedent over the word of God. Again, he deliberately misrepresents his own sources to mislead the readers. He quotes the Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia as saying:

"The doctrine of the logos[word] and the trinity received their shape from Greek fathers......were much influenced by platonic philosophy ,its strong point was pagan theological speculations. [The new Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of religious knowledge by Samual Macauly jackson,1911.vol.9.p-91]"

Now it is simply ridiculous to claim that the editors are saying that the trinity was borrowed from paganism, because Phillip Shaff and his co-editors Clemens Peterson and Samuel Jackson were Trinitarians. Notice what the full quote really said:

"And many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato, and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools, were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its Jewish-Alexandrian form. That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied." (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Platonism and Christianity, p91)

The author"s point is not that early Christians borrowed their doctrine from Plato, but that they employed Platonic language to convey Christian truths for illustrative purposes. Samuel Macauly Jackson also denied outright that the trinity was borrowed from paganism:

"The Socinian and rationalistic opinion, that the church doctrine of the Trinity sprang from Platonism and Neo-Platonism is therefore radically false. The Indian Trimurti, altogether pantheistic in spirit, is still further from the Christian Trinity" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church New York: Scribner's, 1924, vol. 2, p. 566) You can read full quotes in detail at this link;

So Con is being very dishonest in this debate by trying to make his sources look like they aresaying the opposite of what they are really saying! Shame on you kaisor!

And since you believe the Bible was changed to teach the trinity, then how do you even know what the original said? How do you know what Jesus said?

Con accused me of bringing up 1 John 5:7. I challenge him to quote the sentence I ever made about it. The passage I did mention was 1 John 5:20 where Jesus is called the true God. Con never responded to this one because it so powerfully asserts that Jesus is God; so he brings up a verse I didn"t use that he finds easier to refute, and spends time explaining away that one instead of dealing with the arguments I actually did make.

Con asserts that Jesus is never called God in the book of Acts, so I ask, whose blood was shed in Acts 20:28? God purchased us with HIS OWN BLOOD, that ought to settle it.

Finally Con argues that God cannot die, and of course he can"t; but his physical body did die, which is the same thing that happens to us. Con, when your body dies, will not your soul continue living? Matthew 10:28 says: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul."


Thanks pro-

God is not author of confusion [1 corin:14:33]. God gifted us faculty of understnding. logic .reason.discipline everything by utilising these things with proper way arms with history and revealed scripture ,we can possible to know who is real God but whereever contradiction, confusion and discrepency should be discern by analysis with logic and reason on the basis of real teaching of jesus not man-made doctrine or any kind of grammatical juggling.

Pro- ask who is "us" .In short my reply is that Elohim andAdonim, hebrew words for God ,occur in the plural.If this literality meant plurarity of person -it would be translated Gods. But jew being truely monotheistic and throughly familiar with idoms of their own language ,have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurarity of person within the one God.This use of plural is amplification and is called plural of majesty or plural of empasis not plural of number ,Many hebrew scholar identify this use of "us" as the use of the plural of majesty.

pro mention ,Isaiah9:6 that jesus is mighty God ,everlasting Father

If it is taken literally that jesus is everlasting father ,but jesus clearly taught that he was not everlasting father .
According to Mathew- while jesus on earth ,he declared -do not call anyone on earth father for you have one father ,and he is in heaven[23:9 NIV].

Jesus said his enemies -you are determind to kill me , a man who has told the truth that I have heard from God ,[Jn 8:40].

When jesus knelt-down and prayed ,he obviously was not pray himself[ Luke 22:41]

God has made this jesus ,whom you crucified ,both lord and christ [Acts 2:36].

if pro think according to Isaiah 9:6 that jesus is mighty or everlasting father then all above mentioned verses either false or contradictory, both cannot be right,

Pro mentioned that jesus has limited knowledge in huminity but his devine nature knows everything

In reply ,to be human means to be limited, lacking knowledge, prone to mistake ,imperfect and to be God means just the opposite : unlimited , All-knowing ,infallible and perfect, you cannot have it both.
What is true by defination will remain always true unless you start redifining things
for exp- 2+2=4, this equation always remain true .The only way this can become false ,if you decide to change the definition of the component parts . Now ,by definition a thing cannot be opposite itself.A thing cannot be perfect and imperfect at the same time. If I say x and not x can be true - in reality it is meaningless.

Come to the episode of fig tree. Jesus was hungry. Seeing in a distance a fig tree ,he went to find out if it any fruit .When he reched it ,he found nothing but leaves.because it was not season of fig...he curse the tree. [Mark 11:12-14].
It was not fig season and tree had no fruit -this comment from Mark clearly implies that it was perfectly good tree , if tree was barren ,Marks comment about the season would have been pointless and misleading.
The whole thing begun when jesus was hungry.
Now it is easy to understand that the human jesus felt hungry ,and the human jesus did not know it was not season of figand mistakenly expected the have a fruit .
A devine jesus would have know all these, it had no fruit
Why devine jesus curse the tree ? Why ruin the tree which in Marks view is a good tree,when fig comes in season could have others have eaten from it . the reason was that human jesus made a mistake .
But why did the devine jesus act upon the mistake of the human jesus?

Does the human mind in jesus guide the devine nature in him?

When jesus faced death on the cross according to Bible ,either he faced it with human belief that he would raised on third day, or he faced death with unlimited knowledge that he would be so raised.
If he believed with human faith in Gods power to raise him than jesus himself was not God.
If on the other hand , he faced death with unlimited devine knowledge that he would be resurrected, than he was not taking risk in letting himself died,

In the devine nature in him know he would be raised , but he did not know this , than it was not his devine nature.If the devine nature know something - he did not know then I go back to two person.

Actually , there is no warrant all these speculation, for scripture nowhere says that jesus has two nature.
If pro want to believe contrary to the scripture that jesus was fully human ,yet fully devine ,can go on speculating.
If you say that everything is possible with God ,and using word here with human meaning ,this true . Everything is possible with God ,Ibelieve that - if you tell me ,God did such and such and He is such and such , I cannot it is impossoble.
But what if you say -God did and did not or He is or is not? your statement are meaningless.
When you say that jesus is perfect god and perfect man at the same time ,you are saying two opposite thing, therefore ,I reply impossible.
Debate Round No. 4


daley forfeited this round.


True God is creator,not created .He is one,not three or more,He has no partners nor equals.
This one true God is invisible,no one can see Him in this life.
He is not physically manifested or incanated in other forms.
This true God is eternal,He does not die or change.
This true God is not in need of anyone like a mother,a wife,or a son,or anything like a food,drink,or help.But others are in need of Him.
This true God is unique in His attributes ,no one is like Him.No human or animal descriptions can be attributed to Him. Using this criteria and qualities in examining and re
jecting any claims of being God.

In the Bible we see ,jesus taught the oneness of God, When jesus asked - of all the commandmends ,which is most important? Jesus replied ,Hear ,o Israel, the Lord our God ,the Lord is one .....[Mark 12:28-30].
Here jesus stressed the God is one,one does not mean family. The ma who questioned jesus understood this and what the man said next make it clear that jesus is not God. he said tojesus -you are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but Him [Mark 12:32]. Jesus saw the man spoken wisely , jesus said tohim ,"you are not far from the kingdom of heaven [Mark 12:34].

If jesus know the trinity -he should say so ,instead he declared that God is one.
He did not mention the concept of trinity.
True imitator of jesus never understood ,one in three from this declaration.They understood oneness of God.
Does salvation depend on thecommandmends? yes, says the Bible - jesus made it clearwhen another man approched to jesus and asked -good teacher ,what must I do to inherit eternal life ? Jesus replied -why do you call me good ?No one is good,except God alone.[Mark 10:17-18]. Byso saying jesus made clear distinction between himself and God.
Then he proceeded withthe answer to the mans question abouthow to get salvation .Jesus told him -If you want to eternal life ,obey the commandmends.[Mathew ;19:17, Mark:10:19].
Jesus further emphasized this in the gospel ofJohn [17:1] -jesus lifted his eyes to heaven and prayed ,addressing God as Father -then in verse three, he said to God as follows -Now this is eternal life that they know you ,the only true God and jesus christ ,whom you have sent[Jn:17:3].
This prove beyond doubt that if people want to get eternal life they must know the one ,whom jesus was praying to, is the only true God and they must know that jesus was sent by the true God.Jesus did not taught -father is god.son is god,holy ghost is god instead he said the Father alone is only true God.
Jesus had said that his true followers are those who hold to his teschings. He said-
If you hold to my teaching ,you are really my disciples [Jn 8:31].
His teaching is to keep the commandmends, especially, the first commandmend which emphasize that God is alone should be loved with all our hearts and all our mind and strength. The Quran confirms the first commandmend and addressed it all human kind[ Holy Quran:2:163] -" And your God is One God .There is no god but He,Most Gracious ,Most Merciful."

Finally, we must turn to God for His guidance. He sent His final book the Quran to rescue mankindfrom the theological traps of humanly invented dogmas. The Quran addresses the christians and jews -
" O people of scripture, stress not your religion other than the truth ,and follows not the vain desire of the folk who erred of old and led many astray and erred from the plain road."[Holy Quran-5:77].

After the creation of Adam ,just one original message has been repeatedly delivered to mankind throughout the history of humanity.
Thus, to remind people about it and bring them back on track, many prophets and messengers including Adam,Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus,and Muhammad were sent by the only true God to convey this message-

"The true God is only One.Worship Him Alone and keep His commandmends."

Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
So are you a muslim, kiasor?
Posted by kaisor 3 years ago
Pro, mentioned his last comment that my whole argument go down to one point -Jesus divinity and trinity. I say yes because if we are not able to discern the false doctrine from the truth then we always stumbling in the depth of darkness like pro.The doctrine of trinity is Biblical or not - we should see historical background as well as famous Encyclopedia and dictionary writer what they say about it.
When we look to the historical background -we see the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as co-equal, co-substantial,co-eternal, one substance, three in one mysterious godhead.
The trinity originated with Babylon and was passed on to most of the world religion.
The polytheistic trinity doctrine was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creed some 300 years after Christ.
Jesus never taught trinity in his entire life.The idea of God the son, is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity :Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt Emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of niceae . The council of Nceae in 325 A.D. said that ,Jesus is God , .
The council of constantinople 381 said that Holt spirit is God .The council of Ephesus 431 said that,-human beings are totally deprived. The council of Chalcedon 451 said that Jesus is both man and God.

New Bible Dictionary ,1982

The word trinity is not found in the Bible.
It did not find the place in the theology of the church till the fourth century.
It is not Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in the Bible

Finally, I have humble request that read the last revealed book the Quran with open heart and not drown yourself in to theologian traps,
Quran said-Say, O ,people of book come to a word that is just between us and you :that we shall worship none but God.and we shall associate no partners with Him and none of us shall take others
Posted by kaisor 3 years ago
pro ,mentioned his argument that Jesus receive prayer proving that he is God.
I say it is your futile understanding. The Aramaic "sagad" ,worship also means to bend or to kneel down.
Easterners in greeting each other generally are bowed the head or bent down - worshipped him does not imply that they worshipped Jesus as one worshipped God. Knelt before him in token of homage and gratitude.
For example- see, 1 Samuel[25:23]- " When Abigail saw David ,she made haste ,and alighted from donkey ,and fell before David on her face ,and bowed to the ground." So ,according to the opinion of pro, here David also god .

Again pro- mentioned Mathew 28-18: and proving that Jesus is God . Here I cited the verse-

" All authority in heaven and earth given to me"-
This verse proving that Jesus is not God because ,in this verse who is giver ? and who is receiver ?
Answer is Giver is God and receiver is Jesus . So, Giver is powerful than receiver .Giver and receiver are not same ,this is why Jesus is not God.
Posted by kaisor 3 years ago
Pro said- We are all spirit clothed in flesh, so I see no reason why God cannot be clothed in flesh too?
I say it is your absurd thinking. The moment you compare anything else with God then its no God because nothing comparable to Him.God is only one ,not family.

Again pro said- Jesus tells us that flesh and spirit are direct opposite- it is whole point that direct opposite thing how to become one thing? From your statement proving that Jesus is not God.

pro- mention Luke[23-46]- from this proving that jesus is not God because Jesus crying to whom? Obviously to Father.Jesus commend his spirit to the hand of Father ,not his hand. If he is God he should commend his to his hand- in this verse Jesus and Father separate being,so Jesus is not God.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
Con wants to know if Jesus had divine knowledge that he would die and be resurrected, and I think Jesus answers for himself nicely at Matthew 16:21. Con thinks Jesus wouldn't be taking a risk in letting himself die if he knew for sure he was coming back. Well, read what Jesus said in Matthew 16:21 and ask yourself how sure Jesus was that he was coming back. Your argument is with him; not me.

Con has ignored most of my arguments, and has avoiding the issue of this debate by focusing on if the trinity is logical, rather than on if the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. I've met his arguments with Scripture, logic, and well cited sources. Con's sources were either irrelevant, or taken out of context. For these reasons, vote Pro...
Posted by daley 3 years ago
Con denies that Jesus is the everlasting Father of Isaiah 9:6, so I'll just ask him to tell us who is this child that is called mighty God, everlasting Father? I won't get to rebut him, but this will be interesting to find out who he thinks it is. Was the Father ever a child?

Con thinks that Matthew 23:9, John 8:40, Luke 22:41 and Acts 2:36 prove that Jesus isn't the everlasting Father; but these verses only show that Jesus isn't the Father. We have the Father, and also the everlasting Father. They are not the same; and if Con thinks they are the same, then he thinks that God the Father is the child spoken of in Isaiah 9:6. In that case, God still became flesh and dwelt among us. He rejects it for the Son, but accepts if for the Father?

Now Con argues that Jesus can't be human, while being the very opposite of what a human is, namely, God. But again, this is his erroneous opinion, because Jesus tells us that flesh and spirit are direct opposites. He says: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39) Yet, he himself had a spirit, and is a quickening spirit. (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor 15:45) So according to Scripture, Jesus is a man (1 Tim 2:5) and a quickening spirit (1 Cor 15:45), even though a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, but men do. Clearly, this is another case of two natures existing in one person. Indeed, we all are spirits clothed in flesh, so I see no reason why God cannot be clothed in flesh too. Is anything impossible for God? Con never did reply to all those Old Testament passages I gave him where God appeared in human flesh to men. Was this not a case of God's infinite nature coexisting with the finite nature of man when he took on these human forms?
Posted by daley 3 years ago
"This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")

To escape the clear testimony that Scripture teaches God is a plural being, Con is driven to the extremely radical idea that "us" and "our" mean just one person. Yet, he is in the same anti-trinitarian camp which claims that God must be just one person because he uses the singular pronouns "I" and "me." When given the plural pronouns they demand that God should use if he were a plural being, they now claim that plural pronouns refer to just one person? What madness! He even claims the correct word to use if God were three persons would be "gods," which again is a misunderstanding of the trinity. They can't be separate gods if they are part of the same being.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
"Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )
Posted by daley 3 years ago
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

(3) Notice that when God made man in his image he made them "male and female," so it was more than one person in the singular "image" of God. So God too must be plural. Notice also what scholars say about this plural of majesty nonsense:
Posted by daley 3 years ago
I thought I had more time but I had to work...This is what my last post would have looked like:

Con's whole argument has come down to one point. The divinity of Jesus, and also the trinity, doesn't make sense TO HIM, therefore, the Bible doesn't teach it. And my reply is that Biblical doctrine is not determined by what makes sense TO HIM. There are plenty of things in the Bible that make no sense to many people, but the fact that these teaching make no sense TO THEM doesn't make them unbiblical teachings. I see no reason, therefore, why Con's inability to make sense of God's triunity should imply that the Bible doesn't teach it. Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead. (John 2:19-22) That doesn't make sense to many people. How can a man raise himself from the dead? Would he not have to be alive to perform his own resurrection? Yet, Jesus said that's what he would do. If Con's god can only do things that Con's finite brain can comprehend, then his god must be one he made up, not the God of the Bible.

Con tries to escape the "us" and "our" at Genesis 1:26 by calling it a "plural of majesty," but this cannot be so, because (1) this linguistic device did not exist until after the Old Testament had been written, first appearing during the Byzantine era of the fourth century, (2) none of the early church fathers ever heard of "a plural of majesty," or believed in it. Christians unanimously interpreted Genesis 1:26 as the Father talking to the Son for the first 500 years of Christian history:

180 AD Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I'd hate to do this to Daley, points to Con for Pro's forfeit.