The Instigator
Projectid
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
johnnyvbassist
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The Bible proves that Jesus was not 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 3 votes the winner is...
Projectid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,838 times Debate No: 37726
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Projectid

Pro

My opponent must be a Christian that believes the Holy Bible is the infallible, perfect word of God. Obviously they must believe that Jesus is God. My opponents first round will be a response to my posted arguments below. Any forfeit of any round will result in a loss of this debate, voters must take this into account when voting. My opponent cannot introduce any new arguments in the last post due to my inability to respond. Please do not accept this debate if you do not meet the guidelines, or do not agree to the said rules. I hope for a good debate.

Argument 1. Jesus is not the same as God.

John 14:28
English Standard Version (ESV)
28 You heard me say to you, "I am going away, and I will come to you." If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Conclusion: God is greater than Jesus.

Argument 2. Jesus is not all-knowing.

Matthew 24:36
English Standard Version (ESV)

36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but the Father only.

Conclusion: Certainly if Jesus is God then he would know everything, because God is all knowing.

Argument 3. Jesus never claims to be God, but he does claim to be the son of man.

Matthew 8:20
English Standard Version (ESV)
20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."

What does the Holy Bible say about the son of man?

Psalm 146:3
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

Conclusion: The Old Testament tells us that there is no help in a son of man, therefore this means Jesus (the son of man) cannot help anybody, therefore he is not God.

Argument 4. Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it.

John 13:3
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Conclusion: If God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However, this is not the case with Jesus, unlike an all-powerful God, Jesus needs help from God; Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God. Notice also from the scripture that Jesus came from God and was going back to God, so was Jesus coming and going from and to himself?

Argument 5: Jesus never claims to be God.

Conclusion: The silence is the proof. Jesus had many opportunities to proclaim that he was God, yet he chose not to, because he was not God.

The passages presented clearly show that Jesus is not God. My opponent must deal with all five arguments.
johnnyvbassist

Con

I would like to make a point that I perfectly match the criteria you are searching for and am eager to rebuttal.

1. John 14:28 refers to the Father and not God. Though if you have a trinitarian view you believe the Father and God are one in the same, then you also believe in Jesus as the son, and the Holy Spirit. You must not have a Trinitarian view and therefore I will debate from the stance of a Trinitarian. Just a few verses later Jesus says, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." I ask if you believe The Holy Spirit is (helper, spirit of truth) is God or something different?

2. In response to Matthew 24:36 Paul clarifies, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11) This statement is clearly that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The Trinitarian view of God, The Son, and The Holy spirit being one God with three natures fits perfectly within this passage.

3. Psalm 146:3 actually says "...in the son of a man..." with no capitalisation. The Matthew passage Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of man." with the exclusive article and capitalisation. Christ is the only one who refers to himself as the Son of man to my knowledge, and he was speaking as in born into mankind. He was no ordinary man. Jesus Christ is God.

4. Interesting argument. But Jesus was going back to be with Father. That does not mean they were separate, it means Jesus was going back into heaven. If God can be in two place at once why couldn't he separate Himself from Jesus while also being in heaven?

Conclusion: Jesus did claim to be God.

"54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. John 8:54-58)" Jesus did not even say "I was" He said, "I am." Just as God claimed to be I AM in the Old Testament. Any language that suggests otherwise in scripture is for communication purposes, not disproving the Trinity.

Debate Round No. 1
Projectid

Pro

ARGUMENT 1.
A. The CON has implied in his first sentence that the Father and God are not the same. If John meant the father and not God then who is the father?
B. The Con then flip flops and declares his trinitarian view that the father is God, so which is it? If you believe that they are one in the same, then wouldn't it be necessary that when John speaks about the father he is talking about God?
C. The Con must deal with the scripture. Jesus says that the father is greater than I. According to the trinitarian view they are all one, which means they are equal. Jesus does not say that they are equal he said that the father was greater than himself.
D. It is illogical to read a passage that states that the father is greater than Jesus, and then to proclaim that they are one in the same.

ARGUMENT 2.
A. You have not dealt with the passage I used, which clearly quantifies my statement that Jesus was not God, because he didn't know things, specifically about the second coming. Jesus puts himself on the same level as the angels, not on the level with God the father.
B. We are not debating the trinity of God we are debating "The Bible proves that Jesus is not God". You must deal with the passage.
C. Besides your scripture quote only does more harm to you. Verse nine states that God bestowed upon Jesus, if Jesus was God, then he could have bestowed things upon himself.

ARGUMENT 3.
A. "Up until around the 9th century AD (the advent of the Masoretic Text), the Hebrew words in the Scriptures lacked vowels. More than that, the sentences in the Hebrew Scriptures had no capital letters, commas, apostrophes, question marks, quotation marks, exclamation marks, or semicolons. Neither were there verse or chapter divisions." http://www.restorersofzion.org...
B. "Koine Greek was the language used by writers of the Old Testament Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. The original Greek New Testament was written in all capital letters, without spaces, punctuation, accents or diacritical marks." http://biblescripture.net...
The Old and the New Testaments were not written in English, so your capitalization argument is invalid.
C. You make reference to an "Exclusive article", to which I think you mean definite article. Both passages sited use articles before "son of man", only "A" is an indefinite article and "The" is a definite article. Either way the passage in Psalms clearly states that one should not put trust in "A" son of man. This would mean to not put trust in any son of man which would include Jesus.

ARGUMENT 4.
A. If Jesus was going back to be with the father then the father was not with him. Besides where was the father when Jesus said in Matthew 27:46: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Certainly Jesus was not forsaking himself, so who was forsaking him, God was? Because Jesus is not and was not God.
B. Also the point of my argument was clearly stated that Jesus received power from the father. If Jesus was God then another God would not have to give it to him, especially if there is only one God.

ARGUMENT 5.
CON: "Conclusion: Jesus did claim to be God."
A. Well Jesus says he is not God
Mark 10:18 Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God. So either this is a contradiction, or Jesus is not God.

The Bible proves that Jesus was not God.
johnnyvbassist

Con

Argument 1: I am sorry I did not clarify. I was asking you how you could believe that the Father was referring to God? In the Christian faith, it would make no sense to equate the Father to God and not the Son to God. The Trinitarian view holds this language as communicable language. God is multi-faceted in such a way, that He describes Himself in three parts, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. You keep saying that it does not make sense for Jesus to refer to Himself as someone else. I say, God is generous to give us a picture of what He really looks like in human terms. A God that transcends time and language has to communicate with us somehow. It makes sense that His communication would sound weird. I think there was a sense in which Jesus had "limits," at the point in time. So it would make sense that He would say the Father is greater. However, Jesus chose to put those limitations on Himself, philosophically He had to power to break them because He was God.

Argument 2-3: I am in Bible School and I am learning Hebrew and Greek. You are correct about the Hebrew language. However, the interpreters of Hebrew know the better than we, and translated the article "a" in Psalm 143 and the Greek scholars put the article "the" in the Matthew passage. There is a sense of capitalization bearing importance in both languages just so you are aware. Again saying that God the Father "bestowed" is merely a picture of how God operates.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. (Genesis 1:26)”

"Let us make man" is proof of God referring to Him in a plural nature, making the idea that Jesus is God not farfetched at all.

Argument 4: Your verse is actually driving home at the heart of the Christian gospel. God forsook God. Forsake in biblical terms does not actually mean abandoned. It means withheld mercy. God is a just God (another point for another debate) and He cannot look on sin. Jesus summoned all of the humans' sin upon Himself and allowed the Father (Himself) to lavish His wrath (a just wrath) on Himself. It is a crazy gospel. But Christians believe that this is their only hope. No its not perfectly logical. But the Christian faith is not centered around logic, but is centered on Christ our Lord.

Argument 5.
Jesus was testing the rich young ruler. He was asking why He called Him God because no one referred to Jesus as God. In this verse Jesus does not say "and I am not God." He says "except God." I believe He is actually implying that He is God and that He was pointing out no human is God. Hence, He asked, "Why do you call me good?"

Conclusion; The Bible, as a whole, does not prove that Jesus was not God. In fact, I do not believe any of the Bible makes any sense in Jesus is not God.

Debate Round No. 2
Projectid

Pro

Argument 1. CON: " I am sorry I did not clarify. I was asking you how you could believe that the Father was referring to God?"
A. John 20:17
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
1) I know that Jesus refers to the father as his God, which is a God. Jesus claims that he has a God and it is the same God as the people.

B. CON "In the Christian faith, it would make no sense to equate the Father to God and not the Son to God."
1) The trinity concept is non-logical and cannot be proven. For a logical refutation of this concept see the section on this sight called " Some attempts at formal logic" http://rationalwiki.org...
2) CON makes this statement: " I think there was a sense in which Jesus had "limits," at the point in time."
a) A perfect God cannot have limits, if the CON truly believes this then he concedes by implication that Jesus is not God.
b) We have already seen in this debate that God the father gave Jesus his power.

Argument 2. Matthew 24:36 English Standard Version (ESV)
36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but the Father only.
A. The CON simply needs to answer the question: Either Jesus knew the answer or he didn't; does this passage state that Jesus did not know the day and the hour?
1) God knows all things, Jesus did not know, therefore Jesus is not God.
B. CON: "You are correct about the Hebrew language. However, the interpreters of Hebrew know the better than we, and translated the article "a" in Psalm 143 and the Greek scholars put the article "the" in the Matthew passage. There is a sense of capitalization bearing importance in both languages just so you are aware."
1) The CON gives no resource or authority for his statement about what interpreters say about this. He just states that they know better then we do.
B. "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. (Genesis 1:26)"
1) Genesis 1:26 does not reveal who the "Us" is.
2)The second problem with assuming the "Us" of Genesis 1:26 is referring to the Trinity is found in the verse following: 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. (KJV) Notice the personal pronouns in Genesis 1:27 ("his" and "he") are all SINGULAR, whereas the personal pronouns in Genesis 1:26 ("Us" and "Our") are all plural. In Genesis 1:27 only one individual is actually doing the creating"God!

Argument 4. (G4518 - Strong's Greek Lexicon Number, forsaken) Con says that this word means " Withheld Mercy", no proof of that has been given, this is an assumption. http://studybible.info...
A. God cannot forsake God, this is a very strange view that has no merit. I agree that the Christian faith is not centered around logic, that is the problem.

Argument 5.
A. No one refers to Jesus as God because he is not God. Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God. So either this is a contradiction, or Jesus is not God. You show no proof that Jesus claims to be God in Mark 10:18 .

I conclude that:

The Bible proclaims that Jesus is a man, not God.
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus." (emphasis mine)

The Bible clearly states that Jesus sits next to God.
1 Peter 3:21-22
"Jesus Christ: who is ... on the right hand of God."

The bible clearly states that God is the head of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 11:3
"The head of Christ is God."

Jesus is not God
johnnyvbassist

Con

I would like to note some things I have noticed from my opponent before rebuttal.

Note 1. Everything my opponent as argued for has hopped back and forth between logic and scripture. Much of scripture is counter intuitive while simultaneously believable. Defining the God in humans terms in an impossibility and all true Christians will admit this. The article from "Rationalwiki" failed to meet standards of conduct and also used a man-made system of logic, the law of non-contradiction. I am currently in another debate, in which I discuss my issues with the law of non-contradiction.(http://www.debate.org...) The Godhead is outside of human understanding so using our limited concepts will fail in understanding God.

Note 2. My opponent misunderstood, intentionally or unintentionally, my point about Jesus putting limits on Himself. A possible allegory would be the following. If a man builds a chain link fence and locks himself inside, he is at the point "limited" to the confinement of said fence. However, he would still hold the key in which he could go outside the boundaries of a fence. Therefore, Jesus was not truly limited so He could fully be God while choosing to not to know something. Knowledge did not precede God if you believe in a God that preceded everything.

A good article that addresses all the major issues discussed does far is http://carm.org.... However, for the sake of moving on and not mindlessly repeating points each of us have made I want to introduce another flaw in my opponent's argument.

"My opponent must be a Christian that believes the Holy Bible is the infallible, perfect word of God."
This is the premise for this debate. We are not going to discuss the validity of scripture, the errors in scripture, or the existence of God. These are the terms that they opponent has set.

"The Bible proves that Jesus was not God!" This is my opponents thesis. My job is to show how Pro cannot not say that logically. He has not provided a single clear scripture in which Jesus says, "I am not God." All of his arguments have presupposed that God is a certain way. They have presupposed that God follows the law of non contradiction.

Let me say my presumption. I believe love and communication must have preceded the world's creation. Both love, and communication must have an object. Therefore God, before creating anything (including angels, heaven, and such) must have had an object to love and to communicate with. I get this concept from this guy. ()

My opponent is slowing withdrawing his statement that "The Bible Proves Jesus is not God." and changing it to "Jesus is not God." Individual verses from the Bible can be arrange to propagate almost any dogma. I will not question the integrity of the opponent and assume he has read the entirety of scripture, though I confess many of Christian brothers have failed to do so. The tenor or theme of scripture is centered around Christ, and without Christ all fails. Christ had to be 100% man and 100% God. This is a illogical mathematical formula. The Christian does not teach logic, it teaches Christ. I do not think this teaching is without proof, but the proof is not found in logic, rather in the Holy Spirit's enlightenment. This is my advantage over my opponent. I have Christ in my heart while he does not. This does not make him less credible on other issues, but it does when it comes to the Christian faith.

Colossians 2:8-10,

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority."

John 20:28

"Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God"

The Bible does not disprove Christ being God.

Debate Round No. 3
Projectid

Pro

1. I am not the Christian, you are. I was a preacher and a teacher for more than a decade. From my understanding the only way to understand scripture is through logic. However through a long process of study, I came to the conclusion that the Bible is not the word of God. You are correct, scripture is counter intuitive. Much of the bible is unbelievable even as a Christian.

2. If the so called Godhead is outside of human understanding then people shouldn't try to understand it. The Bible was written by man alone. It was the Counsel of Nicaea that determined the trinity aspect. They couldn't have more than one God so they had to come up with the trinity. This word is not found in scripture.

3. Your claim that Jesus limited himself does not refute my argument or prove that Jesus is God.

4. CON: "My opponent must be a Christian that believes the Holy Bible is the infallible, perfect word of God."
This is the premise for this debate. We are not going to discuss the validity of scripture, the errors in scripture, or the existence of God. These are the terms that they opponent has set.
a) You miss understand the point of my statement. I requested a person who is a Christian that believes that the Bible is God's word. The terms I stated were for my opponent. I refuse to debate a Christian who does not believe that the scriptures are fallible. I do not believe they are this is why I am debating you. So to state that we are not going to argue the validity of scripture is a failure on your part not mine.

5. CON: " Let me say my presumption. I believe love and communication must have preceded the world's creation. Both love, and communication must have an object. Therefore God, before creating anything (including angels, heaven, and such) must have had an object to love and to communicate with. I get this concept from this guy. ()"
a) I don't even know what this means, how does this prove that the scriptures prove Jesus is God?

6. I hardly think that I am slowly withdrawing from my statement about how the Bible proves that Jesus is not God just because I make the statement Jesus is not God.

7. CON: " Christ had to be 100% man and 100% God. This is a illogical mathematical formula."
a) You are correct this is illogical and makes no sense, why anyone can believe this is beyond me.

8. CON: " This is my advantage over my opponent. I have Christ in my heart while he does not. This does not make him less credible on other issues, but it does when it comes to the Christian faith."
a) You have Christ in your head, not in your heart. Credible, the Bible is not credible, the beliefs that come from the bible are not credible.

9. CON: " However, for the sake of moving on and not mindlessly repeating points each of us have made..."
a) This is a debate we both make points and go back and forth arguing the points, I certainly do not think this is mindless, it's called debating.

10. If the Bible can be used to uphold any dogma then this is just more proof that the Bible is not from God, therefore anything it says about Jesus is invalid. The Bible moves back and forth with contradictory points about every topic it declares. No wonder there are about 40,000 Christian denominations!

11. Christians declare there is one God, yet the scriptures I have shown clearly state that the Father is God, yet Christians proclaim that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. That is two more Gods than the one God Christians proclaim. Again this is why their was a Counsel of Nicaea, because they knew there was a problem.

Argument 1. Jesus is not the same as God.
Argument 2. Jesus is not all-knowing.
Argument 3. Jesus never claims to be God, but he does claim to be the son of man.
Argument 4. Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it
Argument 5: Jesus never claims to be God

The CON has yet to adequately refute these statements within the scriptures that I stated.

I will present more evidence in my last post.
johnnyvbassist

Con

Quickly I will address each of these issues.

1. Your understanding is incorrect. The Bible cannot be understood using logic alone. It does not even prove the existence of God. Is is the word of God, His special revelation to His people.

2. According to the Bible, it was not written by man alone. Every word of scripture is God-breathed. (2 Timothy 3:16-17). You have no biblical argument against that and if you want to discuss the validity of scripture you should start another debate. Your thesis states that the Bible (which you apparently believe has no credibility) proves that Jesus was not God (never explicitly stated). The burden of proof is on you, not me.

3. Yes it does. I gave you the passage in Philippians, which claims He emptied/humbled Himself. He had the the ability to "know" or do things, but decline to activate those abilities in order to show more of His human nature, which was necessary part for the plan of redemption.

4. It is actually a failure on your part. If you believe scripture to be invalid, then why are you arguing from it?

5. It was just to show why I am so firm in a belief of the Trinity. I thought the youtube clip might be helpful.

6. Splitting hairs maybe, but I just wanted to remind you of your true thesis.

7. But the fact remains that millions of people have and do believe it and surely you do not believe them all to be fools. It is at least worth discussing and cannot be dismissed.

8. The Bible teaches that Christ comes into my heart and changes everything. (Ephesians 3:17)

"so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love,"

You cannot believe part of scripture and discount others. At least not in the Christian faith. I will admit there seems to be some contradiction, but there are explanations that have been provided by scholars for centuries. Let us not nitpick at scripture but stick to your original thesis.

9. I meant repeating all the arguments I have posed prior. I am not just going to type them all out again.

10. This makes no sense. You can always take the word of someone else and rip it out of context. It is no different with God.

11. Refer to the video. We know the 1 and 3 concept isn't mathematically sound. You can stop saying that. I accept it. It doesn't make me believe any less in a Trinitarian God.

To your arguments.

A-1
A) When Jesus refers to the Father as greater it does not have to mean "of more value." (http://www.catholic.com...)
B) Things could not be made through Him if He was not God.

"(John 1:1-3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men."

C) You cannot disbelieve my counterarguments because my source is not credible because we are using the same source. That would be the most extreme hypocrisy

A-2
A) Jesus didn't have to be always omniscient. He had the ability to be omniscient "all power given to me" but He did not use it.

B) We have several accounts from scripture of Jesus knowing certain things before they happened (the betrayal of Judas, the denial from Peter, His death on the cross, etc..). Therefore he was selected about what omniscient He used.

A-3-5 (Same argument.)
A) He also claims to be one with the Father. (John 10:30)

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

These are my refutes. If you attempt to discredit the Bible you will be refuting yourself for saying that the Bible proves anything. I have stated the Bible not reveal anything significant for those outside of the Christian faith. I hope you realize that it is foolish to start a debate based on a source, and then later claim that source as not credible. I am sorry, but you cannot prove your thesis.

Debate Round No. 4
Projectid

Pro

I will conclude this debate with reviewing my initial arguments and how the CON responded.

Argument 1. Jesus is not the same as God according to John 14:28.
A) It is a simple concept, Jesus is not greater than the father who is God. The Con merely inquired in how I knew the Father was God. The CON never deals with this passage, instead the CON decided to talk about the trinity. The CON also ranted about my use of logic and scripture, implying that this was a faulty means of understanding. Then he makes this grand statement: " Much of scripture is counter intuitive while simultaneously believable." My argument still stands, he has one more round to deal with it directly.

Argument 2. Jesus is not all-knowing according to Matt. 24:36
A) The CON never deals directly with the text given, instead he quotes other passages, but does not deal with the passage directly. The he talks about the trinity some more. I made a rebuttal to his argument in Genesis 1:26, which he claims is proof of the trinity, to which we are not debating. He never responded to my rebuttal.

Argument 3. Jesus never claims to be God, but he does claim to be the son of man. Matt.8:20; Psalms 146:3
A) The CON merely used the argument of the grammatical article and capitalization as a counterargument, and said scholars or interpreters know better than us, but used no resources, which still would not necessarily disprove my argument.

Argument 4. Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it. John 13:3
A) CONS response:4. " Interesting argument. But Jesus was going back to be with Father. That does not mean they were separate, it means Jesus was going back into heaven. If God can be in two place at once why couldn't he separate Himself from Jesus while also being in heaven?"
1) The CON misses the point, which was that God had given Jesus his power.
2) Round 2 CON: " God forsook God" This is a crazy statement, I have never heard this from a Christian until now. Besides the CON again does not deal with my point of the argument.

Argument 5: Jesus never claims to be God.
A) CON uses John 8:54-58 as his first proof that Jesus claims to be God, when he says "I am". Its unfortunate for the CON that Jesus didn't say: I AM......GOD.
B) I gave Mark 10:18 as an example of Jesus claiming that he was not good only God is good. The CON remarks this way: " I believe He is actually implying that He is God and that He was pointing out no human is God." That is far from what Jesus was saying, even if it is what he meant it only disproves your point because Jesus was a human and therefore not God.
The CON spent a lot of time poking at using logic and the fact that I am not allowed to use scripture to prove arguments because I do not believe in the credibility of the Bible. The only way anyone knows anything about Jesus, whether they believe in him or not, is the Bible.

In John 17:3, while praying to his Father, Jesus made reference to Him as "the only true God."

Therefore Jesus cannot be the one true God.

The Bible proves that Jesus is not God.

I appreciate the debate and your time.
johnnyvbassist

Con

Before I close I would like to thank my opponent for his time and his willingness to challenge me and what I believe. The whole reason I am on this site is for the sake of being challenged in order for my knowledge to grow. I thank my opponent for his firm arguments and excellent debating skills.

Let me make 3 points before addressing the last issues and closing.

1. My opponent's thesis was, "The Bible proves that Jesus is not God." Yet, if my opponent does not think the Bible to be a credible source, then he does not truly believe the Bible can prove anything. He couldn't say "The Bible says" because there is no direct verse that says He is not God. It would have been best for him to say "The Bible implies." However, that has not been his argument so he has essentially made his own thesis impossible for himself to prove to himself if the source he is using carries no weight in his mind. I am sorry but you should have never said "proves."

2. My opponent criticizes me for using other verse but never explained why his references were any better than mine. In all of his examples he uses implied truth more than I do. Therefore, like any book, he should not take out the parts that fit with his view and ignore the rest. I used other verse because I believe the Bible should be understood as one whole book. It is not wrong for me to then quote another part from the book.

3. My opponent is an atheist, and will therefore have a bent towards trying to disprove God's existence, just as I am a Christian who is bent towards trying to prove God's existence. In the end, we are both relying on faith because God's existence is scientifically and perhaps even logically unknowable. We may discuss likelihood but we cannot discuss as if it were fact in this sort of debate. Therefore, voters should focus on our skill in debating our two thesis' not on whatever bias.

Pro's thesis "The Bible proves that Jesus is not God"
Con's thesis "The Bible does not disprove Jesus as God."

1) I have dealt with this passage. I brought up the trinity because I, along with many others, believe that the Bible cannot be understood apart from a Trinitarian lens. As far as the Father being "greater," you never defined what you thought greater meant while I suggested maybe it has less to do with value and more to do with vastness. It does not disprove Jesus' deity in the slightest.

2) Christ did not know when he was coming back on this earth. I can accept that. God is all-knowing. There seems to be a contradiction, but as I have suggested Christ "emptied" Himself and therefore withheld His own knowledge from Himself. A task which only an all-powerful God could do.

3) Jesus called himself THE (exclusive) Son (singular) of man (I did research and this means one man (Greek). Psalms warns against princes (plural) who may be referred to as a (non-restrictive) son (one of plural) of man (I did research and this means mankind (Hebrew). I do not think these two verse have to do with each other, but Psalms is dealing with those who try to discredit God while Matthew is Jesus referring to himself.

4) I did address this you just do not like how I did. In the trinity, the Father "gave" the Son His authority and power. This is a picture of how the trinity works, not implying Jesus is not an equal part of God.

5) Jesus did not need to claim He was God. He worked through actions more than words. When the world turned dark on the cross, when He changed the water into wine, and when He rose again from the dead. I have given you a biblical reference and you discount based on your belief, not because there is a flaw in my argument.

In conclusion, while the Bible can be hard to understand sometimes I do not see a way that one could logically state that the Bible disproves Jesus as God. I believe my opponent has failed to do so.

Thanks to all who read! Happy voting! :)

(More sources for fun)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.spurgeon.org...;
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Jaserelijah 4 years ago
Jaserelijah
If only I had seen this debate and could have voted. Sorry Con, you clearly won this debate but unfortunately atheists have more of a following then we Christians and they are far more proactive then most Christians now days. The workers are few. At least they are somewhat fair when they vote for spelling and conduct but if they agree at the beginning they will likely agree at the end. A Christian doesn't stand a chance of winning one of these debates but winning shouldn't be what all of this is about anyway. Your sources and debate format were far better then Pros and far more Biblically accurate.
Posted by Projectid 4 years ago
Projectid
Actually it really doesn't matter what is said in the bible, it's a book full of contradictions and myths. It was written by man and bears no mark of inspiration. It fails in so many ways, I don't know how people believe it.
Posted by simpleman 4 years ago
simpleman
Pro, what then is to be made of Jesus's statement to the council of the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I AM."? Clearly He was revealing who He was to them as being God, since I AM was the name God revealed to Moses as being His own.
Also consider the Great Commission: "Go ye into all the world...making disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... He came in the flesh and made His dwelling among us."
I would reread the verses you are not giving full consideration to
Posted by Projectid 4 years ago
Projectid
To: Naysayer
If you want to debate, you sent up the challenge and the argument and I 'll let you know if I am interested, although I am not really interested in debating the same topic so soon.
Posted by Naysayer 4 years ago
Naysayer
I'd really like next opportunity to debate this, Projectid. Send a challenge if you like.
Posted by oldman1990 4 years ago
oldman1990
My Problem with this debate is not that it is going on, but rather that some of the scriptures are taken out of context.
Posted by xxHAKUx 4 years ago
xxHAKUx
Good luck Johhny, I'm your biggest fan!! -Kyle Mills-
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 4 years ago
Skeptikitten
ProjectidjohnnyvbassistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were far more consistent than Con's, and used less logical fallacies. Many of Pro's arguments were never truly countered, but more talked around.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 4 years ago
MysticEgg
ProjectidjohnnyvbassistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no opinion on this topic, so that's my stance. Conduct, spelling, and grammar were fine. Arguments to Pro; his were more thought out and worked better, whereas Con's arguments were rather "hoppy". However, sources to Con, because Con used more which I consider to be reliable.
Vote Placed by Naysayer 4 years ago
Naysayer
ProjectidjohnnyvbassistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to say it, but Pro made much more consistent arguments. There were huge gaps in his logic that could have been proven using the Word of God and Con just never took advantage.