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

The God of the Bible is not triune in nature.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,686 times Debate No: 83877
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (95)
Votes (1)




This debate will be centered around whether or not the God of the Bible has a triune nature. For this debate, the only source that should be used to prove your point is the Bible. There may be certain situations where lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, or creeds are permissible, which will ultimately be up to the voters to decide. However, the end goal is to prove that the Bible supports the position of a triune nature for God, not an outside source.

Important Rules:
- Forfeiting a round will result in an automatic victory for the opponent
- No images may be used in the debate (provide a link if necessary)
- No insulting the opponent
- Accepting this debate without my permission will result in an automatic victory for Pro
- Round format (see below) should not be broken at any point during the debate

triune - three in one ("one God in three persons"); specifically in regards to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [or "Ghost"]
Bible - protestant Bible (66 books)

Round Format:
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Initial Argument(s)
Round 3 - Rebuttal(s)
Round 4 - Rebuttal(s) in regards to Round 3
Round 5 - Closing Statement(s)

If you have any questions or concerns, please use the comments to voice them before accepting the debate. If you would like to accept the debate, please let me know in the comments. I will accept whoever I believe will provide the best debate for the readers.

Best of luck to my opponent and I hope that anyone watching will be entertained.


I will conclusively prove that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches the Trinity, and there are no good arguments against it from the Bible.
Debate Round No. 1


My position is rather simple and is expressed in an elementary style in the first round. My position is that the Bible teaches that God is not triune in nature. The triune identity that people associate with the God of the Bible comes from the doctrine of the trinity. I will go ahead and take a direct quote from the Athanasian Creed, which defines the trinity as:
“And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. […] For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.” [1]

It is my goal to prove the following:

1) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are not equal

2) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are not coeternal or coequal

3) Jesus is not both God and man

What does the Bible say?

1) Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are equal? The answer is no. I will specifically make it my objective to prove that the Father and Son are not equal, ignoring the Spirit or Ghost. I only have to prove that two of them are not equal to debunk the entire position.

I will start by pointing the reader to John 17:3, which reads:

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (KJV)

We know that Jesus, in this verse, is identifying the Father as “the only true God.” So we have Jesus establishing a group, “true God(s).” We then have Jesus establishing a member of that group, the Father. So my question for my opponent is this:
On what basis do you change the grouping of “true God(s)” to incorporate Jesus and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”]?

Surely the basis is not scriptural. Another verse that I will reference is 1 Corinthians 11:3, which reads:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (KJV)

It is quite clear that this verse is establishing that God is not only a separate person (or being) from Christ, but that God is also superior to Christ. I have met some trinitarians who will say that this is in reference to the earthly, fleshy, Jesus. However, this was written after Jesus had already returned to heaven, so that is not a reasonable explanation.

I want the readers to also consider Mark 10:18 and John 20:17, which read:
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (KJV)

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (KJV)

These verses further confirm that Jesus is a separate person (or being) from God. They also establish, once again, that God is the Father.

Let's now read Revelation 3:12:
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” (KJV)

Jesus is speaking while in heaven. This really drives home the point that Jesus is a separate person (or being) from God. This is, once again, established in Romans 8:34 (also Psalms 110:1; Acts 7:55,56; and 1 Peter 3:22), which reads:
“Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (KJV)

Finally, consider Acts 5:31, which reads:
“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (KJV)

Not only does this establish that God and Jesus are separate persons (or beings), but it also establishes that Jesus was not the highest, as he was exalted.

2) Consider what was pointed out in the last section, as well as John 14:28, which reads:
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (KJV)

This could not be spelled out any clearer, the Father is greater than the Son.

This is further shown in John 5:19 (also Luke 22:42; John 6:38; John 7:16; and John 5:30), which reads:
“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (KJV)

This is establishing that the Father is clearly superior to the Son.

Jesus even draws a distinction between himself and God again in John 8:42:
“Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” (KJV)

Trinitarians try to rationalize the above verses by stating that Jesus was only lesser while on earth. However, that has already been proven to be an incorrect rationalization via 1 Corinthians 11:3. As well, the Athanasian Creed states that Jesus is both man and God.

3) Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Jesus was both God and man. My position is that Jesus was fully man, not fully God. In fact, let's reference Matthew 4:1-11, where Satan is making an attempt to tempt Jesus. If Jesus were God:
1.) Satan would not have tried to tempt him since he (Jesus) could not have failed.
2.) Jesus would not have constantly been referring to God as a separate person and how he should not put Him to the test.
3.) It would have been pointless for Satan to offer
all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus since it is only by God's allowance that Satan has control over them.
4.) Satan's request for Jesus to worship him would have been absurd to both of them.
5.) Jesus would never have said,
Get thee hence, Satan: 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' (Mt. 4:8-10) KJV. Jesus said that his worship belongs to God, not Satan. If Jesus was God, this statement would make absolutely no sense at all.

Refuting common "proof texts.

I will now refute some of the most commonly used “proof texts” by Trinitarians:

John 20:28:

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)

A Trinitarian will state that scripture displays proof that Jesus is indeed God. However, they are ignoring all of the context in doing so. First, let's define what god really means in this verse if it is not referring to the true God (John 17:3). Psalm 82:1-6 show that gods can be used to describe powerful men or judges. This also applies to Jesus.

Looking further into the context, we will realize that Thomas had already heard that the Father was the only true God (John 17:3). Then, after Jesus was resurrected, he said that he was ascending to my God and your God (John 20:17). It was after Thomas had touched Christ that John states, in John 20:31:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (KJV)

So there is no reason to believe that Thomas thought Jesus was the
true God, but rather just a god, which is confirmed in John 1:1.

Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (KJV)

Trinitarians will try to use this verse by saying that since through Jesus all things were created, then Jesus must be the Lord. This is faulty reasoning. Colossians 1:15-17 clearly show that Jesus is merely the channel through which the Lord created all things. Only the Lord actually has the means to create. There are several verses that confirm this, one of which is Matthew 28:18, which reads:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (KJV)

Quite clearly, Jesus has to be given his power.

Isaiah 43:11/2 Peter 2:18
I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. (KJV)

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. (KJV)

Does this mean that Jesus is "the Lord" since they both are saviors? Not at all. There have been many saviors in the Bible, however, it is through "the Lord" that all salvation comes. This is shown clearly in verses such as Acts 4:10-12, which read:
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (KJV)

John 3:17 reads:
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” (KJV)

The Lord
is the source, or initiator, of salvation. Jesus is merely the instrument.


- Bolded numbers under "What does the Bible say?" are in correlation with the goals listed above that section (i.e. 1); 2); 3))
- Italicized verses (i.e. John 20:28) indicate the start of a new proof text refutation.
- “The Lord” is in reference to יהוה


As round 2 is only for opening arguments, I won't give rebuttals till the next round. Here is my opening argument:

The Scriptures proclaim that 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 that all other gods are false. Since there is only one God, then no other being can truly be a god. This is why they are false gods [that is, not truly gods]. Now, Scripture plainly identifies the Son as God in John 20:28. The term "my God" refers to the true God every single time it is used in the Bible outside of John 20:28, establishing the consistent linguistic use of the term. Thomas here calls Jesus in the Greek, ho kurious mou kai ho theos mou, literally, the Lord OF me and the God OF me. So John 20:28 calls Jesus the God OF Thomas, and in verse 29 Jesus approves. Now since there is only one true God, either Jesus was the true God in John 20:28, or a false god. Which is it? I look forward to my opponents answer. But Jesus is also identified as God in Isaiah 9:6. So which is it: is he a true god, or a false god? If he is a true god, then he must be the Almighty, for there is only one true God, not two; if he is a false god, we are not saved, for no pretender could save us. He can't be another god besides the true God, because Scripture says there is ONLY ONE God.

Isa 44:24 tells us that Yahweh made all things, stretched 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 in Isaiah 44:24. If the trinity is true, harmony comes to the texts.

At Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh declares, "I myself am Yahweh and BESIDES ME THERE IS NO SAVIOR." (WEB) Scripture tells us plainly that Jesus is the Savior. (Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2 Pet 1:11, etc) So is Jesus Yahweh himself, or is he ANOTHER Savior BESIDES Yahweh? Which is it? If he is Yahweh, then he must be one Yahweh with the Father. For there is only one Yahweh. (Deu 6:4) If he is not Yahweh, then he is another Savior besides Yahweh, and Yahweh was lying when he claimed to be the only Savior. Which is it? 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.

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 Kingdom Interlinear also has "ASK ME" in the Greek.

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 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. Does not prayer only belong to God?

2 Corinthians 12:8-9 "In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; and yet he really said to me: "My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast as respects my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me." Here Paul prayed to the "Lord" Jesus three times and Jesus answered his prayer by saying: "My... power is being make perfect in weakness." Paul concluded by admitting that he would "rather boast ...that the power of (who?) the Christ may like a tent remain over me." So, here again, we see an example of a Christian in the Bible praying to the Lord Jesus with Jesus responding to the prayer with His "underserved kindness" and "power." (NWT) We are told about Jesus hearing our prayers again in 1 John 5:12-16 and Acts 7:59. This would not be so if Jesus were not God.

I must at this point mention the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. This rule 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. (*Note that the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Having stated this rule I find it necessary to present two verses of scripture that 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! So I think I have made a good case that Jesus is definitely God, and since there is only one God, then the Father and the Son must be one God. Now, onto the Holy Spirit.

That the Holy Spirit is God and Lord is clearly stated in the Scriptures. (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 3:17) The Holy Spirit has the same attributes of Deity as the Father and the Son:

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 (Isaiah 40:12-15)

Trinity: a tripersonal being (one being with three distinct minds)
God: the divine nature, namely, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, all-loving, etc.
God: definition 2: any person who possesses divine nature. [Illustration: a scoop of flour is not the whole bag of flour, just as God the Son is not the entire Trinity, and yet, the scoop of flour is by nature flour, just like the whole bag of flour, and so to, God the Son is still by nature God, just like the entire trinity. He is part of the being that has that nature]

Isaiah 46:9 says there is no one like God, but Jesus is so much like Him that if you see Him you see the Father. (John 14:9) Jesus was worshiped even though worship only belongs to God. (Heb 1:6; Matt 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 28:9, 17; John 9:38) The difference between God and his creation is the difference between the finite and the infinite. How could a man of finite qualities ever get so close to being like a God who has those attributes to an INFINITE degree? That's not possible. He had to be God to be that much like the Father.

Isaiah 40:3 speaks about preparing the way for the LORD (Yahweh). When we compare this verse with Mark 1:3 we see that Jesus is the LORD who had the way prepared for him by John the Baptist.

In Joel 2:32 it says that whoever calls upon the Name of the LORD (Yahweh) will be saved. This verse is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:21, and by Paul in Romans 10:13. Both apostles are clearly referring to Jesus as the LORD.

In Isaiah 6:1-10 we read about the marvelous vision that Isaiah had revealing the glory of the LORD (Yahweh). John tells us in John 12:40-41 that this vision revealed the glory of Jesus. The New World Translation has reference in the margin of John 12 pointing to Isaiah 6.

In Isaiah 44:6, the LORD (Yahweh) refers to himself as "the First and the Last". In Revelation 1:8 and 17, Jesus similarly refers to himself as "the Alpha and the Omega" and "the First and the Last".

Also, creatures in heaven worship the Lamb and the Father in Revelation 5:13-14.
Debate Round No. 2


Other “beings” can be “a god.” This is described in Psalm 82:1-6. It is also clarified that Jesus is “a god” in John 1:1, which read:
“I said, ‘You are 'gods'” (KJV)

“and the word was a god” (The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808, London)

Therefore, your argument for John 20:28 proving Jesus to be the “true God” (Jn. 17:3) is faulty. Jesus was the same type of “god” described in Psalm 82:1-6. You are limiting the use of the title “god,” which is not what the Bible teaches. In regards to Isaiah 9:6:

Mighty God

At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is […] called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; Jn. 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1. (rs p. 405-p. 426; Watchtower Online Library)

Everlasting Father

This is not a literal title. Even you will concede that, as the trinity states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are separate. There is no need for me to refute it.

I refuted Isaiah 44:24 and Colossians 1:15-17 in my initial argument, so I will not readdress them here. However, in regards to Psalm 104:30, this is talking about the active force of God. The spirit is not God himself. This is clarified in Genesis 1:2 and Psalm 33:6, which read:
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (KJV)

“By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made, And by the spirit of his mouth everything in them.” (NWT)

The plurality of Genesis 1:26 (not 1:16, as you suggested) is in reference to both Jesus and God. Remember, as I have shown in my initial argument that it was through Jesus that all things were created (Col. 1:15). However, it is God that actually has the power of creation.


I have already addressed Isaiah 43:11 and the title of “savior” in my initial argument, so I will not readdress it here.
Finish quoting Acts 4:12:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (KJV)

There is no use in using a disputed text in your argument, as it will upset the balance of the debate. You will note that the
KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, JB, NEB, REB, MLB, LB, AB, CBW, NLV, LITV, MKJV, and various others all omit “me” after the word “ask” in John 14:14. There are manuscripts that have the word “me” in it while others do not. However, we can look to the more reliable text of John 16:23, which reads:
“And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.” (KJV)

The Sahidic Coptic text (2
nd/3rd century), based on the Alexandirian text, reads:
If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do. [2]

I will take the position of the undisputed text over the position of the disputed text, that is common sense.


This is a beautiful example of what I call “wishful thinking.” “The Lord” in this verse is God, not Jesus. So it is God who says:
“My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.”

It is Paul who states:
“Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast as respects my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me.”

God answered Paul's prayer. It was through Christ that Paul felt God's protection.

1 John 5:12-16 is talking about God, not Jesus. Acts 7:59 has the word “pray” in it, but that is the same Greek work used in Acts 25:11 when Paul says “I appeal to Caesar!” Are you also suggesting that Paul prayed to Caesar?

My opponent provides a rather decent summary of “Sharp's Rule.” Now I will address the problems with it. To start, let me quote some very notable Greek scholars on the topic:

“We cannot discuss here the problem of Titus 2:13, for we must,
as grammarians, leave the matter open ...” (J. H. Moulton's A Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 84, Vol. 1.)

In regards to 2 Peter 1:1, “'God' here is
clearly separated from 'Christ'.” (Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol.1, 3rd printing: 1965.)

In regards to Titus 2:13, the sense “of the Great God,
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ […] is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition[of the definite article before the second noun].” (An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109.)

Of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus” (Titus 2:13,The Bible, A New Translation, by Dr. James Moffatt, Professor of New Testament Greek at Oxford University.)

Granville Sharp made up his own rule in 1798. His rule is used by some for five verses of the Bible (Ti. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; and Eph. 5:5). From the very moment it was proposed, there was great controversy. [1] Now, let's list the translations that disagree with my opponent's translation of 1 Peter 1:1:
KJV, ASV, Weymouth NT, The New American Bible (1970), NAB (1991), New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, NRSV, The Jerusalem Bible, NJB , Today's English Version, New English Bible, The Living Bible, Phillips, Modern Language Bible, Douay Version, King James II Version , Good News Bible, The Amplified Bible, Barclay's Daily Study Bible (1975), New Life Version, Easy-to-Read Version, and various others. Why use such a disputed “rule” in your initial argument?

How about Titus 2:13?:

KJV, CJB, GNV, Phillips, NLV, Coverdale, Geneva, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Mace, Moffatt, The Living Oracles, Noyes, Riverside, Sawyer, New American Bible (1970), New American Bible (1991), A New Translation in Plain English, CEV, and various others.

“I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing.” (
The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.)

The Father is eternal, the Son was created (Col. 1:15; reference P1 above), and I want to take Hebrews 9:14 in a different direction. It reads:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (KJV)

This draws another instance of Jesus being a separate person (or being) from God.

The Son is not omniscient. Consider Matthew 24:36, which reads:
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” (KJV)

John 16:30 is in reference to verses such as John 5:19, which reads:
“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The
Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (KJV)

omnipresent - present everywhere at the same time

This trait is not associated with Jesus (
Matt 18:20).

Matthew 28:18:
“Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'”

Who gave him this authority?


What is meant by “known” and “dwelleth [or “abides”]”? This is shown in 1 John 2:3, 5, 6, which read:

“by this we know that we have come to
know Him, if we keep His commandments […] By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner He walked [your purpose, actions words, and life must reflect his example].” (NASB)

Also consider 1 John 3:29, which reads:
“he that keeps His [God's] commandments
abides in Him, and He in him.” (NASB)

Now, what does “seen” mean? Consider 3 John 11 and 1 John 3:6, which read:
the one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.” (NASB)

“No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has
seen Him or knows Him.” (NASB)

human beings have seen or will see God Himself do not refer to a perception of a physical aspect of God by human physical senses but a process of coming to some amount of
understanding of God” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 380, Vol. 4.)

In regards to Hebrews 1:6 and other verses regarding the “worship” of Jesus, consider the following:
“PROSKUNEO […] to make
obeisance, do reverence to […] an act of homage or reverence (a) to God […]; (b) to Christ […]; (c) to a man,” (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.)

P12, 13:
Mark 1:3; Acts 2:21; and Romans 10:13 are in reference to God, not Christ.


My opponent is going to need to clarify his position better. John said, in John 12:41:

“These things said Esaias, when he saw
his glory, and spake of him.” (KJV)

This is referring to God, not Jesus.

Isa. 44:6:
Thus says the
LORD, Israel's King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts” (NAB)
Also: NIV, JB, LB, GNB, REB, NJB, and various others render the text similarly. So where are you reading that Jesus is God?

Rev. 1:8:
There was no punctuation in the original Greek manuscripts. There are also no quotation marks in the KJV. This means that who is speaking and when is up to the reader.

Rev. 1:7:
Adam was the
first and last man to be made of dust (1 Cor. 15:45). Verse 18 shows us that Jesus was the “first” to be resurrected to eternal life directly by God. He was also the “last” to be directly resurrected by God to eternal life. This has nothing to do with sharing titles with God.

Rev. 5:13:
Jesus is not on the throne.

Notes in comments.


Regarding John 17:3, Pro asked, "On what basis do you change the grouping of "true God(s)" to incorporate Jesus and the Holy Ghost [or "Spirit"]?"

(1) Since the Father is the ONLY true God, ALL OTHER GODS ARE FALSE. So if Jesus and the Holy Spirit, who are both called God in Isa 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Heb 1:8; Acts 5:3-4 and other places, are not in the group (true God), then they are false gods. This would mean we are in trouble, because a false god can't save us!

(2) Jesus is called the true God in 1 John 5:20: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (KJV) Notice here that the true God is the eternal life, right? 1 John 1:1-2 begins by telling us about the "eternal life" which was with the Father who became flesh so he they could feel him with their hands. That's Jesus. Jesus is the eternal life, which according to chapter 5 verse 20 is the true God. More than that, Jesus is the hearer of prayer in that same John 5. Verse 12-15 say: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him [who? all the previous verses were talking about the Son], that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he [the Son] heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him."

(3) Pro is making a theological doctrine out of the word "only" in John 17:3 in order to excluse the Son from the group "true God." But this is faulty logic because it isn't consistent and breaks down when used with other passages. Jude 4: "..our ONLY Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." (NWT) Does the fact that Jesus is our ONLY owner and Lord exclude the Father from being our owner and Lord? If not, we can't use this kind of logic to separate the Father from the Son in John 17:3. In fact, because Jesus is our ONLY owner and Lord, he has to be part of the same being as the Father, otherwise, the Father can't be our owner and Lord.

"I, even I, am the Lord [YHWH]; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). On what basis do you incorporate Jesus into the category "Savior(s)" when Isa 43:11 says only Yahweh is in this group? That would make Jesus out to be Yahweh. So your own logic defeats you.

1 Corinthians 11:3 was not talking about the NATURE of Christ, as if he is some inferior type of being from the Father, but only about his role. A manager at work may be over his staff, but that doesn't make them less human than he is. Similarly, Jesus taking on the role of a servant to the Father does not make Him any less divine. Christ, "Who, being in very nature (footnote: "in the form of") God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Php 2:6-7) This clearly shows Jesus is God BY NATURE, but took a role of submission when he took on our human nature. Pro points out that his position with God the Father as His head is spoken of long after he returned to heaven, but convenient neglected to also mention that he remained a man in that nature of a servant after his return to heaven. 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31 were also written long after the ascension, and these speak of Jesus as still being a man. So in his human nature, he continues in this role.

Notice also 1 Corinthians 11:3 says the husband is head of his wife, so does Pro think women are less human then men? Why then assume Jesus would be less divine, that is, less omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, or any other attribute that makes God, God? This verse only differentiates Jesus as a separate person from the Father, but not as a separate being. I invite you to see the difference between "being" and "person" here: So the "person" only refers to individual consciousness, intelligence and rationality, but "being" is the totality of the thing. Jesus is not the triune being, only part of Him, but he is a complete person.

Amazingly, Pro uses John 20:17 and Rev 3:12 where Jesus calls the Father "my God," as proof the Father is God, and I agree; but when Thomas calls Jesus "my God" in John 20:28 he won't allow the same term to carry this same meaning that he himself ascribed to it just a few sentences earlier. Not consistent. "My" is a posessive word. So Jesus is the God of Thomas. The Greek literally says "kai ho Theos mou" - "the God OF ME." All through his argument he claims Jesus is a separate person from God, meaning the Father, but all trinitarians agree that Jeus is not God the Father, he is God the Word (John 1:1). Pro is fighting modalism here, the doctrine that the Father and Son are the same person; we don't teach that! There are three persons in the Trinity, not one.

Pro says that Acts 5:31 "establishes that Jesus was not the highest, as he was exalted." Yet, in the New World Translation he believes in, it says Jehovah "has BECOME highly exalted." (Exo 15:1) So was not Jehovah the highest?

Most passages Pro uses focus on Jesus as a man, such as John 14:28, but we've already seen via Philippians 2, Jesus was in the "form" of God (which no mere created being could be because the Greek word for "form" means all the innate natural characteristics), so if God was omniscient so was He, if God was omnipotent so was He, etc. He choose to take on a servant role.

John 5:30, by saying the Son can do nothing of himself, proves He is God, because had he been other than God he would have the free will to go off in rebellion doing his own thing. Because He is God, he literally CANNOT. Now let Pro explain why Jesus CANNOT do anything of His own initiate. You can, why can't Jesus?

Pro says "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Jesus was both God and man." But it does say he was man, and other verses do say He was God, like Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1, and 20:28.

Satan tempting Jesus doesn't prove Jeus isn't God because God was tempted according to Psalm 95:8-9. "Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers TEMPTED ME, proved me, and saw my work." (KJV) Pro needs to learn there are two types of temptation in the Bible: inward temptation which is an inward desire to do what's wrong (this God cannot do), and outward temptation which is only the "presentation" made by the enemy towards us but doesn't imply any desire on our part. Surely both the Father and the Son could have no desire to sin, but could be presented with opportunities to sin by the enemy. Did Jesus DESIRE to worship Satan? No. Jesus had bigger, better kingdoms in heaven, and will have more in the future, so how could he be attracted by Satan's offer of such broken, fallen kingdoms that are doomed to perish anyway? Pro says it makes no sense for Satan to tempt God, so did it make sense for Israel to tempt Him in the wilderness? Moreover, the God who says he was tempted in Psalm 95, is the Holy Spirit. Heb 3:7-11 says it was the Holy Spirit speaking on that occasion.

You claim Satan wouldn't have tried to tempt Jesus if He was God because Jesus couldn't fail in that case, but look, Satan fought a war in heaven in Rev 12. Do you think Satan thought he could win? Satan argued with God about Job in Job 1 and 2; do you think Satan believed he could outsmart God? Did Satan believe He knew more than the omniscient God, so that he could win this gamble over Job's loyalty? What can I say? Pride blinds people, it blinds Satan too.

Pro is saying that if He was God, Jesus should have come proclaiming "I am God, worship me," and he shouldn't have prayed, read the word, etc, cause it wouldn't make sense, but then what kind of example would that be for us to follow?

Pro claims Jesus is "a god" in the same sense as men are called "gods" in Psalm 82, but those gods are FALSE gods. They are wicked, because they "defend the unjust" and "show partiality to the wicked." (vs 2) Verse 5 says they know nothing, and walk in darkness. Doesn't sound like a son of God to me, so verse 7 must be sarcasm. God sarcastically says, "You are gods" "but you will die like men." (vs 7) Death is used to prove they are not real gods, just as it was with the king of Tyre: "Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:" (Eze 28:2-3) Notice the sarcasm, you don't really think he was wiser than Daniel do you? Nor were these wicked judges sons of the Most High, nor gods. "Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee." (Eze 28:9) Just as his death showed he wasn't a god, God says the same about the judges of Ps 82.

Notice after all his talk about context, Pro quotes John 20:31 without its proper context. Just look at the previous verse (vs 30). It was, not Thomas' profession of faith in his diety ("my God"), but rather, the "signs" or "miracles" Jesus performed that were written to show he was the Son of God. So this isn't an explanation of what Thomas said. "My God" always means "the God I worship" in every other verse.

I'm out of space, but will finish my rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


This is a false position (see P1 in last round).

Even Moses is called “a god” in Exodus 7:1, which reads:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

Was Moses a false God? Did “the LORD” make Moses a false god on purpose? Of course not.

Jesus is not called the “true God” in 1 John 5:20. It reads:
“And we know that the
Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (KJV)

It is clearly not talking about Jesus, as shown by my underlined analysis.

1 John 1:1, 2 is not calling Jesus “the everlasting life.” It is not being used as a title. Carefully consider the text:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)” (KJV)

It is simply saying that eternal life, which is from the Father, has been “manifested unto us.”

Read the context of 1 John 12-15, which can start at verses 9 and 10, which read:
If we accept the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. Because this is the witness God gives, the witness that he has given about his Son. The person putting his faith in the Son of God has the witness within himself. The person not having faith in God has made him a liar, because he has not put his faith in the witness given by God concerning his Son.” (NWT)

So verse 14 is talking about God, which reads:
And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that no matter what we ask according to his will, he hears us.” (NWT)


Read Jude 4 in context:
“My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (NWT)

It is clearly talking about false teachers! This does not prove anything in your favor.


I gave my logic for both of them being called “savior” in my initial argument.


1 Corinthians 11:3 is talking about headship. For example, man is the head of woman. Similarly, God is the head of Christ. That is right, God. According to the Athanasian Creed:
“And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.”

God being the head of Christ contradicts the very foundation of the trinity. A manager and a standard employee are not coequals.Your interpretation of Philippians 2:6 is disputed even among trinitarians. Some take the view like you do while others agree with my own position. For example:

Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though […] in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6.” (NAB Phil. 2:6 footnote)

My opponent is being severely narrow minded if he thinks that 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31 prove that Jesus was a man while in heaven. 1 Timothy 2:6 reads:
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (KJV)

Acts 17:31 reads:
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (KJV)

These verses are clearly speaking of past events!


Think, just for a second, about what you are saying. If when Thomas calls Jesus “my God” in John 20:28 means that Jesus is the God of Thomas (superior to him), then you must also say that when Jesus says “my God” in John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12 that there is someone superior to him! Your own argument defeats itself! I interpret the Bible in light of what all verses say. With that said, Jesus continually and consistently separates himself from God every chance he gets. The context of John 20:28 clearly shows that Thomas did not believe Jesus to be the one “true God” of John 17:3 (reference my initial argument).


I do not place the NWT any higher in my list of translations used than any other. Quite obviously I have used the KJV for most of this debate. You should note that the NWT, which you referenced, has a marginal reference to Exodus 9:16 when you look at Exodus 15:1, which reads:
“But for this very reason I have kept you in existence: to show you my power and to have my name declared in all the earth.” (NWT)

So it defines what is meant by “exalted.” As well, there is a big difference between men exalting Jehovah for helping them and Jehovah exalting someone.

Reference P5-7 above.


This is the most twisted view I have seen you use! John 5:30 reads:
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (KJV)

You surely are not suggesting that one piece of the Godhead bosses around the others? As well, if he “cannot” rebel, then Jesus is being misleading when he says that he “seeks.”

Hebrews 1:8 is in reference to Psalm 45:6, which is figuratively speaking of the Messiaha, but it is literally applied to an Israelite King (probably King Solomon). Even the NAB (1991) has the following footnote:
“'Your throne is the throne of God' and refers us to 1 Chron. 29:23 where Solomon’s throne is referred to as the throne of the LORD [YHWH].'”

It is quite clear that while Jesus is figuratively referred to as “O God,” Solomon was literally referred to as “O God” as well.

John 1:1 is a disputed text. Some translations render it as “a god” and some render it as “God.” I will quote the 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Appendix 2A, which reads:

“In his article 'Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,' published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, 'with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.' On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: 'In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.'”

I have already addressed John 20:28 (see my initial argument). John 20:31 reads:
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (KJV)

Psalm 95:9 uses a different language, a different word, and has a different meaning. As well, you are using a straw man. I never claimed that Jesus was tempted by Satan. I merely claimed that Satan attempted to tempt Jesus. In regards to what “tempted” means
in Psalms:
test (Strong's Concordance)

Overall, my opponent does not address my points made in my initial argument in regards to Satan attempting to tempt Jesus.

My opponent rightly points out that Satan has some mad delusion of overthrowing God (Rev. 12). However, that is vastly different than Satan trying to offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus (supposedly God) when he only has them because Jesus (supposedly God) gave them to him in the first place! When it comes to Job, Satan had every reason to think that he could break him down. After all, he was able to convince Eve to rebel against God in Genesis.

Straw man. I have not claimed any of these things.

Reference P1 in round 3 and in this round. My opponent quotes Psalm 82 extensively, but fails to show where it calls those men “false gods.” Jesus himself identifies with Psalm 82 in John 10:31-37, which read:
Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: 'I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?' The Jews answered him: 'We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.' Jesus answered them: 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: 'You are gods'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am God's Son'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me.” (NWT)

Jesus references Psalm 82 to defend himself against the Jews that are interrogating him.

At this point in the debate, I can only inform my opponent to reference my initial argument, P1 in the previous round, and P13 above.

- Headings such as P1; P2; etc. loosely represent paragraph.
- “The Lord [or LORD]” is in reference to יהוה


If not A SINGLE THING was made without the Word (Jesus, see Rev 19:11-13) already being there with the Father as the NWT says in John 1:3, then Jesus can't be a created being. To say Jesus is created means there is at least ONE THING Jesus didn't create (himself), that he didn't truly create ALL things. This contradicts John 1:3. Futher, Isaiah says God HAD NO HELP in creation, he did it ALONE, BY HIMSELF...Pro is saying Jesus HELPED by creating for Jehovah.. Isaiah 44:24, in Pro's NWT states: "I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. WHO WAS WITH ME?" Since no one was "with" Jehovah when He created the earth, Jesus must be Jehovah! (KJV has "alone," "by myself")

Pro makes an issue over Jesus being "given" power, but ignores God "receiving" power in Rev 4:11. ALL power would put Jesus on equality with the Father. (Matt 28:18)

He claims there are many saviors in the Bible, doesn't list them, but quotes the very verse that disagrees with him: Acts 4:10-12, which says of Jesus "NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER." So, if God is another being separate from Jesus, there can be no salvation in Him, because salvation is in NO ONE ELSE but Jesus. Hmmm.

Pro says Jeus is merely the agent of salvation, in the face of Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:11 which directly describe Jesus as THE Savior, not a mere agent.

In Round 3 Pro again cites Ps 82:6 where God says "I said, 'You are gods'," but in that same passage he also called them "sons of the Most High." I have already proven this was sarcasm on God's part because their actions proved they were not sons of God. They defended the unjust and showed partiality to the wicked (vs 2), they walked in darkness (vs 5), that's why they fell under God's judgment in verse 1. 1 John 3:10 says "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God." (NIV) These men in Psalm 82 were not doing what was right, so they were not sons of the Most High God. God was being sarcastic: these gods were false. If not, then they were true gods, leaving us in the ridiculous position of having more than one true God. Something is either true or false, isn't it? So were these true gods, or false gods?

The "a god" at John 1:1 is not the work of Greek scholars, but of Unitarians who edited the original work of Newcomb.

"It was decided to adopt Newcome"s text as the basis for the Unitarian version, to be EDITED and ADAPTED by Dr Thomas Belsham. This was published in 1808 as The New Testament in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation, with a CORRECTED text. Newcome had died in 1800, and could not object; Bishop Stock, who was a relative of Newcome, protested, but to no effect. The fifth edition, 1819, bears the title Unitarian Version on the back." " Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 3, page 366

They CORRUPTED Newcomb's work after he died since they couldn't get away with it while he was alive. The last part of John 1:1 says "kai Theos en ho logos" - "and God was the Word." They inserted the "a" at John 1:1 because there is no definite article (ho/the) before theos in the Greek, i.e. NWT. But the word "theos" (without the definite article) is consistently translated, not as "a god," but as "God" in all the other places it occurs even in the NTIV and NWT, over 220 times, including Matt 19:26; 27:46; Mr 10:27; Luke 2:52; 12:21; John 1:6, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 8:54; 16:30; 20:17; Acts 5:39; 14:15; 17:23; 20:21; Rom 8:27, 33; 9:5; 13:1. So the "a god" contention is too weak. To be consistent with their claim that "theos" means "a god," they would have to translate John 1:6 "There came a man who was sent from [a god]," verse 13 "born from [a god]." This they don't do, but biasly create this rule for John 1:1. Further, in John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus "ho kurious mou kai ho Theos mou," literally, "the Lord of me and THE God of me," so if "THE God" means the true God in John 1:1, it must be identifying Jesus as the true God in John 20:28. Jesus isn't "a god" here, but is "THE God."

"I have made you LIKE God TO PHARAOH." (Exo 7:1, NIV) "Like" shows a simile. Not that Moses was a god, but was "like" God, not to us the believers, but TO Pharaoh ONLY. The miracles Moses performed were interpreted by Pharaoh to mean Moses was like God, but even if "he" thought Moses was a god, that doesn't make Moses a god, does it? Most contemporary versions say with variations, "I have made you like/as God to Pharaoh" (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV). "I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh" (NLT). That's not the same thing as claiming "the Word was God," he "made ALL THINGS," he is "my God." (John 1:1-3; 20:28)

Pro thinks Isa 10:21; 9:6 are talking about TWO mighty gods, contradicting Jehovah who says: "BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." (Isa 44:6, NWT) "Does there exist a God besides me? NO,... I have recognized none." (Ias 44:8, NWT) Pro recognizes another mighty God BESIDES the Mighty God. How ironic. "With the exception of me there is no God." (Isa 45:5, NWT) " How much more plain can you get that Jehovah is the ONLY God. "There is no God but ONE." (1 Cor 8:4) I believe unclear passages should be interpreted in light of the clearer ones. We have many clear passages saying there is only one God which should influence out view of Psalm 82:1, 6. Had those judges gone around proclaiming themselves to be "gods" they would have been stoned!

Everlasting Father, I agree, its not a title - its a name. "And his NAME shall be called...Everlasting Father." (Isa 9:6)

On Psalm 104:30, the words "active" and "force" are not there in the Hebrew text and are never applied to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. This is an invention of Jehovah's Witnesses only in the NWT, but the Hebrew word ruach in this verse means "Spirit." We all know that God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and the angels and demons are spirits. Satan is a Spirit. In all these cases a Spirit is a person.

Wikipedia defines "person" as: "an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context.[2] Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others."

Based on this definition, the criteria I will use for the purpose of this debate, is "any living thing which possesses intelligence, rationality and consciousness." The Holy Spirit fits this definition:

He has a mind and knowledge (intelligence)
"And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what the is the MIND of the Spirit" (Rom 8:27)
"The things of God KNOWETH no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11)

He reasons (rationality)
For IT SEEMED GOOD to the Holy Ghost, and to us..." (Acts 15:2)

He is self-aware (consciousness)
"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them ." (Acts 13:2)

The Holy Spirit Loves (Romans 15:30) and can be Grieved (Ephesians 4:30). Isaiah 63:10: "But they"rebelled and made his holy spirit FEEL HURT." (NWT)
Micah 2:7: ""Is the Spirit of the Lord IMPATIENT? Are these His doings?"
Hebrews 10:29: ""and has INSULTED the Spirit of grace?" Emotions are personal characteristics, not impersonal.

The Holy Spirit Speaks (2 Samuel 23:1; Acts 8:29; 1Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 3:7-8; Revelation 2:7). He can be Lied to (Acts 5:3), Resisted (Acts 7:51), Tested (Acts 5:9), and Blasphemed (Matthew 12:32). He Witnesses (Acts 5:32, 1John 5:7), Glorifies Jesus (John 16:14), Teaches (John 14:26; 15:26), Makes Intercession (Romans 8:26), Anoints (1John 2:27), Appoints (Acts 20:28), and Convicts the world of sin (John 16:8). Surely these are not impersonal acts.

Jesus was in heaven when Paul appealed to Him. How is that not prayer?

On Granville Sharp's rule, Greek Scholar James White says:
"The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.(2) Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English:

1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

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 would question 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."

" PSALM 89:27: David, who was the last born son of Jesse, is called "first-born." (also Jer 31:9; Exo 4:22; Job 18:13) I'm out of space
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to start by thanking my opponent for a very fun and intriguing debate. However, by the end of this I was getting rather tired of addressing the same points. He stuck to his guns on the points I had already refuted, which allowed for me to simply reference him to what I had previously stated. Let's review what my goals were. I was trying to prove:
1) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are not equal
2) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are not coeternal or coequal

3) Jesus is not both God and man

Ultimately it is up to the judges to decide on how well I did in regards to achieving my goals, but I feel very confident. At the very least we can agree that I proved Con wrong when he stated that he would "
conclusively prove that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches the Trinity, and there are no good arguments against it from the Bible." Once again, thank you Con for the fun debate and thank you viewer for taking the time to carefully examine what was said on both sides. I speak for both myself and my opponent when I say that not all the evidence was presented. Some more research will need to be done to come to a conclusion and I welcome anyone on to add me as a friend and message me with any questions they may have in regards to anything in the Bible.

Vote Pro!

This round is for closing statements, not rebuttals!


In voting on this debate, please consider that while I did not have enough space to address all of Pro's points in detail, the ones I did address in full were surely supported with Scripture and reliable references to back up what I said. One of the crusts of my argument throughout this debate was the monotheism of Scripture. Pro contradicted this by contending that Monotheistic Jews like Moses and John who were raised in a society where people were killed for claiming to be, or worshiping any other gods, were at the same time proclaiming human judges and even Jesus to be additional gods to Jehovah. I maintained that if there is only ONE true God, that all other gods must be false. I don't believe Pro was able to escape this predicament, and I don't believe he was able to provide any example of anyone else called or claiming to be a god that was parallel to the case of Jesus Christ. When dealing with Greek, I believe I provided adequate proof from the Bible and the scholars concerning John 1:1 (the "a god" claim), as well as the Granville Sharp construction. Yes, there were unanswered questions on both sides. But please examine carefully the things that we both did address, and ask yourself how adequately and thoroughly they were addressed.

I have clearly shown that:
(1) The is only ONE TRUE God, thus all other gods are false
(2) The Father is God
(3) The Son is God
(4) The Holy Spirit is God
(5) The Holy Spirit is a person, not a force as claimed by Pro

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
95 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: TheKryken// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro was challenging the widely accepted claim, I'll explain why his arguments seem less convincing. No room for both in the RFD Pro did not convince me that Psalm 82:6 could be considered anything other than sarcasm. Also, the texts referenced about Moses and the Word being "a god" are both translated very differently in different texts. In Pro's initial argument, he equates person and being. However, the Trinity rests on the idea that the two terms are different. The definition of "coequal" was very important to this debate. Pro showed that the persons were separate, and that Jesus distinguishes between himself and the Father, but that did not convince me that the Son and Father were not equally God. I think the most important factor was the predicament for Pro regarding true God and false gods. He acknowledges that Jesus was elevated to Godlike position, and says that he is "a god", but this results in polytheism, when Con showed many texts indicating that God is on

[*Reason for removal*] The RFD sufficiently addresses where the voter views the BoP lying and why they did not find Pro's argument compelling, but fails to address specific arguments made by Con and why they were convincing. Perhaps BoP analysis would be enough to preclude such analysis, but then the voter has to make clear why Pro's arguments being "less convincing" suffices as a reason to say that they didn't uphold their BoP.

Note: The reporter left me quite a bit of reasons as to why this RFD should be removed, but I don't find any of them compelling, particularly not the perception that BoP was equal considering that neither debater argued burdens.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
I note that you are happy to claim that many of the versions I cite "were not translated by Greek Scholars"

On what do you baser that claim?

What constitutes a Greek Scholar?

You appear to base the assessment of their scholarship on whether or not they fit into the Status Quo.

I base my assessment of their scholraship purely on scripture, and whether their understanding fits inot the overall picture of scripture, which it does.

The trinity doctrine does not.

It jars violently with the sense of he whole of the Bible, and most certainly with the whole tenor of the way the Apostles wrote, since they always praised the father over and above the son, and treated the son as a very obedient servant of his father.

They also speak of the son as being created, using language appropriate to that fact.

No-one who has a God can be seen as being co-equal with that God. Christ, even after his resurrection openly confessed to having a God, his father.

No-one who is declared as being the beginning of his father's creation can be said to be co-eternal with his father.

Having completely destroyed the whole basis of the trinity teaching one has also destroyed the teaching itself.

Could we now move this discussion to where it belongs, in the public forums, or are you afraid to do so?

I shall comment no longer in this place, since unlike you I prefer all to be able to see what I post in public. I do not like restricting my words to those who like the contention of formal debate.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago

No translation is without bias, the human condition prevents such a possibility.

The problem is what the Translations are biased by.

The NWT is biased purely and simply by a desire to please Jehovah and his son, and to pass on to others exactly, or as exactly as humanly possible, the truths that the Bible contains.

The Translation Committee continually bear in mind that, since it is the word of Jehovah, it must be a completely harmonious work from Genesis to Revelation, and anything which disturbs that harmony is by default either mistranslated or simply doesn't belong.

Other translations have, of necessity, been translated, even altered, to fit into the doctrine of the translator. The NWT on the other hand is a work in progress, continually being researched and checked in order to maintain that harmony, hence there have been various revisions, each on hopefully clearer and more understandable than the one before, each one hopefully closer to the original harmony of the BIble than the one before.

The one factor alone makes the NWT the definitive translation of scripture.

The Emphatic Diaglott is interesting in that it actually contains written evidence of the dishonesty of it's translator who, in the interlinear section gives an accurate rendition of the Greek into the English, with the indefinite article unnecessarily, but accurately placed where it would have been had the Kine Greek Language included it.

I say it was added unnecessarily for the simple reason that using the lower case "g" alone would have given an equally accurate rendition into English.

The interesting part is that the translator then find it necessary, when writing the English only column, to change the wording of John 1:1 to fit into the doctrine of the day.

Absolute proof of the dishonesty of doctrinally biased translators.

When translating the BIble, or simply studying it, it is vital to let it dictate your doctrine, not, as you do at present let your d
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago

The trinity teaching has nothing to do with the deity of Christ.

The deity of Christ, in scriptural terms merely denotes that he was made from the same substance unchanged as his father, something which is a simple fact, and which also applies to all other spirit beings.

The simple truth is that everything that exists was made from his substance, because there was nothing else to make it all from. The physical world however is made from his substance, changed in its basic properties to make it physical rather than spirit.

When Jehovah created his only begotten son, who is also referred to in scripture as the Word, or by his name Michael, that automatically conferred on him uniqueness, and all the rights of firstborn, as well as giving him the distinction of being the only one created by Jehovah alone, without the aid of that son working with him.

It also gave him the unique rank of Archangel, Chief of Angels, the one above all others.

That is the simple truth of the matter.

The Word, the Archangel Michael, the one whom Jehovah sent to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and become the Christ, was indeed, as John 1:14 describes him, the only begotten son of Jehovah.

Until you can grasp that simple fact you cannot worship with spirit and truth, the single most important factors in worship of the One True God, Jehovah (John 4:23-24), and as his son incarnate said, Jehovah is looking for those who can learn to do so.

The trinity teaching is a distortion of scripture, a lie and an insult to both Jehovah and his son.
Posted by TheKryken 2 years ago
I have been made aware by Blade-of-Truth that I am only supposed to award spelling and grammar points if I cannot understand one side's arguments as a result of bad spelling. Technically, my entire vote could be removed by a moderator, but I will just remove the spelling and grammar point.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
"Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person".The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an")".So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God.""Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27

Attempting to disprove the Deity of Christ that is so clearly articulated at John 1:1, the Society setup a straw-man argument based on the preposition "with" found in this passage, and thus, they proceeded to knock that argument down. This type of reasoning serves as a clever way to sidestep the key issue being addressed and to confuse people as to how the doctrine of the Trinity is defined. Since Trinitarians do not believe that God the Father and God the Son are the same person, this argument has no basis in reality. When one defines the doctrine of the Trinity as consisting of three separate and distinct persons who are one God, it is not inconceivable to comprehend how Jesus is "with" God the Father, and yet possesses the same power, authority, and Divine nature that God the Father possesses. At Isaiah 44:24, the Society"s New World Translation states: "I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" Since no one was "with" Jehovah when He created the earth, Jesus must be Jehovah God!

Likewise, John 1:3 states: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Upon consideration of this passage, the crucial questions that must be asked are: Which category does Jesus fall under? Is He in the created being category, or the eternal, non-created category?
Posted by daley 2 years ago
THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson8.

Just as The New Testament in an Improved Version is not without bias, Wilson"s translation has an element of bias due to the fact that Wilson was a Christadelphian. According to the November 8, 1944 Watchtower publication Consolation: "Mr. Wilson was reportedly a Christadelphian. Christadelphians believe the organized churches are apostate, do not believe in the "trinity", do not believe in the "inherent immortality of the soul" or in "eternal torment", but hold that eternal death is the punishment awaiting the wicked."9. However, despite all of this, Peter Barnes observes:

"If we look at the Emphatic Diaglott and check Benjamin Wilson"s translation of John 1:1, we will note that in the interlinear section (which shows each Greek word with its corresponding English word underneath), Wilson has written under the Greek word "QeoV" (deity, God), "a god," but when we examine Wilson"s finalized translation (his preferred rendering), we find that he does not say "the word was a god," but "the Word was God." Therefore his translation does not provide adequate support for the New World Translation.""The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, pp. 11-12

Likewise, when we examine page 872 of the "Valuable Alphabetical Appendix" by Benjamin Wilson, published in the Watchtower Society"s 1942 edition of the Emphatic Diaglott, we see that Wilson considered Jesus Christ to be called "Almighty" and the Alpha and Omega God at Revelation 1:8. So, again, Benjamin Wilson"s Emphatic Diaglott cannot be regarded as a strong support of the Watchtower Society"s position that Jesus is simply "a god" type creature who is not the one and only Almighty God.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
Peter Barnes received this information the Cambridge History of the Bible: The west from the Reformation to the Present day:

"The translations by Wakefield and Newcome were in no sense sectarian. Yet both are sometimes listed as Unitarian. The facts are that the Unitarian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge sought to produce a version of the New Testament divesting the sacred volume of the technical phrases of a systematic theology which has no foundation in the Scriptures themselves. "It was decided to adopt Newcome"s text as the basis for the Unitarian version, to be edited and adapted by Dr Thomas Belsham. This was published in 1808 as The New Testament in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation, with a corrected text. Newcome had died in 1800, and could not object; Bishop Stock, who was a relative of Newcome, protested, but to no effect. The fifth edition, 1819, bears the title Unitarian Version on the back." " Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 3, page 366
Posted by daley 2 years ago
Truth is not decided by majority vote. You have listed many translations which you believe support your point, many of which were not even made by Greek scholars, and yet, again, most Bibles still agree that the Word was God. So you have no case here. In fact, many of those versions you cited are very biased as I will show with 2 of them now:

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808: ""and the word was a god."

Concerning the Society"s quoting of this version in support of their claim that Jesus is "a god," Peter Barnes notes the following:

"The New Testament in an Improved Version, based on Archbishop Newcome"s manuscript was not published until years after Newcome"s death, when his original text came into the possession of the "Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue " Unitarian." Unitarians are the same as Jehovah"s Witnesses in that they refuse to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Those Unitarian publishers produced an "edited version" of Newcomb"s manuscript!""The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, 1994, p. 11
Posted by daley 2 years ago
ou cannot honestly render "a god" in John 1:1, and then render "of God" (Jehovah) in Matthew 3:9, Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, etc., when is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an article and must be rendered (following Jehovah"s Witnesses" argument) "of a god" not "of God" as both The Emphatic Diaglott and New World Translation put it. We could list at great length, but suggest consultation of the Greek New Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or Westcott and Hort, in conjunction with The Elements of Greek by Francis Kingsley Ball on noun endings, etc. Then if Jehovah"s Witnesses must persist in this fallacious "a god" rendition, they can at least be consistent, which they are not, and render every instance where the article is absent in the same manner. The truth of the matter is that Jehovah"s Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and wherever it suits their fancy, regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation as important as God"s Word, every law must be observed. Jehovah"s Witnesses have not been consistent in their observances of those laws.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 2 years ago
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: RFD in comments.