The Instigator
CuriousFear
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Oliver_Douglass
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Trinity is the truth and Jesus is God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CuriousFear
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 180 times Debate No: 96382
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

CuriousFear

Con

R1: Acceptance
R2: Whatever
R3: Whatever
R4: Whatever

Rules:
1. No preaching.
2. Don't rebuke me in the name of Jesus
3. Don't call me demon possessed
4. No speaking in tongues
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

Hi will debate you on this issue
Debate Round No. 1
CuriousFear

Con

I forgot round 4. Oh well.

Would it make sense that God would send a bunch of prophets over a span of thousands of years with a rational and consistent message of complete monotheism only to all of a sudden reveal a trinity, a doctrine that contradicts his previous prophets' teachings?

This is the first reason why Jesus cannot be God.
The doctrine of the trinity defines God as one being in 3 persons, who lives eternally as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All 3 of them are supposed to be fully God and yet (trinitarian) Christians believe that they're not 3 god, but one. This doctrine contradicts what the Bible teaches about God's nature.

Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting. (Psalm 92:3)

For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:17)

The Bible defines God's nature as unchanging and eternal and so God can't change because He transcends time. The claim that God became flesh is a contradiction and such beliefs also question God's perfection. Since God is the pinnacle of perfection there is no need for him to become anything. If something needs to be added to his nature such as humanity or anything else, then doesn't that mean that he lacked something before? God cannot be born, Jesus was born. Jesus needs food, God doesn't need food. Jesus is not self-sufficient, but God is self-sufficient. You can't be self-sufficient and not self-sufficient at the same time.
______________________________________________

The NT mentions an incident with Jesus and a fig tree.

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.Then he said to the tree,"May no one ever eat fruit from you again."And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:12-14)

This event also creates a contradiction with Matthew.

When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. (Mark 11:19-20)

Seeing a fig tree along the road, He went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. "May you never bear" fruit again! He said. And immediately the tree withered. (Matthew 21:19)

Jesus went to the tree because he was hungry and when he realised it has no fruit, he became angry and cursed it. This makes no sense with the trinitarian claim that Jesus is fully God. How can the all-knowing not know the season for figs? You can't argue that this is the human nature because then you must say that the human nature overrides the divine nature. If Jesus was God, wouldn't it be better and more befitting of him to command the tree to bear fruit?
We also find out that the two gospels contradicts each other. In Mark the tree withers overnight, while in Matthew the tree withers instantly. Because of this contradiction we can see that Jesus is being changed from a basic man into a god.

But as for that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)
In this passage we find Jesus stating that no one (including himself) knows when the Hour will take place, but only the Father.

Since the Holy Spirit and Jesus lack the Father's knowledge, the trinitarian claim that the 3 persons are equal is false.
__________________________________________________

Now one of the scribes had come up and heard their debate. Noticing how well Jesus had answered them, he asked Him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus replied, "This is the most important: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself."f No other commandment is greater than these." (Mark 12:29-31)

"Right, Teacher," the scribe replied. "You have stated correctly that God is One and there is no other but Him, and to love Him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
When Jesus saw that the man had answered wisely, He said, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:31-34)

If the trinity was the absolute truth then this would be the perfect for opportunity for Jesus to correct Jewish misconceptions about God's nature and give a trinitarian understanding. The exact opposite is the case here, Jesus compliments him instead. Jesus is affirming a Jewish understanding of God and rejects all notions of God being a trinity.
_________________________________________

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
"Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3)

Jesus identifies the Father as the only true God and so Jesus is excluding himself. If Jesus really was part of a trinity then he would have said that the Father, the son and the holy spirit are the only true God.

You heard Me say, "I am going away and I am coming back to you." If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

If the Father is greater than Jesus, how can Jesus be equal to God?

___________________________________________________________

Jesus prayed.

At that time Jesus went with His disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and He told them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."

And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. Then He said to them, "My soul is consumed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with Me."
Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:36-39)

Not only does Jesus pray with his disciples, but he prays like a Muslim.
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

In the Old Testament, like the New Testament we find 3 distinct beings who are God:

1. THE LORD (FATHER)
2. Angel of the LORD (SON)
3. Sprit of the LORD (Holy Spirit)

Now, we can all agree on the first one, but onto the second.

The Word for Angel in Hebrew Mlakim, is simply translated to Messenger, which is exactly what Jesus is. This is proven in Genesis 32:3 where the same word is used for messenger.

In Genesis 16 it says:

The ANGEL of the Lord also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude."

Here, we see that the Messenger of God will himself, not the LORD, multiply the descendants of Abraham, how could a mere angel do this?

we also find, Sarah says "she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her"

The Angel of the LORD, who spoke to her, has no distinction to the LORD. This is further presented in Exodus 3:

"And the angel of the Lord APPEARED to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a BUSH; and he looked, and lo, the bush was burning, yet it was not consume"
When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, GOD called to him OUT of the BUSH,"

This is further presented in the following verses where Moses said God appeared to him, with no distinction between the Messenger and the LORD.

Onto, the Spirit of the LORD or the Holy Spirit, is presented as a distinct person in Isaiah 63, Ezekiel 11:6 where God Sends his Spirit.

Job 33:4 The spirit of God has made me, and the breadth of the Almighty gives me life

It's clear that the Spirit of God is God himself, as only God can create, but distinct from the LORD, as he is sent as a personal being.

The idea of the 3 distinct persons is demonstrated in Isaiah 48 where it states:

from the BEGINNING I have not spoken in secret,
from the time it came to be I have been there."
And now the LORD GOD has sent ME and his SPIRIT.

God talks about himself in 3 persons.

Now we have these verses in mind, lets look at the points you bring up:

1. Jesus isn't all knowing, powerful, self sufficient
2. The Greatest Commandment
3.Jesus speaking to God

The first point, would hold ground, if Jesus like the Father was only fully God, but their is a second attribute, he is also fully man, why? It's explained in John 1 and by early Christians, that the Son humbled himself to the cross and took up flesh to present the extent of the Love God has for his people.

Onto Mark 13:32, historical context to these verses is very crucial.

One argument again is the nature of the Son, that he on earth, before the Resurrection was both fully God and fully man, which explains why he felt hungry, pain and sadness, yet was worshiped, forgave sins, and claimed divinity, co-oporating with the limitations of being human.

This is explained by the author of Hebrews in Chapter 2, where it says Jesus was made temporarily lower than the angels, for the suffering on the Cross

With Phillipians 2 saying, he was equal with God but emptied himself by taking the form of a Servant.

2. Argument two, The entire passage alludes to marriage, in Jewish culture they were pre-arranged, only the Father knew when it was time for the Son to get his bride, but this doesn't mean the groom never knew when it was, as in culture, a wedding was alot larger than it is today, and was prepared for in advance, out of respect it was said only the Father knew when it was time for the Son to get his bride.

Jesus wasn't claiming he or the Holy Spirit didn't know the hour of the return, but what the events of the tribulation would be like, an ancient Jewish Wedding, where it was obvious when it would occur, but the Father would give the call.

The use of the Fig Tree, is for the exactly the same reason as for the hour, the verses are within the same chapter, explaining what the Tribulation will be like.

2. Greatest Commandment

Jesus is reffering to Deuteronomy 6:4 where it says "Hear O Isreal the LORD our God is One"

The word for One, is Echad, which can refer to compound unity such as in Genesis 2:24, Genesis 11:6.

Secondly, the word for God is a plural possession pronoun suffix, "Eleniu" so a plural i.e. multiple name is used for God, not a singular.

This is also shown in Genesis 1:26, where it states "Let US MAKE man in OUR image"

Onto the final point, the relationship between God and Jesus.

I find it surprising, that you would quote from John 17, John 14, which are some of the strongest chapters demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God.

Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3)

This verse actually demonstrates, the trinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son. But from the beggining.

Since you quoted this verse, you have to agree the Father glorifies HIS SON, since you are a Muslim, could you quote me a single verse, where Allah calls humanity his children, and describes himself as the Father?

The idea, that Jesus calls God, his own father, and that he is his Son, signals his equality with him.

Secondly, the Father gives authority to Jesus over all people, of the World, this includes every single Prophet in existence, how can a mere man have authority over ALL people, from GOD.

The verse also says, Jesus gives ETERNAL LIFE, which only GOD can do, could you show me another point where a Prophet gives eternal life?

Onto John 14, this chapter, you quoted from, actually demonstrates the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, being sent down by the Son by the Fathers Will.

The reason why Jesus says, the Father is greater than I, is because he is in heaven, whilst Jesus is in a humbled form on earth, which explains why he is going to the Father, to be exhalted once again

Now that i've done the defense it's now the attack.

Matthew 28 Jesus says

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "

3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Mark 1

And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son;[d] with thee I am well pleased."

The Holy Sprit, descends onto the beloved Son, whom the Father from heaven calls.

John 14:6 "I AM, THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE, no one comes to THE FATHER except through ME"

One of the 99 names for Allah, is Al Haqq,the Truth, here you see Jesus calls himself the name of Allah.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are ONE"

In Quran, it states that Allah is the judge, but what we find in John 5, is that the Father (God) Judges NO ONE, but the SON (Jesus) does.

This in itself, contradicts the Quran, as it also states that Jesus isn't the Son of God, proving the New Testament and the Quran contradict, massively.

"Hearken to me, O Jacob,
and Israel, whom I called!
I am He, I am the first,
and I am the last. Isaiah 48

You also find in Revelation God call himself the First and the Last, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,"

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.""

And then you find, it's Jesus who is talking......

John 8:58 Before Abraham was born, I AM! Exodus 3:14 "I AM who I AM" Jesus uses the name of YHWH and states that he was before Abraham.

if Jesus' testimony, isn't enough, then what about the Fathers? Hebrews 1

or to which of the angels did God ever say,

"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"[a]?
Or again,

"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"[b]?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

"Let all God"s angels worship him."[c]
7 In speaking of the angels he says,

"He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire."[d]
8 But about the Son he says,

"Your throne, O GOD , will last for ever and ever;
a sceptre of justice will be the sceptre of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."[e]
10 He also says,

The Father calls his Son , God.

In the New Testament, we find, The disciples claim Jesus is God, Angel Gabriel claims Jesus is God, The Jews put him to death and tried to stone him for claiming to be God, Mary claims Jesus is God, Even the Demons claim he is the Son of God, The Father calls him his one and only Son and God and Jesus himself calls him God, who doesn't think Jesus is God? Muhammad who never met him, born 500 years later and claimed the Sun sets in a pool of murky water, bones are created before flesh in Embryos, there are only 7 planets, Jesus never died on the Cross, and admitted to giving verses from Satan, who should we believe?

So from this you have to show:

1. When Jesus said he and the Father are One, The Truth, The First and the Last names of Allah, Alpha and Omega, The Judge, Giver of Life, Son Of God, Bread of Life and could forgive Sins, that he was only a mere prophet alone.

2. His disciples were deluded, and so were the Jewish priests saying that he claimed to be God and John the Baptist.

3. Abraham and Moses were deluded when calling the ANGEL of the LORD, God, and therefore blaspheming.

4. Jesus couldn't be fully man in physicality and fully God in essence, and wasn't humbled art the Cross

And also, to finish things off:

"For to us a CHILD is born, to us a SON is given... and he will be called wonderful counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING Father, Prince of Peace Isaiah 9:6

btw, In the next post I will bring up how Jesus states to be king of heaven
Debate Round No. 2
CuriousFear

Con

Hi,

Let me start off by saying that the word lord does not directly mean God or Father. This was always used as a title of respect and this is a very common and normal thing in Eastern European cultures as well.

Regarding your claim about the angel.
In the Bible, God can use a representative. In Genesis 32 Jacob is wrestling with God and in Hosea 12:4 Jacob is wrestling with an angel.
Here are some more examples.
Isaiah 42 foretells the coming of an Arabian prophet (prophet Muhammad SAW to be specific). In Isaiah 42:13 a representative is used again.
Deuteronomy 33:1-4 is another example.

Even satan is used as a representative (or this is a contradiction proving your religion to be false as well).
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1).

You need to elaborate on Exodus 3. I really don't see what your point is here? This is too far-fetched.
If I were you I would wonder what Jewish rabbis are saying about this verse.

Let's take a look at Isaiah 48:16, which you claim to be supporting the doctrine of a trinity.
This verse can be read differently in the Hebrew Bible.

Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit. (Isaiah 48:16)
We can find that the Christian translation is a gross mistranslation.
The meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine.

How I would interpret John 1:1 is from an Islamic perspective. Jesus PBUH was created from the Word of Allah.
No mention of a trinity here. If you read John 1 you will see that Jesus was a word from the Word. Jesus isn't the Word himself. This verse is also mistranslated. The correct translation can be found in the NWT Bible.

So we have found that according to you, the human nature can override the divine nature and so therefore the human nature is stronger than the divine nature. I really don't care what Hebrews says, we don't even know who authored the freaking book. We don't even know where it came from. It is said that this comes from Paul and if that is true then there's no reason to see this book as valid. Paul contradicts the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and he didn't even meet Jesus. On top of that, Paul was persecuting Christians. He was a bounty hunter, but we don't know if that's factual or not.

Phillipians 2 was also authored by Paul and so therefore none of it can be taken as evidence or proof of anything.
If that what Paul wrote was authentic then the Bible is a book full of contradictions. So as of now we can see that Jesus was not like the Father and that Jesus definitely wasn't all-knowing.

You made a claim about the word Echad, which simply means One. This is a lie of the church, it is obvious that this is referring to one God. For example you can have a room with items and that is one room and you can have 1 cup of water, echad just means one. You need to understand one means one and not three. You cherry pick the verses where echad is a complex unity and you ignore and extract the verses where echad means one and no other than that one.

Rabbi Tovia (who speaks fluent Hebrew) completely refutes this claim here:
https://www.youtube.com...

Allah would have no problem with him being called the Father if Christians didn't paganise the Biblical language. Since Christians did paganise the Biblical language Allah decided to remove this confusion. The point of John 17 is that the Father is called the only true God, no mention of the holy spirit or Jesus here.

Son of God is not an exclusive title. Common people are called son of God. Jeremiah is called son of God. Adam is called son of God in the New Testament. So this is not an exclusive title to Jesus. Genesis 6 calls multiple people son of God.

In John 17 Jesus is granted power and so therefore he had no authority to begin with. That means Jesus has no power on his own and without the true God, Jesus cannot do anything without the authority of God.
John 5:30 "proves" my claim. So does John 8:28

I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (John 5:30)

(John 8:28) Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Your claim about Jesus in John 14 can't be found anywhere and it's just another trinitarian bogus claim. I cannot accept such a claim because it is illogical.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew 28:19 is a corrupted verse. According to Eusebius himself this verse is unauthentic. There is no proof that this verse ever existed before clear corruption.
Sources that prove my point:
http://www.apostolic-voice.org...
http://jesus-messiah.com...
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com...

Mark 1 doesn't prove any form of trinity doctrine and you haven't even explained why or how.

Let's read 14 in context alright.

1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust ALSO in me.
2 IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
4You know the way to the place where I am going."
5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" (John 14:1-5)

Jesus is talking about going to the heavens

Jesus was the way to God, just like every other prophet was the way during that prophet's time. At the time of Abraham, Abraham was the way to God. At the time of Moses, Moses was the way to God.

I really don't get your point. Why are you bring up the names of Allah?
Chapter 4 verse 171 of the Qur'an denounces the trinity explicitly.

If you read the context of John 10:30 then you'll read that they are one in purpose.

John 5 contradicts John 12.

47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. (John 12:47-49)

This Alpha and Omega argument is silly for three reasons.
First of all, the book of Revelation is a vision of John.
Secondly, according to the NIV Bible's theologians this book is unreliable.
Thirdly, Hebrews (which is unauthentic to be honest) states in 7:13 that Priest Melchisedec has no beginning nor end. This statement is more powerful than being the beginning and end.

And here's a bonus. Revelation also states:

1And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. (Revelation 13:1-2)

Christians don't believe in that stuff so where's the consistency.

Now let's go over to the I AM argument.
This is blasphemous. You can't put the title of God in here. If Jesus says I AM and went away without finishing his sentence then that's not our problem, it's his problem.
Rabbi Tovia refuting such an argument here: https://www.youtube.com...

Isaiah 9:6 is not a prophecy, it's something that happened in the past. In this verse this son is not called God either, but it states that he will be called God by men.
Rabbi Tovia refuting this again: https://www.youtube.com...

"Why do you call Me good? Jesus replied, "No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

According to trinitarians God became flesh and so Jesus became God himself. Was God always a man? He was not. Did he become a man to die on the cross for the sins of humanity? According to trinitarians he did. So to claim that God did not change is simply playing around with words.

You believe that the author "John" in the gospel John is John the baptist himself, I do not. He contradicts other gospels. All the gospels contradict each other. In Mark Jesus went somewhere and preached. In Matthew Jesus went to another place and preached. In Luke Jesus went to another place and preached. In John Jesus went to another place and preached.
Oliver_Douglass

Pro

"Let me start off by saying that the word lord does not directly mean God or Father. This was always used as a title of respect and this is a very common and normal thing in Eastern European cultures as well."

This is true, however with Exodus 3, the word LORD is in capitals, which results to the hebrew term YHWH being used, rather than Adonai,.

"In Genesis 32 Jacob is wrestling with God and in Hosea 12:4 Jacob is wrestling with an angel."

I don't have enough research into Jacob wrestling with God, but from reading the two passages, not once does Jacob interchangebly call the Angel "LORD" with God.

I don't want to get into Isaiah 42, I will if you want in another debate.

Onto 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel, You have to remember in the OT, however evil, is an angel of God, a being who has as much power as God entrusts him, so Satan here is only a minister of God's purposes i.e. God was allowing such temptations of David to take place, he isn't used as a representative, but as the agent who carries out the temptations, not the inciter himself.

"How I would interpret John 1:1 is from an Islamic perspective. Jesus PBUH was created from the Word of Allah.
No mention of a trinity here. If you read John 1 you will see that Jesus was a word from the Word. Jesus isn't the Word himself. This verse is also mistranslated. The correct translation can be found in the NWT Bible."

The first mistake you're doing, is looking at history backwardness, the events that occur 600 years after the passage shouldn't effect the interpretation, an obvious pre-supposition.

John 1:1 clearly states, the Word was in the beggining with God, and WAS God, all things were made by HIM, this is singular not plural so is only reffering to one individual.

It then says, the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us.

Also I'm shocked that you would think the NWT is a greater translation than the KJV, ESV or NIV? The New World Translation, is the one Jehovah's Witnesses use.

If you look into the history of the translation, The New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree.

The New Testament translation in the New World Translation has taken out the Greek words 'Theos' (God) and 'Kurios' (Lord) in over 60 places within the NT and replaced them with 'Jehovah'. Jehovah occurs nowhere in the Greek.

Could you name me one scholar with A PHD in New Testament Studies or Classics who would call the NWT good?

The points you made about Paul, again, are off topic, even if you don't accept his testimony, you have to accept that early Christians believed Jesus was God, since Paul had manny followers.

Also, I think there is a genuine rule that links shouldn't be cited, you yourself have to argue, not a PHD proffesor, you can use their information but demonstrate your understanding.

I think what you would find with echad is that I proved it isn't just used in the singular tense, and the fact that the Hebrew word for God in this sense was plural, not singular, so it would actually make more sense.

Genesis 6 calls people "sons of God" not the One and Only Son Of God, the same applies to the other Old Testament passages, the Greek used in the NT for Son of God is different to the Hebrew used for sons of God, but even if this was the case:

1. Name one prophet who was called The Ressurection and the Life?

I think you find the whole of John disproves your claim, if you read the text without a pre-supposition and looking backwardness in history.

If you read John 5:30 in context, it proves Jesus is God because:

"because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working." 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

Onto the next verse it says the Son, can do nothing, as you stated in John 5:30, because he only sees what his Father is doing. Jesus says: WHATEVER the Father does, the Son DOES ALSO. I couldn't think of a more blasphemous claim if I tried.

Can you do or any Prophet do whatever the Father does? this expalins why Jesus is the only prophet in history, who could heal the sick, feed the five thousand, turn water into wine, raise the dead, raise his own life, call his own name and drive out demons and so on, and to be sinless.

It goes onto say, The Son gives life to whoever he pleases, and all judgement has been entrusted onto him, so on the final day, God is giving a man the judgement of the WORLD?

"ALL may HONOR the SON "JUST"... As they honor the Father", do you honor Jesus as much as Allah?

"Your claim about Jesus in John 14 can't be found anywhere and it's just another trinitarian bogus claim. I cannot accept such a claim because it is illogical."

Phillip says, Lord show us the Father? (God)

Jesus says, Don't know you me Phillip? anyone who has seen ME has seen the FATHER

Now ask yourself, If you see Muhammad or any other prophet do you see GOD.

"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves"

Is a prophet, IN the Father?

"You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

When you pray, do you ask anything in the name of Muhammad or the name of Allah, and who will do it? Allah or Muhammad.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Why on earth would God send the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus? does Allah do that to Muhammad?

I clicked on the links you sent, only one actually talked about the translation was the second one, I don't see how you understand Biblical Hebrew.

Secondly, the manuscriptal evidence before the Council of Nicea has the verse as shown in all supported translations we have to date, also Matthew's Gospel we read today, is in Greek, not Hebrew, so where they got a Hebrew manuscript I don't have a clue, i.e. it's a fraud.

I don't see Muhammad preparing a place for you in heaven in John 14?

The reason why i brought up Allah's names, is because Jesus uses a name of Allah, the Truth, notice how it's in singular to, not a, THE truth.

Name on other prophet who calls themself, THE WAY.

Jesus even says, NO ONE, literally no one goes to God, except through him

Onto revelation, your first point is irrelevant, the majority of Isaiah and Daniel, infact many events of the Old Testament are based on visions, what about Muhammads revelation in the cave? by you standard I can dismiss it.

No what you're reffering to is the canons that occured in the 4th century, there were multiple, Revelation was placed in the category where the majority of canons accepted the text, some placed doubt, but the vast majority accepted it.

It's funny how you bring that up, when 10 of Pauls Letters, were considering canon by all churches at the time, so it wouldn't make a difference to your argument anyways.

Revelation was also in manuscript list of the early 2nd century, and quoted by 1st and 2nd century Christian writers.

Why you bringing up Hebrews when you dimissed it? Also, where? Looked up 7:13, i saw nothing. I think you mean't 7:3, which says he will remain a priest forever, well I don't dismiss this at all, I will remain a human forever, but I won't be the Alpha and the Omega of the Old Testament.

Actually, Christians do believe in this stuff, many events in Revelation are using imagery to portary the coming of the end times, but that's another topic.

I don't get your point with I AM? he literally was stoned after the incident?

Who knows better, this Rabbi or the High Priests who lived with Jesus at the time?

"You believe that the author "John" in the gospel John is John the baptist himself"

I think this sums up the debate, nope, you're wrong, we don't. Their is more than one John in the Bible, the apostle John, not John The Baptist.

I think its clear from this debate, that you have 3 defences:

1. Dismiss the whole text as corrupt- without manuscript evidence or attestation from many scholars and their reasons for this.

a question... Why would you say this? because you know it says he's God.

2. Re-interpret the text- you don't take it as the authentic words of Jesus and insert phrases to support the Islamic view, when the original Greek supports the multiple peer-reviewed translations.

I think this stands, Jesus performed miracles that Muhammad couldn't peform, or any other prophet. Jesus called himself the Alpha and the Omega, Only Way to the Father, The Ressurection and the Life, born before Abraham, One with the Father, The Judge, The Giver of Life, Does whatever he sees his Father doing, Lord over the Sabbath, all his followers said he was God, John the Baptist called him God, the Father himself did, the Jews said he claimed to, and even the Demons knew he was the Holy One...

Who didn't? Muhammad, 600 years later.

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3)."

I think what you really want to debate is the reliability of the NT, so why not?
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by CuriousFear 1 month ago
CuriousFear
@Shinsetsu
He was hungry and he goes to the tree to check whether there were figs. So if Jesus was all-knowing. Why would he go to the fig tree to see whether there were figs if he already knew there weren't any figs on there? Your claim is nowhere to be found and is just typical Christian apologetics.
Posted by Shinsetsu 1 month ago
Shinsetsu
Also, Mr. President, certain denominations believe that God was actually addressing Jesus in the Prexistence, and they are still seperate personages. This would explain the two names that god is apparently called in the New King James version of the Old Testament. This is manifested when the LORD is named Judah (Jesus's name in the prexistence) and God refers to himself as I AM THAT I AM. When the NKJV refers to the LORD in small caps it is Jesus, while God or the regular Lord is God.
Posted by Shinsetsu 1 month ago
Shinsetsu
The comment the Con made for the fig tree has nothing to do with Jesus being holy. The fig tree was supposed to be a symbol for what the Lord would do to the wicked who did not bear righteous labors at Judgment day and was a lesson taught by the Savior in literal terms. A point that supports the Godhead would be the instant after Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and the Heavenly Father and Holy Ghost manifested themselves at the same time and God addressed Jesus as his Son, instead of another comparison, such as Form. Also, if the Trinity were to exist, God must have a body of flesh, since Jesus rose from the grave with a tangible body.
Posted by Mrpresident16 1 month ago
Mrpresident16
Also to clarify the godhead are three persons one god
Posted by Mrpresident16 1 month ago
Mrpresident16
Jesus is part of The Trinity and has always been and will always be now all Three Major religions ( Christianity,Judaism and last and most certainly least Islam) Yes a tad bit of bias there but, I don't care. Furthermore, all those three religions believe in the Torah (YAHrah) and it consists of five books Genesis, Exodus Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and proof of existence of a godhead and Jesus Christ is found within the first book first chapter of the 26th verse Which says let us make man in our image. Now, if I'm not mistaken us and our are plural indicating two or more people Therefore I conclude that God is Triune. However one might argue god was speaking to the angels. For that is not the case for we are created in the image of god
Posted by SoulUnbound 1 month ago
SoulUnbound
Ummm...sorry to intrude but WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE SUPPOSE TO DEBATE ABOUT? Isn't this just a fight between sects in Christianity?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 1 month ago
DebaterGood
CuriousFearOliver_DouglassTied
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: Arguments go to Con cause Pro's were hard to follow coherently. I believe Pro even ceded his points when Con corrected him. Otherwise, good debate.