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

The divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 83876
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)




The Divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible

Here are three Bible verses clearly stating that God is not a man.

'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man'
(Numbers 23:19).

'for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee' (Hosea 11:9)

'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man' (Romans 1:22-23)

The word 'Messiah' does not mean God it means anointed (mashiach, Strong's Concordance 4890).

The word 'Christ' does not mean God it means anointed (Christos, Strong's Concordance 5547).

God's son' does not mean God. 'Adam, which was the son of God' (Luke 3:38")was not God.

Can you dear reader provide three Bible verses defining Jesus as God?

If you cannot then the Divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible.

Terms and conditions

Rounds one to five must all be used to counter my Biblical evidence and provide your own Biblical evidence to sufficiently assert that the divinity of Jesus is a correct doctrine according to the teachings of the Bible.

Please do not waste round one by simply saying that you accept the challenge or write about what you will do within the debate. Each and every round must be used exclusively to counter my Biblical evidence and provide your own Biblical evidence to sufficiently assert that the divinity of Jesus is a correct doctrine according to the teachings of the Bible.

I have given the maximum amount of rounds, maximum amount of time to argue and maximum word count. Please use each and every round to counter all of the Biblical evidence that I provide with your own Biblical evidence.


I accept.

I shall deal with your references, then provide my own. I shall write three, then explain them, and then I will add more references at the end without full quotation/explanation.

Numbers 23:19 full verse (ESV, if that is not objectionable) "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"

This verse is not pertinent, for multiple reasons. The first is that it has no application to Jesus; it was written hundreds of years before his birth. The writer (Moses) had no concept of God being a man.

Secondly, it is clearly metaphorical language. The point is that humans lie and change their minds (or repent, in KJV). God does not do these things like humans do. It is similar to me saying, "I am not an eagle, that I should fly, or an eaglet, that I may have wings."

Hosea 11:9 full verse (ESV) "I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath."

Similar arguments apply to this verse, but I'll rephrase. It once again has no application to Jesus; saying God is not man is not the same as saying Jesus is not God, because the doctrine of the Trinity says that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons. Therefore, it is true to say that God is not man, and to say that Jesus is God.

Once again, however, the verse is analogous. It is saying that God will not act out of passionate anger, like man does. The rest of the passage is about how Israel has messed up, but God has decided to have compassion.

Romans 1:22-23 is closer to the point you need to show, but it still does not prove that Jesus is not God.
The full verse is, "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

This passage is about how people know that God exists based on the evidence in creation, but they chose to turn away and worship idols, whether man or beast. This speaks of men reducing God to no more than a statute of a man, not of God becoming flesh.

In the future, please at least write out the entire verse you reference, if not the surrounding context as well.

I'll start with my verses now.

John 1:1-18 deals with it quite clearly. I'll pull out a few verses, for sake of space. Feel free to read it all.
First, verses 1-3 (): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

And now, to show that the Word is Jesus, verses 14-18: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me."") For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

So the Word, Jesus, is God, and became flesh.

Now, words of Jesus. John 8:23-24, "He said to them, 'You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

Jesus claims that he is not of this world, and says that unless they (Pharisees/Jews) believe that "I am he" they will die. If he is not of this world, then he is either claiming to be angelic or Godly. He never mentions angels, so it's logical that he is claiming to be God. That is, after all, why he was crucified.

For my third and final full reference, Colossians 2:8-10. "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority."

The apostle Paul writes that Christ has the fullness of deity in the body. He also specifically separates him from "human tradition" and "the elemental spirits".

Since you asked for three, I will stop there for now, with the words of John, Jesus, and Paul.

I may use these verses later:
John 8:58
John 10:30-33
John 20:28
Phil. 2:5-11
Romans 10:9-14
Acts 7:55-60
Several verses from Revelation that speak of Jesus' divinity.

I look forward to an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for joining me in this debate.I accept that I could have used the entire verses in round one. If I do not do so hereafter then it is purely to limit the word count and highlight whatever particular point I am making from the verse submitted. Doing so has not and you will discover will not detract from the context of the entire verse, chapter, book or the Bible as a whole.

We agree that Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9 cannot be referring to Jesus. These verses are referring to God. You say that God the Father and Jesus are not the same and I agree. These verses along with 1 Samuel 15:29 are three examples of the character of God being defined as incompatible and inconsistent with that of a human. This is not metaphorical language, it is literal. The Bible is defining God by what he literally is not, a man. God does not do the things that humans do and Jesus was human.

This doctrine of a Trinity cannot be supported with any Biblical evidence. The word Trinity is not found anywhere in the Bible. Biblical references supporting this doctrine cannot be found in the original scriptures. This is a debate built upon Biblical evidence therefor rebuttals that are not supported with Biblical evidence are meaningless and worthless. If the everlasting word of God states that God is not a man then it does of course mean that a man is not God or that God will become a man at a later date.

The consistent theme throughout the Bible is that God is one not that God is three in one. I agree with you that Moses had no concept of God being a man or that God would appear hundreds of years later revaluing his third part human form with its own characteristics. We agree that the first primary author of the Bible and one of the greatest Prophets had no idea of this concept. All of his books state that God is one giving no mention of God being a trinity. The same can be said for the rest of the books of the Bible.

God spoke his holy word through Moses. Moses was not ignorant; he was in full knowledge that Jesus would appear hundreds of years later. God explained this to Moses with no mention of Jesus being God or part of a holy trinity. God spoke to Moses telling him that Jesus will be a Prophet just like him;

'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, LIKE UNTO THEE, and will put my WORDS in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all THAT I SHALL COMMAND HIM. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto MY WORDS which he shall speak IN MY NAME, I will require it of him.' (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

We know that Moses was referring to Jesus by reading Acts 3:22.

'For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.’

This confirms that Jesus is the Prophet that Moses foretold. God’s word will become flesh when he puts his words in his mouth and he will speak all that God commands him. Everyone must obey what Jesus says because he speaks God’s words in God’s name. If they disobey then they will die in their sins.

In The Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke, Jesus confirms that he is a prophet; Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4, and Luke 4:24. In the Gospels of Mathew, Luke and John the Bible confirms that those receiving the teachings and witnessing the miracles of Jesus first-hand understood that he was a prophet; Matthew 21:11, Matthew 21:46, Luke 7:16, Luke 24:19, John 4:19, John 6:14 and John 7:40.

The literal translation of John 1:1 reads,
'In [the] In In beginning was the word and the word was with The God and God was the word'

When John writes 'The God' he is referring to 'The God of the Hebrews; the one and only God'. He does write that the word was with 'The God' (Yahweh). He does not write that 'The God' was the word. Instead he writes 'God' was the word. The definitive article 'the' is absent rendering God a predicate of the subject 'the word', 'ho logos'. The predicate is used to denote the attributes of the subject. God is the word therefore reads that 'the word is about God, the word declares God.

John 1:1 simply defines 'the word' as being with God and about God. It is God's word that created all things not Jesus (1:3). It is not until verse 14 that the word became flesh; it does not say that God became flesh. God's word created Jesus and the word of God spoke through Jesus declaring God, showing the way to him. Deuteronomy 18:18 states that God will put his ‘words in his mouth’ this is consistent with John writing that God’s word became flesh.

The literal translation of John 1:17-18 reads;

'For the law through Moses was given the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ came. God no one has seen ever the one of a kind God the being in the bosom of the Father that declares/shows the way.'

The logos spoke through Moses giving the law and the logos spoke through Jesus giving the grace and the truth. Both of them spoke 'divine utterance' and neither of them were divine. All that is defined as divine in John 1 is the logos, God’s word. The 'monogenés' (one of a kind) 'theos' (God) is the word of God, the 'logos' declaring the will and the way to the unseen God (1:18).

In John 8 the scribes and Pharisees took a woman to Jesus so that he might condemn her to be stoned to death for adultery. Jesus did not condemn the woman and informed the scribes and Pharisees that they 'are from below; I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world'. (John 8:23). The scribes and Pharisees interpretation and implementation of Gods law that was given through Moses was of this world and below. Jesus routinely publicly berated the scribes and Pharisees for this;

'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?' (Matthew 23:33)

'But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.' (Matthew 23:13)

Jesus was the Prophet that Moses foretold. His words were given to him from God and he must be obeyed (Deuteronomy 18:19). The scribes and Pharisees did not accept Jesus as such; consequently Jesus regularly condemned them to hell. Jesus tells us himself in John 8:37 that this is exactly why they wanted to kill him;

'I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.'

The logos spoke through Moses giving us the Divine Law. The logos spoke through Jesus bringing divine grace and truth to the interpretation and implementation of the divine law. The scribes and Pharisees interpretations and teachings of the Law of Moses were worldly and even demonic. The interpretations and teachings of Jesus were not from this world, they were from above; they were from God.

We have already established who Jesus wanted the scribes and Pharisees to recognise him as when he tells them 'for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sin' (John 8:24). He is the prophet that Moses foretold in The Old Testament Deuteronomy 18:18-19. The New Testament confirms that this is Jesus in Acts 3:22.

If we read on in John 8 to verse 28 and verse40 Jesus clarifies that he is not divine but is merely speaking divine truth;

'I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.'

'But now ye seek to kill me, A MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God:

Other verses of Jesus distinguishing himself from God and from his divine words include John 5:30 and 7:16;

‘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.’

‘Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.’

In Colossians 2:9 Paul states that God dwelt in Jesus, he does not write that Jesus is God.

Commenting on Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter writes;

‘As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.’

According to Peter Paul can write equivocally and ambiguously. Nonetheless Paul writes unequivocally and unambiguously when he states that Jesus is a man not a God.

'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5)

'That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him' (Ephesians 1:17)

In Colossians 1:15 Paul writes that Jesus is the first born of every creature 'ktisis'. Ktisis is something created by God. Out of everything created by God Jesus is the first born. This clearly groups Jesus together with God's creation rendering Jesus a created being.

Romans 1:25 states; ‘Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator’.

Romans 1:22-23 is not exclusively referring to worshiping idols it is forbidding turning The Creator (God) into something created by God (flesh). This is precisely what the false trinity doctrine does.

Paul wrote to the Romans warning them not to turn God into flesh. Almost three hundred years later the high pagan Priest of the Roman Empire declared Jesus as God and this false pagan doctrine has become mainstream Christianity.



Well, I'd like to start off by acknowledging that you have more knowledge than me, in terms of Greek/Greek grammar etc. But I'll certainly do my best, and I believe I'm up for the challenge.

The three OT verses you provided continue to show that God (the Father -- I'll address the topic of the Trinity after this point) does not have human qualities, or do the things that humans do - lie/repent/change their minds. However, Jesus did not do these things either. Both in the temptation in the desert and throughout Hebrews, such as 4:15 and 7:26, Jesus is shown to be sinless. Hebrews 1 calls him superior to angels. Then, in Hebrews 1:8-9, it says, (KJV) "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

This is a reference to Psalm 45:6-7. All three times God is written, the Hebrew 'elohiym' is used -- both to describe Jesus (who is being addressed earlier in the psalm as a king) and God. If Jesus can be addressed as a god, then he must either be the true God, of which there is only one, or a false god.

Now, about the Trinity. I am not trying to claim that Jesus and the Father and the exact same person. I am also not trying to claim that they are two distinct yet equal Gods. I am trying to show that Jesus is fully God, yet is a separate person from the Father. That is why I brought up the Trinity; I do acknowledge that I should not have said, "it is true to say that God is not man, and to say that Jesus is God." What I should have said is something to the effect of, "It could be true to say that God is not man, and to say that Jesus is God, if the Father and Son are distinct persons yet one God." And so to call God the Father not a man does not exclude the person of Jesus, fully man, from being a member of the Godhead, fully God.

I hope that cleared it up, though I fear I may have muddied the waters. I am no practiced debater, nor am I 24 like my profile says.

The reason (and I should have expanded upon this earlier, once I again I concede my mistake) I mentioned that Moses did not have knowledge of Jesus is this: he did not have the collection of the scriptures nor an actual encounter of Jesus for him to even consider distinguishing between God the Father not being a man and a separate person, the Son, not being a man. However, I do not place great importance on this argument at all, as it still remains true that I am not arguing that God and Jesus are the same person, but that they are separate persons of the same being.

I also do not disagree that God's character is incompatible with that of a human. Jesus also was incapable of lying, so his character is still compatible with God. He was tempted externally in the desert, but that does not mean he was capable of giving into the temptation. Psalm 95:9 speaks of God (Father) being tempted as well (the Hebrew nacah).

You have then separated the word from the physical Jesus, by saying that the words were in Jesus" mouth, and they become flesh in Jesus. However, the Word and Jesus are one and the same. John says that through the word, all things were created. Colossians 1:16 says that by Jesus, all things were created. If they are separate, then by which was the world created? And if the words came out of Jesus" mouth, then Jesus was the direct impetus by which the world was created. Yet Gen 1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". It does not say God, through another entity, created the heavens and the earth.

You have said that the original translation of John 1 does not indicate that the word was God, simply because in Greek, it lacks the article "the". "When John writes 'The God' he is referring to 'The God of the Hebrews; the one and only God'. He does write that the word was with 'The God' (Yahweh). He does not write that 'The God' was the word. Instead he writes 'God' was the word. The definitive article 'the' is absent rendering God a predicate of the subject 'the word', 'ho logos'. The predicate is used to denote the attributes of the subject. God is the word therefore reads that 'the word is about God, the word declares God."

However, while the literal translation you provided is accurate, you have not shown why the word "the" is necessary to indicate that "theos" is the true God. You say that John wrote that the word was with "The God" (Yahweh). But as you know, he does not use the word Yahweh, since he is writing in Greek. What I found showed that, though the article is dropped in Greek, it is due to the structure of the Greek sentence, and it does not need to be dropped in English. The word order indicates the importance of the noun -- the meaning remains the same (1).

When dealing with John 8, you make the conclusion that Jesus" teachings were from above. Yet you have not addressed the fact that Jesus says that he himself (not his teachings) is from above, and that he is not of this world. Your first quote says that Jesus does nothing of himself, but of God; yet all humans are capable of doing things of themselves -- that is why Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Jesus, when considering that, if he were only human, he could have done something of himself, is in fact indicating his divinity through this verse. Because he is the Son, a divine person within the being of God, he only works through God. You then say that he is a man; this is indisputable. The doctrine of Jesus" divinity says that he is fully man and fully God. This combination is necessary, because only a man"s death could fully redeem the sins of man, but divine perfection is also necessary, for only a divinely perfect sacrifice could be deemed enough to satisfy the wrath of God for eternity.

You have not actually refuted Colossians 2. It does not simply say, "God dwelt in Jesus". It says the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. If God is an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent being, it would be ludicrous to say that the fullness of infinity dwelt in someone who did not also share those traits.

If Jesus is a mediator, he must be able to be on the same level as both parties. He cannot merely be like God. He must be God. If he is anything less than infinite, then he is infinitely less than God. Even if he is a lesser infinite than God, he is still infinitely less than God (mathematically - see comments if you dispute this). And if he is infinitely less than God, how could God possibly find him worthy to be a mediator? A mediator is someone who both parties agree to mediate a dispute; how could God appoint a mediator that is anything less than Himself?

Now, to say that Jesus is on the same level as God does not mean that God (Father) has no authority over Jesus. I"ll now go to the Genesis text. 1:26: "And God said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion""

Many people will reference the plurality mentioned here, with the words "us" and "our". However, I suspect you already have a refute for that, and as I do not know Hebrew, I will not make that case. What I want to investigate is the "image" of which God speaks.

If God is totally incompatible with humanity, and is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then how could the human form be the image of God? The only logical conclusion is that, both in nature and form, humanity does resemble God. There must be some form of God that causes people to be shaped as they are; it cannot be God the Father, for He is omnipresent, and the human form is not. Since God the Father is literally not a man, as you have said, then some aspect/person within the being of God must be a man; otherwise mankind is not in God"s image. And thus, the Godhead must contain a human --- that is, Jesus. There is certainly no other man which could possibly be a person of the God being.

That addresses the form; however, not only does God say image, he also says likeness. How could a finite being in any way be the likeness of God?

I submit that the answer is in our very own triune nature. Humans are endowed with a mind -- this mind can be said to contain all the thoughts of our existence; it is everything we are. Humans have a body -- this body also has all of the information that makes us who we are. Finally, we have a spirit (though this is not important to this specific debate). And in humans, the mind has ultimate authority over the body. The body does what the mind wishes. This does not mean that the body is less human than the mind; and so, God (the divine nature on which the mind is based) can have ultimate authority over Jesus (the divine nature on which the human form is based) and they can still be One being, yet have distinct persons.

Well, I fear I have rambled, and lost my train of thought. I"ll continue on though.

The fact that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, in fact (now bear with me) proves his eternal nature. If Jesus is the first created thing, then he comes before Gen 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Jesus was before the heavens and the earth -- and the heavens and the earth were the beginning. Thus, Jesus was before the beginning, and as such, must be eternal. Any concept of creation outside of time is incomprehensible by the human mind, since all of our experience is based in space and time. And so, Jesus does not need to fit into our concept of a created being after the universe"s inception.

I pray to Jesus (ha, ha) that this argument is coherent. Thank you for making me delve into Scripture - I look forward to your response!

Debate Round No. 2


The attributes of God are in stark contrast to those of a human. The foundational characteristics of divinity are unique and exclusive to God alone. One of these divine characteristics is being omniscient. The omniscient divine character of God enables him to be free from uncertainty and not prone to changing his mind. Humans are not omniscient thus they can be uncertain and change their minds. The Bible tells us that Jesus is a man and that as a man he is not omniscient.

‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father’ (Mark 13:32)

‘And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man’ (Luke 2:52 52)

Omniscient beings do not grow in knowledge as they know all things. The Bible informs us that Jesus did grow in knowledge and did not know all things.

In Mathew chapter 11 Jesus spoke of John the Baptist;

‘Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’ (Mathew11.11).

In The First Epistle of John, John clarifies that ‘Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not;’

‘Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.’ Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.' (1 John 3:6-9)

According to Jesus John the Baptist was obedient to God; according to John anyone can be obedient to God. This is echoed early on in the Old Testament when Moses writes,

‘You must be blameless before the LORD your God.’ (Deuteronomy 18:13)

If Jesus was not capable of giving into temptation then God would not have given him commandments to obey.

'I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do’ (John 14:31)

The Bible uses the word God to describe Moses but this does not render Moses a false God. The word God was used figuratively not literally.

'And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.' (Exodus 7:1)

And he (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou(Moses) shalt be to him instead of God. (Exodus 4:16)

In John 10:34 Jesus points out that the Law (Old Testament) states that men can be called a God. Jesus was referring to Psalm 82:6;

'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.'

This was said of magistrates on account of the dignity and honour of their office, and it shows that the Hebrew word translated "God,"אלהים L8;elohiym, in that place can be applied to a man. The Book of Psalms addresses men in a position of authority and representing God as ‘God’.

In the Book of Psalms 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9 we read that this 'God' has a God and has been anointed. This clearly dispels the reader from taking the term 'God' literally instead of a figurative honouree title given to a man in authority and representing God. God has no need to be anointed. God does not have a God. Jesus was anointed and said that he had a God;

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46) I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

I have demonstrated that the collection of scriptures do not mention Jesus being God and that all whom encountered Jesus took him to be a prophet. We are debating if Jesus was God or not yet we agree that God himself spoke to Moses directly.

‘And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.’ (Exodus 33:11)

It is highly significant that God did not mention to Moses about the trinity considering that God spoke to Moses about Jesus and authored Him to write the first five books of the Bible. God's law was given to Moses. The first commandment was ' Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' (Exodus 20:3)

Jesus reiterates ‘The First Commandment’s primary significance;

'And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. There is none other commandment greater than these.' (Mark 12:29-32)

'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' (Luke 4:8)

Jesus did not mention his God being a trinity or being the third person within it. He is unequivocal and unambiguous in highlighting the fact that there is only one God. Jesus refers to God as your God and my God and at no point does he ever claim to be God.

A more logical translation of John 1:1 reads that the word is about God (God is the word). God's word is the expression of God. It is of him and from him. According to Geneses 1:3, 1:6, 1:9 and throughout Chapter One it was through God's word spoken by him that all things came into creation; 'And God said…'

John writes in 1:3 of God's word that 'all things through it emerged and without it emerged not even one thing that has emerged. It is not until verse 14 that John writes that the word became flesh and it is not I that separates the flesh (Jesus) from God's word it is Jesus himself;

'My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (John 7:16)

In John 8:23 Jesus tell the scribes and Pharisees 'And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath'. If Jesus stating that he is from above means that he is God then according to your logic Jesus stating that the scribes and Pharisees are from below means that they are Satan.

Taking the verse within the entire context of the chapter Jesus is clearly referring to the teachings, interpretations and implementation of The Law of Moses. In verse 50 Jesus says 'I seek not mine own glory'. All of the miracles, healings, prophersies and teachings that Jesus did and said were to Glorify and proclaim his God. This is exactly why everyone that received his teachings first hand understood that he was a prophet.

It is not the case that only a God is able to be the mediator between God and mankind. At his time Moses was a mediator between man and God.

And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God: (Exodus 18:15)

Let us analyse the literal translation of 1 Corinthians 8:6,

'But to us there is but one God, the Father, 'of' whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, 'by' whom are all things, and we by him.

The word 'of' is translated from the Greek word 'O52;ξ', 'ex', Strong concordance 1537. Definition, from, from out of.

The word 'by' is translated from the Greek word 'δι’', 'di', Strong's Concordance 1223. Definition through, on account of, because of.

1 Corinthians 8:6 states that all things are from the Father and because of Jesus.

Let us analyse the literal translation of Colossians 1:16

'all things 'by' him and for him have been created. '

The word 'by' is translated from the Greek word 'δι’, ' di’', Strong's Concordance 1223. Definition through, on account of, because of.

Colossians 1:15 tells us that Jesus is created in the image of God. Verse 16 reiterates 1 Corinthians 8:6, ‘all things were created because of Jesus’.

God gave Jesus all authority in heaven and in earth therefore at least one of God’s reasons for creation has to be Jesus.

'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.' (Matthew 28:18)

You write, ‘Now, to say that Jesus is on the same level as God does not mean that God (Father) has no authority over Jesus.’ Jesus Clarifies that he is not on the same level as God.

‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him’ (John 13:16)

‘Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord’ (John 15:20)

The reason for the plurals in Genesis 1:26 can be found later in the Bible.

'And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.' (Revelation 4:5)

‘The seven spirits of God’ are also mentioned in Revelation 1:4, 3:1, 5:6 and these spirits are identified in Isaiah11:2. The more of Gods spirits that dwell in us the more alike God we become. According to Revelation 5:6 all of Gods spirits were with Jesus which is why Hebrews 1:3 describes him as the ‘express image’ of God and why Colossians 2:9 states that Jesus is the fullness or fulfilment of the ‘Θεa2;τητος σωματικQ82;ς’, ‘deity bodily’. Hebrews 1 calls Jesus superior to angels but it does not call him God or equal to God.

You must provide Biblical evidence to support Jesus being fully God. I have already shown that Jesus is not fully God from the Biblical evidence submitted above. You must provide Biblical evidence for God comprising of another person that is equally God. You must also provide Biblical evidence for only the death of a man fully redeeming the sins of manking. Thus far you have failed to do so and must therefore concede that the divinity of Jesus is an unbiblical doctrine.



In the first paragraph, you show that Jesus is fully man, and has the characteristics of a man. This is not disputed. Jesus is fully man, and fully God -- that is what the doctrine says.
“The Bible tells us that Jesus is a man and that as a man he is not omniscient.”
However, the Bible also clearly states Jesus’ omniscience. John 16:29-30 (KJV) says, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.”
John 21:17 (KJV) says, ”And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
Jesus does not correct them either time.
At this point, we have some options. We can either try and find some loophole that allows us to the escape the fact that Jesus knows all things, or we can accept what is plainly in front of us. Jesus is both omniscient and not omniscient; the only explanation for this is that he is both God and man.
The doctrine, and the Bible, says that Jesus, as a man, grew in knowledge. And he, as God, knew all things. Those who believe the texts presented accept that such a concept is beyond understanding by humans; so also is the nature of God.

According to Jesus John the Baptist was obedient to God; according to John anyone can be obedient to God.
He says that John was obedient; he does not say that John was sinless. 1 John says that we can stop sinning because he has taken them away; any sin committed is paid for. This does not mean sinning is acceptable - Romans 7. “Blameless” - Hebrew tamiym, refers to “complete, whole, entire, sound”. This makes sense, as the verses directly before say that no one should engage in the practices of the nations which God has driven out. They should maintain their integrity as a nation, and not bring in parts of other cultures. It does not mean each person can be fully without sin.

Paul writes clearly in Romans 3, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Genesis 8:21 writes that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from youth. Ephesians 2:2 says we were all by nature children of wrath. What exempts Jesus from this? If he was fully man, and not God, then how has he not sinned, and why is his heart not evil, and what exempts him from being a child of wrath?
The Father instructs Jesus, and commands him to do what he does. Command, entellomai, (Strong’s G1781) means, “to enjoin, to charge, command.” God instructing Jesus on what to do, such as die on the cross, does not mean that Jesus is capable of sin.

Many translations render Moses being “a god” as “like God,” “as God” “seem as God,” “in the place of God” in Exodus 7. (NIV, ESV, ISV, ERV, CJB, CEB, even the NKJV). Even the second text you provided says that Moses will be in the place of God to Aaron, not that he is God/a god. How can you say the text for God in Psalm 45 is used figuratively for Jesus and literally for God, when they are only separated by one verse? The only reason you have is to deny what the scripture says.

John 10:34 comes four verses after Jesus says, “I and the Father are one”. The Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus says that he has proved that he is God’s Son through his good works, and that it is not blasphemy for God’s Son, fully God, to call himself God. Psalm 82 is God sarcastically calling the rulers are “gods” because that is what they believed themselves to be. They defended the wicked (v.2) and they will die like mortals (v. 7). It is also clear that they cannot be sons of the Most High in the same way that Jesus is, because John 3:16 clearly calls Jesus “God’s only Son”.

God the Father has no need to be anointed; God the Son, fully man and fully God, may be anointed. The Father may confer divine authority on the Son. Fully man, Jesus has a God.

You have refuted your own initial argument, if you believe that God the Father appeared as a man to Moses! You stated that God is literally not a man, yet here God is, man, speaking face to face with Moses. The logical explanation here is that Jesus, fully God with the form of a man, appeared to Moses. Otherwise, you are left with the conclusion that God, who is “literally not a man” was a man. God’s nature is unchanging; if you argue that the Father is literally not a man, then he must literally not be a man for all time.

You continue to provide text that damages your own case. God is “one Lord”. This is confirmed in Revelation 4:11, when the elders worship God the Father as “our Lord and God”. Yet Jude 1:4 calls those who deny the fact that Jesus is our only Owner/Master/Sovereign and Lord/God (ESV, NIV, NLT, even NWT) false teachers. So how can God be our Lord, if Jesus is our only Lord? Paul calls Jesus “our Lord” many times throughout his letters. You said it yourself. God is one Lord - thus, Jesus and the Father are different persons within the same being, God, and the being, God, is one Lord. Otherwise we are left two Lords - two individual beings with absolute ownership over us. Yet the earth is God’s, and everything in it (Psalm 89:11). How can Jesus be our kyrios, our absolute Lord, the one with authority over us, if everything is God’s?

You say that it is more logical to read that the “word is about God”, yet you do not give any source for saying this. You are essentially saying, “It’s logical, because it fits with my view”. It is not logical to read Scripture with words added, unless you can give a legitimate reason for adding the word. You have not quoted any sources that state how “the word was God” or “God was the word” could mean, “the word was about God”. I have quoted a source that says otherwise; here are more (1).

Dr. B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Colwell clearly states that when the noun precedes the verb, the article is dropped; this completely refutes your initial argument against John 1.

You say,”It is of him and from him ... it was through God's word spoken by him that all things came into creation; 'And God said…'” Later on, you say "1 Corinthians 8:6 states that all things are from the Father and because of Jesus." Yet, you only conclude this because you ignore the first definition of “di” which is “through”. What is says is, “from the Father” and “through Jesus”, which is why every English translation I found renders it “through/by” and not “because of/for” (NIV ESV KJV ASV ISV ERV DRA YLT TLB NOG GNV.. etc). Even the NWT, which was deliberately edited to avoid having Jesus be God, translates it as “through”. If your position held any water, would not several translations, or even one, render it as “because of” or “for”? It would be a simple change. You will have to cite several reliable Greek scholars to stand against the plethora of translations that contradict you. As it is, Jesus was involved in creating the world, yet since it repeatedly says, “God said”, the conclusion is that Jesus is God.

Jesus does not separate the logos, which was with God and was God, from himself. The doctrine coming from Jesus mouth, didache, is not the same as the logos which became flesh in John 1. Jesus would have no reason to separate the divine logos from himself; he spoke those words around A.D. 30, and John wrote his Gospel about 50 years later.

If the plural is because of the seven spirits of God, as you claim, why are they speaking? No where is it said that these spirits are personal, or that they speak. Why would these seven spirits be speaking in Genesis 1, 3, and 11, and then never again? If God is seven spirits, why are these seven spirits only mentioned four times in the entire Bible, and each time in the midst of highly figurative language? None of the verses say that the more spirits that dwell in us, the more like God we become. There is no reason to connect these spirits to the plurals in Genesis. How could the fulness of deity in Hebrews refer to a text written decades later? It is more logical to assume that Paul means what he says: Christ is fully God.

You didn’t address my argument about how man could be in the image of God if God is literally not a man. Tselem means image, resemblance (Strong’s H6754). Your seven Spirits theory does not explain how man is in God’s image. Jesus being God does.

Above/Beneath: Jesus clearly identifies “beneath” as “of this world”. Not Hell/Satan. So Jesus is still claiming himself to be from above/heaven.

Mediator: Moses cannot be, and clearly is not, a mediator in the same way Jesus is, as Paul writes “there is one mediator”. Jesus mediated between God’s wrath and its recipients, while people merely inquired of God through Moses.

Death of God necessary: Only God’s sacrifice could satisfy the wrath an eternally sinless God against a sinful race, and man still must pay the price. That is why the sacrifice of the lamb for the Jews was not enough.

God’s Son does mean God: Adam was not a son in the same way as Jesus was (John 3:16). It is not logical that an offspring of something divine would not itself be divine - that is how it works in all of God’s creation, why would God work differently?

Notes in comments
Debate Round No. 3


John 16:30 - 'Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.' Jesus' disciples did not believe that Jesus knew everything because he was God and therefore 'omniscient' they state that they believed Jesus came from God. He received the word of God and did not need to ask anything of men.

We must base our assumptions on Biblical evidence. You have submitted Bible verses consisting of two of Jesus' dispels saying that Jesus knew all things and they have clarified why they thought this. My Biblical evidence is Jesus himself confirming the fact that he knows all the things that God chooses to tell him and clearly this does not included everything. The best option for us to take is to logically take each verse into the context of the entire chapter and entire Bible and avoid superimposing preconcived ideas that create contradictions in the Holy Book.

John the Baptist did not sin, obeying God's laws means that you do not sin. He was fully man, and not God, and did not sin, his heart was not evil, and nor was he a child of wrath. The same can be said of Job.

'There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.' (Job 1:1)

Jesus tells us that some men are righteous;

'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' (Mark 2:17)

Jesus did not say that only he could live free from sin because he is God. His ministry involved him telling people to repent and sin no more so they cannot have been incapable of doing so;

"Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." (John 5:14)

"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11)

1 John 3:6-9 states that anyone can be free from sin. 'Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not.' Submitting to God exempts us from our sinful human nature that Paul writes of in Romans 3. In verse 23 Paul writes that all 'come short of the glory of God' Jesus confers that even he comes short of the glory of God;

"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18)"Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." (Luke 18:19)

There is no reason to think that 'El' being used within the same verse excludes it from referring to an earthly ruler and God himself separately. Especially when they are clearly separated within the context. Psalm 82:6 is an example of 'El' being used to describe men and God himself. Ezekiel 31:11 clearly defines an earthly ruler as 'El'. It is not a word preserved exclusively for God.

Before Jesus said 'I and my Father are one' he states 'My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;' (John 10:29)

Jesus clearly illustrates that he is not at all 'fully God' by confirming that God is greater than all. We know that Jesus includes himself in the 'all' that God is greater than from John 14:28 were Jesus says;

"I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

The Father conferring divine authority on the Son proves that the Son is not divine. If he were then he would not need to have anything conferred unto him. You are asserting that God has created another God. God spoke through Isaiah fully clarifying that this is false.

'understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.' (Isaiah 43:10)

3439. monogenés means 'one of a kind', 'unique' not specifically 'only son.

Exodus 33:11 does not say that God took the form of a man.

Neither of the words describing Jesus in Jude 1:4 (1203. despotés nor 2962. kurios) mean God. despotés means master as does Kurios which also means sir.

I have not added any words to John 1. I am simply reading it in its original text. The translators are the ones that have changed the text to 'The word was God' from 'God was the word'.

We know that within this sentence the subject is 'the word'. 'In the beginning was the word' explains that the word was in the beginning. 'The word was with God' denotes the location or origin of the word. 'The word was God' may literally mean that the word is God whilst 'God was the word' describes the attributes of 'the word'. The word is about God, the word declares God. This clearly connects with the ending of this piece of writing; verse 18 states that 'theos' declares God.

Colwell is arguing against using the article within the sentence. That is not what I have done so his refute is irrelevant. He is refuting the JW Bible that reads 'The word is a God'. I have not made the case that the article should be added or that any other words should be added, simply that we should read it in its original format.

Nonetheless it is besides the point as to whether or not God's word described within John 1:1 is actually God or simply declares God. Your interpretation of this verse is built upon the assumption that 'the word' being described is Jesus and you have no solid justification to do so as it is not until verse 14 that we read of the word becoming flesh.

1 Corinthians 8:6 may not have been translated as 'because of' in any of the translations but the word does include this within its broader meaning. 1 Corinthians 8:6 provides us with clarity of the fact that Paul believed that all things originated from the Father.

When Jesus highlights that his words were from God and not from himself then Jesus is expressly denying his divinity.

The seven spirits of God do not all speak, God does. One God with one voice referring to himself in the plural form.

The seven spirits denote attributes. Attributes are what make us who we are. God made us with these seven attributes and we are therefore alike him.

I agree with you, you're doctrine is beyond understanding, because it is not based on logic nor scripture.

It is an explanation based on scripture. As I have previously demonstrated God being a trinity is based on no scriptural evidence whatsoever. All of my Biblical evidence explicitly illustrates that Jesus is not God. All the verses that I have submitted are taken within the context of the chapter and are supported by other verses thorough the Bible.

God reveals many things about Jesus throughout the Old Testament. These 'Messianic prophecies' which mainly speak of his mortal disentrance also include his characteristics and what he will do. These prophesies about the coming Messiah that are repeated numerous times make up the Messianic prophecies.

The scriptures were not written to convey that the Messiah would be God which is why this expectation was not included within the Messianic expectations. Each and everyone one of these expectations are built upon multiple supporting Biblical evidence.

The Biblical evidence that you have provided for Jesus being called God from Psalms 45:7 referenced in Hebrews 1 is in complete isolation, it cannot be confirmed by any other scripture. One good explanation for this is that 'el' is not referring to God himself and that it is a mistranslation to do so. I have fully proven that this is a possibliity and therefore your evidence is weak to say the very least.



“You have submitted Bible verses consisting of two of Jesus' dispels saying that Jesus knew all things and they have clarified why they thought this.”

Only in one of the verses do they “clarify” and they say that Jesus (not specifically his knowledge) came from God. The Son comes from the Father; this does not undermine their statement that Jesus knows all things. “He received the word of God and did not need to ask anything of men.” This is not mentioned. They said, “you know all things.” They didn’t say, “God has told you everything,” or “You have the word of God so you know all things”. It is explicitly stated that Jesus knows all things, twice. They did not say that God had told Jesus everything, or that God spoke everything through Jesus. They said, “You know all things”. We have Biblical evidence that shows that A. Jesus does not know the time of his own return and B. He knows all things. My position allows for both of these biblical passages to be true, and for the meaning to not be twisted. Jesus is fully man - in his manhood, there are things that he may not know, and he may learn and grow. In his Godhood, he knows all things, as his disciples said. Your position forces you to deny one of the passages, or to twist/add a meaning beyond what is written. Your evidence said nothing about Jesus ‘knowing all things that God chooses to tell him’. My position allows for every word of the Bible to be true.

You have only shown where Jesus says that John has risen higher than any other man, not that he was obedient/sinless. Regardless, obeying God’s law =/= sinless. I have obeyed God’s laws many times - I am not sinless. 1 Jn 1:8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Job could not have been sinless either, as he repented and despised himself in Job 42. This fits with scripture; Paul writes that all have sinned. Otherwise, we are left with the predicament that all have sinned, yet Job and John did not sin. You have created contradictions.

These men he calls ‘righteous’ are Pharisees. Taken into context, he cannot genuinely be calling them righteous. He frequently argued with the Pharisees, calling them a brood of vipers and liars. The Pharisees also certainly do not understand the nature of Jesus. At the end of Mk 2 they claim Jesus is being unlawful on the Sabbath, not understanding that he is Lord of the Sabbath. Kyrios means, ‘person to whom something belongs’. If the Sabbath belongs to Jesus, where is God in this picture? The seventh day is supposed to be a sabbath to God, yet it belongs to Jesus -- God. So logically, Jesus is not actually calling these men righteous. They believed they were righteous, like the gods in Ps 82:6, but theirs was not that which, “comes from God and is by faith,” but one that “comes from the law,” as per Phi 3. Jesus is calling those who know they are broken sinners, because those who are broken will receive the kingdom of God - Mt. 5.

Jn 8 - the adulteress. It is clear when Jesus says ‘sin no more’ that she has lived a life of sin in adultery, and should stop. Does this mean she was capable of never lying again? If she was, then she could theoretically get into a position where she did not sin, and she would then be able to call herself sinless. Yet as I quoted earlier, 1 Jn says that anyone who claims they are without sin deceives themselves.

The ‘him’ referred to in 1 Jn 3 is Christ. God does not see the sins of those who live in Christ, because as John said in v5, he took away all sins. Jesus says that the Father is greater, but he is not part of “all have sinned”.

You bring up, “There is no one good but God” -- yet you have just claimed that JtB, Job, and Jesus were all good - unless good is higher than ‘perfect’, ‘blameless’, ‘upright’, ‘obedient’, or ‘holy’. Jesus denying his own goodness does not fit scripture; and if he is not denying his own goodness, then he is answering his own question: ‘Why do you call me good? - God alone is good’. Jesus here is acknowledging that he is God - that is how he can be good. This lines up with scripture, because John and Job can then still rest under “all have sinned” and “all are children of wrath” while Jesus is set apart as good because he is God. You cannot deny that Jesus is good if you also accept that he is blameless, holy, without sin, and superior to angels.

“The Father conferring divine authority... You are asserting that God has created another God”

I have not. I have said that the Son, fully man and fully God, had divine authority conferred upon him as a man. This fits, because it says in Philippians 2 that “Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” Christ, who had the form of God, took the form of a man, and was given divine authority, as a man. If Christ was only God, then your refute would be accurate, but the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity says that Christ was God and man. This aligns with the Bible, as Thomas calls Christ, “My Lord and my God”. Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou. Not only does he say God, he says, “the God” which you used as indication of the true God in Jn 1:1.

“monogenés … not specifically 'only son”

Yes. Huion means son. ton huion ton monogene - the son the only. Thus, the ‘gods’ are not actual sons of the Most High, and neither was Adam, in the way that Jesus was. There is still no basis to believe that a true son of divine nature would not himself have divine nature.

“Ex 33:11 does not say that God took the form of a man.”

He spoke as a man, face to face. God also appears as an angel and a man - Gen 16, 22, 32, Ex 3

“Neither of the words describing Jesus in Jude 1:4 mean God.” I emphasized the definition of kyrios - Lord. Jude describes Jesus as our only Lord, and anyone who says otherwise is a false teacher. Yet everything in the earth belongs to God. We have a dilemma. Jesus is our only Lord, yet clearly everything in the earth is God’s (Ps 24, Acts 17:24). Thus Jesus is God.

“Colwell is arguing against using the article within the sentence.” Colwell said that the article ho/ton is absent when the definitive predicate nominative precedes the verb. You said, “He does not write that 'The God' was the word. Instead he writes 'God' was the word. The definitive article 'the' is absent rendering God a predicate of the subject 'the word', 'ho logos'”. All of my sources have shown that the article is only missing because theos was placed first in order to show its importance, and when it is first, it is without the article.

Rev identifies the Word as Jesus. 19:11-15 indicates that ‘Faithful and True’ is named the “the Word of God”, and that the Word will rule the nations with an iron sceptre, and the Word is called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev. 3:14 indicates that Jesus is the one who is faithful and true, and Ps 2:9 identifies Jesus as the one with the iron sceptre. Rev 17:14 indicates that the Lamb, who is Jesus, is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Rev and Jn have the same authorship, so the word of God in Rev can connect to the word of God in Jn 1.

‘Because of’ is not a broader meaning. It is a completely different meaning. ‘Through’ refers to the channel by which an act is done. ‘Because of’ indicates that God created everything, including Jesus, because he wished to give everything to Jesus. I have no reason to accept this definition. What is says that all things were created by the Father through Jesus - thus, Jesus was involved in the act of creation.

When Jesus highlights that his words were from God… Jesus is expressly denying his divinity.” He is denying that he is God the Father. He is not, as you originally claimed, separating himself from the word of God (Jn 1), or denying that he is God’s Son.

“One God with one voice referring to himself in the plural form.”. You are saying that God is speaking to his attributes. That is not logical or scriptural. He never speaks to these spirits again; what scriptural reason is there to assume that he is speaking of them now? Later, these spirits are depicted as lamps, eyes, and horns, and God never speaks to, or in plurality with, them. However, the spirit (singular) of God is shown hovering over the waters in Gen 1:2, and through Jesus the Word all things were made. This is a much stronger scriptural basis for God speaking in the plural. You also have not logically connected Jesus having the seven spirits with the fulness of deity mentioned by Paul. The fulness of deity includes infinity, not merely wisdom, counsel, knowledge, etc.

“We are therefore alike him.” This does not explain how we are like him in image, form, resemblance. Our attributes are infinitely less than God’s; we can’t be like something that is infinitely greater. Our attributes are not our image or form. It is logical to say that we are like him in form only if God’s Son is the basis for the human form.

“All of my Biblical evidence explicitly illustrates that Jesus is not God.”

Your biblical evidence has shown that the Son is not the Father.

Jesus claiming to be God’s Son is a claim to divinity. Jn 3:16 clearly identifies him as “the son the only”. It is clear that this is how it was understood in Jn 5:18 (KJV) “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” The Pharisees understand that Son of God is a claim to being equal with God. That is why they desire to kill him. It goes along with his statements, “I and the Father are one,” and “I am from above”. It also clarifies how Jesus can be our Lord, our kyrios, the one with absolute authority over us. He is one with God; a separate person, as you’ve shown, but one being. Otherwise, God is not our Lord, because Jesus is called our Lord at nearly every turn (in all of Paul’s introductions to his letters, in Ro 10:9, etc.)

Debate Round No. 4


Dave.Carter forfeited this round.


Thanks to my opponent for a clean, intense debate. Unfortuante that it ended this way. That's how it goes sometimes.

Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheKryken 9 months ago
That is extremely unfortunate that you were unable to post a round 5 argument. I think if we have another debate, it should be focused on one or two of the specific aspects of this top, such as the meaning of Son of God, Jesus being involved in creation, John 1, etc. You may also be interested in debating Daley on some of these subjects; he has done a lot more research on it than I.

I'm not sure I will have the time for another full-blown debate. My break is nearly over and second semester is about to begin. I will have to see waht the homework load is like before I commit to another intense debate.

Happy New Year to you as well!
Posted by Dave.Carter 9 months ago
I'm grateful to you for the progress we've made with this topic. It would be a shame not to continue the debate. I know that it's been exhausting (which is why I'm so annoyed that I've messed it up at the last stage). I like you as similarly to me you recognise and enjoy the rewards of debating scripture, that being acquiring a lot more knowledge about it. We either become surer of our own understanding or recognise faults in our understanding and direct it towards the truth. My assessment is that we have both become more assured of our own positions. Although neither of us has shifted our opinions we have really moved the debate forward and again I thank you for that.
I think that you would agree that I have clearly indicated that there is a lot of Biblical evidence that is given to support the divinity of Jesus that is undeniably equivocal and ambiguous. The debate has now focused on the foundational concept of the trinity. Jesus being involved in the creation. I like the position that we've arrived at and it would be a shame not to make further progress.
I'm not sure exactly what to suggest. I have written my argument for round five but obviously I can't post it here now. I was wondering perhaps if you take your arguments from round four, adjust it slightly to make it round one for our next debate? There is no hurry and we can both take the time in between to do our further research towards the debate. What do you think about that? I'd love to move the debate forward and not put our hard words to waste.
Happy new year to you by the way, and again, I really sorry for not keeping up!
Many thanks.
Posted by Dave.Carter 9 months ago
I can't tell you how sorry I am for not being able to post my argument on time. You have clearly put a lot of effort into this debate. I really appreciate that and I honestly feel very bad to not have matched your consistent efforts. I thought that I would make it back on time following the New Year"s Eve celebrations and I just missed the mark. I really am so so sorry.
Posted by TheKryken 9 months ago
Are you going to be able to post?
Posted by TheKryken 10 months ago
Well, I was not able to say nearly as much as I planned to, so I had to cut out some standard grammar, as well as abbreviate quotes. I slashed out about 1/4 of my original argument, so I'm hoping that I addressed all the points thoroughly. I'd suggest that you choose a few of the most significant ones to respond to, so that there may be a few characters left for us to summarize/state why voters should vote for us. A few of the topics that I think are important are:
God"s Son means God
Know all things
No one good but God
Thomas"s "my God"
Jesus is Lord
Jesus in Creation/God"s image
John 1
JtB/Job Sinless

Most of these could practically consume an entire debate in and of themselves. I may be willing to enter such a debate with you at some point, but this current one has exhausted me, and I'll have to take a break from such in depth debate for a while (rest assured, I remain confident in my position :P). I have enjoyed this debate.

If you can respond to all of it, go ahead, but I will likely only choose a few points in the last round in order to provide a summary.
Posted by TheKryken 10 months ago
Not at all happy with how this argument is turning out after editing, but I still have to cut a few more characters. I may end up throwing some statements out there without being able to support them as much as I originally intended. I should be posting in the next hour or so though.
Posted by Dave.Carter 10 months ago
I feel for you, the word count is not large enough for this debate.
Posted by TheKryken 10 months ago
I have to cut about 4,000 characters, so that's quite fun.
Posted by Dave.Carter 10 months ago
cont. Jesus firmly establishes that he is not claiming to actually be God but has been sent by God. Jesus makes it transparently clear that when he stated he was from above and not of this world that he means he was sent from God who is above and is not of this world.
In verse 40 Jesus describes himself as 'a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God'. In verse 41 Jesus goes on to make this analogy clear on both sides when he says,
"I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father."
The scribes and Pharisees stood up for themselves and said that their Father was Abraham but according to Jesus this was not the Father that he was referring to, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." They stand up for themselves again exclaiming "We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." According to Jesus this was not their Father that he was referring to either, "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."
By now Jesus has completely established that he is from above and not of this world because God had sent him, he only does Gods work. In verse 44 Jesus fully clarifies what he means when he refers to the scribes and Pharisees as from 'below' and of 'this world', "Ye are of your father the devil
It may not be wholeheartedly unreasonable to have some sympathy for your interpretation of John chapter eight verse twenty-three when it is taken in isolation. If however we take this verse in the context of the entire chapter and fully analyse the proceeding clarification provided by Jesus then it does become profoundly unreasonable to have any sympathy for interpreting this verse to mean that Jesus is God.
Posted by Dave.Carter 10 months ago
I realised that I have not given a full response to John 8. I know it is unconventional but I will do so here in the comments section. It does not need to be included in the marking of the debate if it is voted on. I just thought it may save time wasting if I had addressed all of your points.
Above/Beneath: Jesus clearly identifies "beneath" as "of this world". Not Hell/Satan. So Jesus is still claiming himself to be from above/heaven.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.