The Instigator
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The following verses of the Bible make it evident that Jesus is God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,446 times Debate No: 13233
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (8)

 

Marauder

Pro

This is a debate over the deity of Jesus as not just a good teacher, not just a prophet, but King of Kings part of God himself.

For this debate since its between Mirza and I, their will be no need for any room to waist on debating for or against the Bible as being true, for this debate it to be considered the inspired word of God, so the passages that could come from it hold the up-most relevance and sway in this debate.

For the sake of space I will just be focusing on 3 sets of verses.

(first is everyone's favorite) John 3:16 http://www.biblegateway.com... (also related http://www.biblegateway.com... http://net.bible.org...)

(second) Mathew 1:22-23 http://www.biblegateway.com... (passage referenced in this passage http://www.biblegateway.com...)

(and third) John 8:58 http://net.bible.org... ( for context sake http://net.bible.org... http://net.bible.org... http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.biblegateway.com...)

Those are the verses I give that best show Jesus as also God for this debate. More exist but for this debate we will just tackle the cases surrounding these 3.

...................
Begotten Son
...................

The first set I gave is summed up in that it make the point that Jesus is Gods 'Begotten' Son. In fact his only begotten son. "monogeneis" from its usage all through out the gospel of John specifically indicates Jesus as Gods child in a way different from just any child of God. when one is born again you are of course a child of god but not in the sense Jesus is.

Its a big deal that the bible uses the language to refer to Jesus as 'Begotten' by God theologically. God of course 'creates' everything but he 'begot' Jesus. If I make a building you could say I created it, but I did not beget it. a being only 'begets' another being of its own kind. if God ever begets, then what he begets is God as well.

..............
Immanuel
..............

The second set of scripture I gave, the bible clearly refers to Jesus as Immanuel, or 'God with us'
That's should be fairly self explanatory as to why that indicates Jesus as God. The Gospel of Matthew say's Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the Immanuel being born mentioned in Isaiah; that his birth was one and the same as that of the child mentioned in prophecy labeled as 'God with us'. So Jesus is God among us then.

.........
"I AM"
.........

The third set of scriptures I gave is were Jesus himself states that he is the great "I AM" and some other scriptures related to that statement. I cited the first chapter of John in context with that because Jesus being the 'Word' and the 'I AM' are two very related statements theologically.
C.S. Lewis once explained the importance of these statement with Gods and his relationship to the nature he created and how this means he is more than featureless but in every since a 'living God' http://books.google.com...
It makes him more eternal than the nature he created, witch is necessary if he created it. Jesus statement about himself being "I AM" can only be taken to mean he is God. For being the "I AM" is exactly what God is. The Fact that simply is, and has no cause but is the cause for all that exist.

Those are my 3 cases for the the bible saying Jesus is God. So in summery....

1) Jesus is Begotten by God; not created
2) He is "God with us"
3) Jesus himself called himself the 'I AM'

And with that I end my round one case.
Mirza

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate with agreement between us.

I asked him to come with three passages from the Bible that he finds best in proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God. He has come with them and my role is to explain their meanings or their background, and I will hopefully make it evident that none of them prove that Jesus is, in fact, God.

-- Content --

• 1. Begotten Son - John 3:16

• 2. God With Us - Immanuel

• 3. "I AM" - John 8:58

-- Arguments --

• 1. Begotten Son - John 3:16

[John 3:16] "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The translation of New International Version says "his one and only Son" - not begotten.[1] However, looking at the source, you will find a footnote saying "Or his only begotten Son." My opponent agrees with "begotten," and argues that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, which means nothing but that the Son is also of same kind, i.e. God. That makes two gods, not one God, but for the sake of argument, let us skip this point. I have other points to make.

Using the King James Version, Psalm 2:7 says,

[David speaking] "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Even if you use NIV, it says, "... today I have become your Father" but the footnote says, exactly as with John 3:16, "Or his only begotten Son" or "have begotten you."

What do we see here? David was also begotten. Not only was Jesus begotten, but David, who preceded him. This invalidates my opponent's argument that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Many passages mention sons of God. Exodus 4:22 does.

Why exactly is the author of Gospel of John right? How can he even be right when he contradicts David, a Prophet? Is a disciple more right than a Prophet? Certainly not. However, even if I skip this point, I have others to make.

Notice that my opponent gave only one argument with Jesus' own words, namely the "I AM" one, which I will refute soon, if God is willing. However, Jesus did not say, "I am the only begotten Son of God." I challenge my opponent to find one single passage saying it. John said it, but it a) contradicts the words of a Prophet, b) is not supported by Jesus' own statements, and c) is a fabricated verse (and I will explain why). Therefore, there are three points that invalidate the argument of John 3:16. If one is wrong, two others are right, and unless all are wrong, then this passage is invalid in its entirety.

The word "begotten" needs to be used in the context of animalia when we are discussing a human being. A human can only come to life through sex if he is begotten because no human can be begotten without two people having sex to beget him. Jesus was born to a virgin mother, so how could he have been begotten by God? How could God beget Jesus? It would only be possible, by definition, if there was sexual activity with Mary, but that never happened. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have been begotten, a "if" he was, then he is half human half god, but that still does not make him God. You can choose between human, half human/god, and nothing more. If you choose "God" you are going against the words of many Prophets, including David (peace be upon them all). Why is a disciple right, and not a Prophet? The word is the same!

Moreover, the word "begotten" in John 3:16 cannot be found in the oldest scriptures of the Bible. Many scholars of the Bible have pointed out that the word "begotten" in John 3:16 is a direct fabrication. There are no traces of it in the older scriptures. This argument is supported by Christian scholars (see their version: Revised Standard Version).

Therefore, the argument in John 3:16 is not valid. The probability that it is true is very low. It directly contradicts many passages of the Bible speaking of "only" Son of God, even "begotten" Son of God. This is a Biblical contradiction, historical contradiction, definitional fallacy, appeal to authority (only John says it, others do not), and a fabrication.

I will also give more arguments regarding different sources speaking about Jesus, and why they are not necessarily right "or" are misinterpreted by Christians.

• 2. God With Us - Immanuel

[Matthew 1:22-23] "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: (23)'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' - which means, 'God with us.'"

To begin with, I would like to ask where Jesus himself assigned this name to himself? Where did Jesus ever claim, "I am God with you!" if I may ask? Jesus originally means Salvation. Salvation =/= God With Us.

Furthermore, as I implied above, just because some sources say something about someone does either not necessarily make it true, or they mean something different to how some people see it.

For instance, in some passages of the Bible, some people referred to Jesus as "Lord." Does this literally mean God? No. Satan was also called god in some passages. And here are more things referred to as Lord:

[Genesis 22:14] "So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, 'On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.'"

Is that place God? No.

[Psalm 82:6] "I said, 'You are 'gods'; you are all sons of the Most High."

If names like Immanuel or Eloah are only ascribed to God Himself, then why are all sons of the Most High (i.e. God) referred to as Elohim, i.e. gods? Many names were assigned to people that were never called "God." Emmanuel, Hashabiah, Michael, and so forth. These names were common and one like Michael would seem to refer to a person who is God (Michael means "one who resembles God" or "one who is like God" [2]). Why is Jesus, then, God just because very few people assigned some godlike names to him? Even other Prophets bore similar names, and none were considered to be God. Therefore, since Jesus never called himself Immanuel, never called himself God, this assignation to him is entirely invalid.

• 3. "I AM" - John 8:58

The third and last sentence is probably the most sound out of all the ones that my opponent presented above. That is because Jesus himself assigned words to him, which is what mostly matters. But does he really say "I AM" and if so, does "I AM" really refer to God? I will analyze.

[John 8:58] "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"

This sentence hardly makes sense. "Before he was, I am" - What does that even mean? Let us see what YHWH (i.e. God) is in Hebrew.

YHWH = I am What I am = God

Jesus' words: Ego eimi = I am(?) = God(?)

How do these fit? "I am" in English does in no way make Jesus God. Remember that we are reading in English, but the original in Hebrew is Yahweh. Jesus said the words in Aramaic, but the translation is Greek, and now Christians use English to prove the divinity of Jesus. That is erroneous. Ego eimi does not mean God in any way, nor does it mean "I am What I am" or "Yahweh." In reality, these words should be translated to "I have" because that is what their context indicates.

"I" in Greek: ego [3]

"am" or "have been" in Greek: eimi [4]

As can be seen, "eimi" can mean "have," "been," and so forth. Why say "am?" That barely makes sense. The verse should say, "Before Abraham was born, I (existed, have been, etc)."

As has been demonstrated, none of the verses above mean that Jesus is God.

[John 20:17] "'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" - Jesus

I thank my opponent.

-- References --

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://www.thinkbabynames.com...
[3] http://strongsnumbers.com...
[4] http://strongsnumbers.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Pro

It seems I was wrong round 1. That's right someone just said they were wrong in an actual debate on this site. I was wrong that there would need to be space waisted on arguing that the bible is true. Mirza has claimed only the third set of scriptures really holds any wait in this debate since there of what Jesus said rather than someone else like Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, ect… But this simply cannot be true.
Either all the scripture is the inspired word of God (words in black as much as the words in red) or none of it is. All of lord Jesus words come from Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. If you bring to question what they themselves write just in the non-dialogue part of the text as not true then so is the part where they write Jesus saying statements about himself.

Many Christians get this false impression as well that what some people say in the bible is more valid because of that as well, like putting James and Paul against each other. It's easy to see how, we know that from obvious context some small sections of scripture are not true statement because that was that sections purpose; to show someone in the wrong usually arguing with someone in the right. Like we know everything Job's lousy friends say is not necessarily true, Jezebel, Simon the Magician, or near anything a Pharisee ever say's in the New Testament. But these cases were who the person saying it makes a difference is in clear context of that whole passage trying to show that one part as false. There is no room for this in any of scriptures I chose; the Immanuel reference is not even in the dialogue of any the characters for someone there to refute it. The author himself does not add anything to discredit it like ‘this is how that rumor got started…' Same is with the creed like labeling of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God in John; it stands in that passage without any context that shows it being refuted by Jesus. Not even if Peter calls Jesus the son of God strait to Jesus in dialogue does Jesus give correction but praise! Witch leaves them both as much the word of God as any other part of scripture.

So now that the equal validness of all the scriptures is out of the way, I shall press on to defending them individually.
----------------
Begotten Son
---------------
Mirza gives a psalm of King David talking about Jesus as evidence that ‘John' is wrong cause he is contradicting King David, who was also a prophet, and out of these contradictions, David must be right because the book of John is ‘not as old' as other scriptures as if that made a difference.
But like I said, Psalm 2 is David prophesying about Jesus, witch happens quite often in the Psalms, some more obviously than others, Psalm 22 being the most famous of them http://www.biblegateway.com.... So there is no contradiction to be worried about.

But though I might get Psalm 2 out of the way, I could never hope to argue against every passage where others than Jesus are referred to as Sons of God. Depending on its context, its one of those descriptions that could mean a variety of things. Such as in Genesis where it is a reference to Angles who laid down with ‘daughters of men' and produced offspring. And all thought the New Testament those who have heard the Good News and are saved are referred to as children of God or children of light, for we are in a sense Gods children. And still yet even to this day the theologians hold no reverence for the language child of god mean like what we think Jesus is and instead feel free to use it to mean anyone, believer or not without giving clarifying context. But they do agree that the context is clear in the book of John http://www.bible-researcher.com..., as other places in the new testament that use monogeneis like its used in the Gospel passage I gave, that it is making Jesus out to be a son of god in different since than all others are, or angles are, or believers & followers of god are. In the sense that explained why 'even the wind and seas obey this man'.
------------
Immanuel
------------
Obviously the fact that his name was actually Jesus and literally Immanuel was no problem for the person inspired by God writing this book. Under the direction of Gods hand they still wrote that he fulfilled that particular prophecy. It's easy to see why, prophecies and visions are notorious for being representative in more abstract senses than we would prefer. No Lion with wings is ever going to exist or gain the mind of a man and walk on two legs. The name specified in prophecy can only serve to point at what the person who it is will spiritually be described as. Jesus is 'God among us'. Yes, others in the bible have names that indicate God likeness, but they are just names, not names that came up in visions. and the ones that do come up in visions are very likely references to Jesus.
-------
I AM
-------
The link you gave is quite clear. The normal use of the words is I and AM. You don't pick the side note alternatives at the bottom unless there is specified context to conjugate it so. There is none. Ego Eimi is its straightforward normal state to translate.
Second off changing it to ‘…I have' does not make the statement simpler nor makes him less showing himself god for it. "I was before Abraham ever was…" yet that makes him something at that time that is in no way fleshly for his mother did not give birth to him so you do not have half-god or just a man as an option here. Even if you choose to avoid it saying he's god without him using the word ‘divine' somewhere in that sentence you are still driven right back into him being god by the mere ramifications of what I AM means. ‘before Abraham ever was, I was' this puts him as the all eternal fact, the word, the thing that simply IS in its own right and was not created but through it all was created.
--------------------
Philosophy of Heaven
--------------------
I have a fourth point for this round. Its not a new set of scripture to argue but just over a point Mirza brought up about the definitional impossibility of God begetting anything more than a half-god with Mary. Like Mirza I too would have us skip the point just so the debate doesn't side-track to a trinity doctrine debate, and will try to keep the focus on Jesus divinity, rather than its exact nature.
But it still needs addressed to a small degree with more than, "he's god he can 'beget' however he wants"
In Hell, the basic doctrine is that no two objects can occupy the same space. to make yourself greater you must destroy or consume others to extend yourself. Now if this is your view than by all means Jesus would have to be half-god.
But God does make things this way. If things were that way, he could love you and me with only a fraction of his heart rather than all of it, or love me with all of it and not you at all or vise versa. This doctrine of love that involves overlap in existence is one he pushes on us all the time to remind of how we should be.
Once you understand that, and that god is omnipresent, what he begets can do nothing but overlap entirely with God as well as one and the same God. This philosophy o heaven is one that Satan himself doesn't understand, and that is part of why he rebelled. He is not a being that gets any part of how love works, how two things can coexist and grow without destroying or consuming each other.
So God begetting a being that is still himself, still just one God works perfectly with how God works.

That is all for this round; I thank my opponent.
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

My opponent began by saying that either all of the scripture is inspired by God or none of it is. If we say that this is true, for the sake of argument, then why does my opponent deny the meaning of different passages just because they are in disagreement with what he says? Then he moved on to imply that whether or not Jesus (peace be upon him) himself claimed divinity or John etc. did it for him is the same. This is entirely incorrect. It is very important to remember that there are tons of passages calling many things "Lord," "god," and so forth. Why would they ever apply exclusively to Jesus in any literal way? Only if he himself accepted those words in a literal sense.

However, Jesus never accepted the words. I will show that he said tons of times that God is greater than him and something similar. Unless he himself did not...

a) Claim divinity
b) Refute the claims about his status

... then there is no doubt that the Bible does not conclude that he is God. Jesus never did it himself, either. However, we must also remember that there are passages that look like e.g. John called Jesus "God" or something along that line, but do, in fact, say something else. I will elaborate.

-- Rebuttals --

1. Begotten Son

My opponent began by saying that I implied that "David must be right because the book of John is ‘not as old' as other scriptures as if that made a difference." I did not say that. I said that David is right because he was a Prophet, John was a disciple. David spoke through the commands of God, John spoke through what he saw. Then he moved on to say that Psalm 2 is David prophesying Jesus. This is entirely wrong. I will analyze the context of Psalm 2.[1]

It was Prophet David (peace be upon him) who spoke in first person about the decree of the Lord to David, not Jesus. When someone speaks in first person perspective and says, "... he said to ME..." without quoting anyone else, that cannot speak of anyone else but the one who is in the first person perspective. In this case, it was none but David.

[Psalm 2:7] "He said to me, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'"

KJV: "... Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

To "me" means to none but David. Furthermore, this entire context speaks of the enemies of Prophet David. They waged war against him, and that is why God told David...

[Psalm 2:9] "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Rod of Iron? It is not Jesus, since it is "rod" is a noun. However, "if" we say that Rod of Iron refers to Jesus, then it directly contradicts Psalm 2:7. If Psalm 2:7 is about Jesus, then 2:7 and 2:9 are summarized this way:

[Prediction of how God will speak to Jesus:]

Psalm 2:7: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee
Psalm 2:9: Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

If the begotten Son, in this context, is Jesus, then how can Jesus use himself (i.e. as some Christians claim that he may be the 'Rod of Iron') against his enemies? It is not like using his hands. If "Rod of Iron" is the reign of Jesus, then Psalm 2:7 can still not speak of him because a reign does not "dash people into pieces."

Furthermore, I did not only mention Psalm 2:7.

[Exodus 4:22] "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn"

Definition of firstborn: "The child in a family who is born first."[2]

In the Bible, Adam was referred to as the Son of God. Not begotten, just "Son." Many others were referred to as "Sons of God." However, dear readers, as we can see in Exodus 4:22, Israel was God's son, and also his firstborn. This means nothing but that he was also begotten, like Jesus. But you can say that Israel/Jacob had a father. However, this only helps my case; if Jacob was the firstborn, but he was not God, then Jesus can impossibly be God because he was not the firstborn, nor is he supposed to be different to Jacob in this context. Jacob was not God, then how can Jesus be God? What is so special about Jesus being begotten when Jacob was too? And so was David. If John says in 3:16 that only Jesus is begotten, what gives him any more credibility? Furthermore, my opponent ignored my argument about this verse being a fabrication and not found in the older scriptures at all. Christian scholars say this.

2. Immanuel

My opponent said that the name Immanuel was directly assigned to Jesus through a dream indeed means that it only literally applies to him. This is a very weak argument. There are numerous examples in the Bible about dreams and visions, yet Christians do not make anything special out of them. Also, only one person said this. Only one. How about several sources saying that Jesus is Immanuel? How about Jesus himself saying it? Where did he say, "I am God with you"? Where, I ask? Please refer to that passage.

Furthermore, "Immanuel" originally means "God is with us" according to source #3. Please read it.

3. I AM

My opponent said that the link I gave is quite clear. Then he said, "The normal use of the words is I and AM" - But why are they the right ones? In the link I gave, the word "eimi" is first translated to "I exist" before "I am." It is clear that my opponent is cherry picking. And if we look at the various other translated words, why, among them all, should we pick "I am?"

Moving on, my opponent said that "I have" changes nothing. Yes it does. Before Abraham was born, I have. It is different to: Before Abraham was born, I AM. Moreover, the word in Hebrew for God is YHWH or Yahweh. It means "I Am what I Am" and is totally different to "I AM." Moreover, the word "YHWH" is not even translateds from one language to another. It is as it is in Hebrew. However, the words of Jesus "ego eimi" are translated to Greek by John, but Jesus spoke Aramaic. His usage of words was different. It is deliberately mistranslated as "I AM" although there is no indication that it should be.

Lots of my points were ignored. I thank my opponent for this round

-- References --

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Pro

I have no idea what scripture my opponent thinks I have denied out of disagreement. It is ironic that out of the two of us I am the one accused of cherry picking my scripture, and in such a way that mirza criticizes me for this while at the same time arguing the words that are not written in red (what Jesus say's) do not matter.

It seems the extent of his rebuttal to that point about all scripture is the word of God was "there are tons of passages calling many things "Lord," "god," and so forth. Why would they ever apply exclusively to Jesus in any literal way?"
The answer is by context, context which I showed was clearly present in the Gospel of John witch Mirza ignored. http://www.bible-researcher.com...
In any case on that matter, my point stands un-refuted that all scripture are the word of God. Now that may be an act of faith, but its the same faith that's needed to believe anything in the bible at all. If that faith is not good enough for any of scripture, than it is not good enough for the rest of scripture and you invalidate all of scripture as mattering including the words that Jesus said. Without faith you cant justify even believing that what Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or the Q (book Matthew and Luke take from) truly recorded anything Jesus said.
So again I say, either it is all true, or none of it is. So my first two scriptures need stronger rebuttal than 'well there not Jesus' The same Holy Spirit whose hand guided any of those writers hands to write the words of Jesus also guided there hands as they wrote statements from other people such as Peter, Paul.... and John.

Now towards giving scripture that fulfills requirement a) that you gave, that is the third set that we are arguing over. Its not a lone qualifier for it of course http://www.biblegateway.com... I give that scripture understanding you originally had me agree to refer to only 3 this debate, but you also asked last round "Please refer to that passage." So I referred Jesus answer to Phillip and leave whether or not it should be counted in this debate up to your judgment.

I leave the same judgment call to you if its appropriate to include this in the debate for point b) where people call Jesus the Son of God and are un-refuted. http://bible.org... Peter calls him the son of the living God here and Jesus not only fails to correct him but praises him and makes him the rock on which his church will be built. the Pharisees tell Pilot that Jesus said he is the son of god and upon Pilots questioning Jesus offers no correction but even further cements the idea that indeed he believes he is the son of god as Pilot threatens he could have him crucified http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com... Pilot did not care so much when he thought he was being crucified for claiming to be king of the Jews, only after learning he was the son of god did he choose to fight to have him released.
Now I'm going to cover the 3 scripture we have been debating in reverse order because your responses to each go from smallest to longest in that order. If I do this hopefully I will not spend what character space I can on all of them.

I AM

You pick 'I AM' because that's the normal meaning of the terms. You have given no data to show why this is a special case in Greek to deviate from that.
My point about it making no difference if he said I have or I am in response to you saying it cant be 'before Abraham was I am' cause that sentence just sounds confusing. changing it to 'I have' does not make it less confusing sounding.
I Know what YHWH translates too. It does not matter. You will recall, the bulk of my argument for why ‘I AM' equals ‘I AM God' was not because of God's given name in Exodus. Its because of what ‘I AM' means. The all eternal fact that is simply is rather than is because of something else. Being the 'I AM' alludes to that. the name 'I AM what I AM' also alludes to that.
YHWH is a proper noun, you don't need to translate it to its meaning, just like you don't need to translate ‘Jesus' every time its written to ‘God rescues/ is savior' It's easy to see why ergo eimi would be translated like a sentence rather kept in the actual words it was first spoken or written as if it were a name.
Next off concerning John translating Jesus words from Aramaic, assuming he did so incorrectly, you still cannot tell me what Jesus did say. You were not there listening to Jesus yourself say what he said in Aramaic to know that John did indeed misunderstand what Jesus meant in Greek. You cannot know what John translated is the wrong way to translate the words of Jesus when you didn't here them to translate yourself. You only have the Gospel of john and must believe on faith that he was not smart enough to translate Jesus words correctly.

Immanuel

It seems the extent of Cons response to this scripture last round was 'Christians don't make a big deal out of other dreams in the bible.'
First off, that is false, I don't think a year goes by without Christians making much out of every prophesy or set of dreams in the bible and comparing them to current events.
Second off, even if we don't, (but we in fact do) so what? Different content of vision or dream, different meaning. With different meaning inevitably comes different importance.

Only Begotten

You claim I ignored the fabrication point, and towards my response that point you go 'I did not say that. I said that David is right because he was a Prophet, John was a disciple.' I could just as easily argue against David like that saying 'David was a king, john was a prophet' then can indeed be more than just a prophet, or just a king, or just a disciple. If you find that a rather lacking as a argument, well you didn't give much to argue against. 'Johns a fabrication' is a unsubstantiated claim that you still have provided no source for. with what reasoning you did give for why it must be fabricated was mentioning begotten 'cannot be found in the oldest scriptures of the Bible' & 'There are no traces of it in the older scriptures' lack of oldness does not mean its fabricated scripture, if god wanted to he could have one of his servants write another book today and add the 'Winchester' gospel to the bible today.
Now, for the sake of space I will leave my defense that Psalm 2 is about Jesus to these sources http://www.christnotes.org... http://www.bibleexplained.com... http://jfb.biblecommenter.com... http://ezinearticles.com...

Towards the passage of Exodus, or Genesis, or so on... I did not respond directly to that but I did address it. I openly admitted I could never argue all occasions where the term 'son of god' is used that its talking about Jesus. It changes with context, it could mean angles, the nation of Israel like you offered, all the saved, or even everyone everywhere. But it stands un-refuted that from the context in John its clear he meant something quite different from all those other uses when calling Jesus the son of the living God. Scholars agree http://av1611.com... Surely you don't deny this Mirza, or you wouldn't spend so much time arguing John is just a disciple or that the passage is fabricated if what the passage actually says doesn't mean what I say it means to start with.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Mirza

Con

I thank my opponent.

The part that my opponent did not address was the one about John 3:16 being a fabrication. I will elaborate on this. My opponent said, "The answer is by context, context which I showed was clearly present in the Gospel of John witch Mirza ignored."

I did not ignore it. The article is extremely long and I have no space whatsoever to actually refute all that. What I can do is to refute what my opponent said, which I did. Moreover, my opponent still gives no clear answer to my question: "... there are tons of passages calling many things "Lord," "god," and so forth. Why would they ever apply exclusively to Jesus in any literal way?"

The argument of the entire scriptures either being true or not is not very strong here. Clearly I have done a good thing by not derailing the topic and arguing about the authenticity of the Bible. If I had done this, I would be able to counter my opponent's response right away. However, I stay on the main topic, and therefore I say that his argument is not very valid. I cannot respond to it in a proper way because the main topic will eventually be off-topic. Furthermore, I have made it perfectly clear that even "if" these passages are to be taken literally, they still do not prove that Jesus is God. Even John 3:16 does not. And my opponent still chooses the words of a disciple in preference to the words of a Prophet, whom a scripture was revealed directly to. The third paragraph does not count. I am not sure what my opponent is referring to, neither does it seems to be an important part of his main arguments.

-- Rebuttals --

1. People call Jesus "Son of God"

I agree that people called Jesus the Son of God. I agree that Peter did it too. I agree that Jesus did not correct any of them. However, I would like to know why my opponent did not translate "Son." Does it mean "Son" in a real sense? If you read the original text, these passages say "servant." We are all servants of God. Some might say "sons" of God. Jesus was no exception in any case. Luke 3:23-38[1] lists incredibly many "Sons of God." Are they all gods? Do Christians worship these? And do Christians worship the firstborn son of God - Israel - which was not Jesus at all?

2. I AM

"You pick 'I AM' because that's the normal meaning of the terms. You have given no data to show why this is a special case in Greek to deviate from that."

No, it is not. There are many passages where the original words are not translated to "I AM." The Biblical scholars cherry pick in order to prove a lie to be true. Amplified Bible (and there are others, too) translates e.g. John 3:28 like this:

"You yourselves are my witnesses [you personally bear me out] that I stated, I am not the Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), but I have [only] been sent before Him [in advance of Him, to be His appointed forerunner, His messenger, His announcer]."

"Ego eimi" = I have been...

As can clearly be seen, there is no doubt that "I AM" is not more correct than "I have been." Furthermore, the correct meaning of John 8:58 is not "Before Abraham was born, I AM." That makes no sense whatsoever. Why "I AM?" What tells us to translate it to "I AM?" The correct meaning is "Before Abraham was born, I have..."

Why he did not complete the sentence may be due to the tense situation between himself and the Jews. Furthermore, even "if" the correct translation is "I AM" then there is absolutely no indication of Jesus being God. YHWH means "I Am What I Am" and is totally different to "I AM." How many passages in the Bible say "ego eimi?" Many. That is "I AM." Why is only Jesus referred to as God because he might have said "I AM?" Tons of people have said it. He did not say "I Am What I am" before humankind. As for the Aramaic wording, it could have been totally different. Why do I question what John translated it to? I do it because ego eimi cannot only mean "I AM" and because there are many reasons to question the Bible.

All in all, Jesus never claimed divinity with "I AM" nor did he say "I AM." Even if he did, he did not say "Jehovah."

3. Immanuel

My opponent said, "First off, that is false, I don't think a year goes by without Christians making much out of every prophesy or set of dreams in the bible and comparing them to current events."

Then why do Christians misinterpret Daniel 4:10-11? These verses speak of a dream/vision of a tree being in the middle of the Earth, and that the ends of the earth could be seen from the top of it. I can guarantee that Christians will say that it does not mean this, it does not mean that, and so forth. Of course it does not, let us say that. But neither does "Immanuel" mean anything special for Jesus. Also, I gave a reference of Immanuel meaning "God is with us" which negates my opponent's argument that it is only for divine use, especially for Jesus.

4. Begotten Son

My opponent said, "I could just as easily argue against David like that saying 'David was a king, john was a prophet' then can indeed be more than just a prophet, or just a king, or just a disciple."

I argued with facts. If you say that David was just a King, you are not telling the truth. If you say that John was a Prophet, then you are not telling the truth. David was a Prophet, John was a disciple. David received Psalms, John received nothing. If he did, he would get clear messages from e.g. angels, not (unreliable) human witnesses in order to write what is happening.

Also, I clearly said that John 3:16 was proven to be a fabrication by Biblical scholars and I linked to their version of the Bible. And I also said that older scriptures do not contain this verse or "only begotten son" part. If my opponent wishes, he can check for himself. Moreover, I can also come with links to prove my cases, but I know that my opponent would not have space to refute them. He needs to provide shorter links. Also, I refuted Psalm 2-argument even if we agree that it speaks about Jesus.

-- Conclusion --

None of these passages prove that Jesus is God. He never claimed divinity and his words are clearly being mistranslated. I hope that people realize that. I thank my opponent for the debate.

[Matthew 26:42] "Again, for the second time, he (Jesus) went off and prayed, saying: 'My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.'"

-- References --

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Those are rebuttals, and few in numbers anyway.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
yes you did, but then your like (in the debate) 'show me verses that fit this'

I think I did a valiant effort at sticking to your terms considering I'm supposed to restrict myself using three verses and you get to challenge all verses in the bible without mentioning them. Next time if your opponent has quote restrictions I think you should too, just so the debates not brutally one sided.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I was rather unconvinced by Marauder's argumentation; there simply too many points that Mirza made that weren't responded to/inadequately responded to for me to buy into any of Marauder's. Marauder had several extremely annoying spelling errors, (e.g. witch/which, waisted/wasted, wait/weight) that really makes the grammar Nazi side of me want to gas Marauder. Mirza correctly points out Marauder's mistranslations, giving Mirza the more reliable sources. Conduct was a tie, although I want to give it to Mirza because of Marauder's start to round 3.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
He replied to them, and I still said three parts, no more.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
well, it was about the crucifixion process, pilot told the jews he found no fault with Jesus and they said he ought to be crucified for claiming to be the son of God. and after that Pilot tried to get Jesus out of that mess, though still failed. So yes, the scripture was linked.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Is that related to crucifixion?
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
that's not entirely accurate. I did sort of mention something close to that in the last round as part of mentioning cases were Jesus was called god and Jesus didn't correct to fulfill requirement 2 you gave, but I did say I left the relevance of that up to your judgment since I did agree originally to just stick with 3 verses. but when you argue 'no scripture fulfills these 2 things' I when that is false I need to show some new scripture related to your new assertions.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Be biased somewhere else. We discussed three verses, Marauder mentioned nothing about the crucifixion, and you come here to bring something else out of the blue? Do not even vote if you cannot vote neutrally.
Posted by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
Intresting to me that no one asked why Jesus was crucified? According to the Bible he made himeslf equal to God. "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses?" They understood he was saying He is God, hence the blasphemy
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
I did think of other scriptures frequently I could have used feverish, but Mizra had me agree before hand to use only 3 sets of scripture. I could quote some that I considered relevant to the 3 I choose but that was it. I wanted to debate so I said yes.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Jbossa 6 years ago
Jbossa
MarauderMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 6 years ago
nickthengineer
MarauderMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
MarauderMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
MarauderMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
MarauderMirzaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by JpoteetDebateNN 6 years ago
JpoteetDebateNN
MarauderMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
MarauderMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Cerealx59 6 years ago
Cerealx59
MarauderMirzaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40