The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
MadCornishBiker
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points

The godhood of Christ Jesus is Biblical

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,029 times Debate No: 69230
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (2)

 

radz

Pro

This debate challenge is about the godhood of Christ Jesus as substantiated in the New Testament.

PRO
Round 1 debate challenge
Round 2 rebuttal
Round 3 argument
Round 4 rebuttal and conclusion

CON
Round 1 argument
Round 2 rebuttal
Round 3 rebuttal
Round 4 rebuttal and conclusion
MadCornishBiker

Con

OK, but first I need to ask you to explain what you mean by "godhood" because scriptural the word "god" has many meanings..

To which one are you alluding and why.

1 Corinthians 8:5
ASV(i) 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;

Notice that here Paul includes not just the earth, but heaven also.

Hence I feel the need for clarification.

Not quite sure why I accepted this, I don't normally do debates, but I'll have a go.

The only condition I have is that since we are discussing it from a biblical viewpoint we use the bible and only the bible. Any translation or number of translations you wish to choose..
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

I thank Con for accepting the debate challenge.

The Bible told us that in Christ dwells "all the completeness of the Godhead bodily"( Colossians 2:9 NLT).[1]

In this verse, the English word 'Godhead' specifically means "the essential nature and condition of being God" [2];" The essential and divine nature of God[3];the essential being or nature of God[4].

The English word 'Godhead' is from the Old English godhād ( god + -hād ," -hood").[5]

Godhead (Middle English godhede, "godhood") is a term used to refer to various notions of the essence of God [6].

The Greek word translated as 'Godhead'(godhood) is 'Θεa2;τητος' ( transliteration: THEOTETOS).The following are the consensus among scholars about the definition of the Greek word THEOTETOS:

Lightfoot, ("The totality of the divine powers and attributes"), Trench ("all the fullness of absolute Godhead...He was, and is, absolute and perfect God"), Bengal ("not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature itself"), Moule ("as strong as possible; Deity, not only Divinity"), Reymond ("the being of the very essence of deity"), Warfield ("the very deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness");Thayer, the state of being God: "Syn. qeothV, qeiothV: qeot. deity differs from qeiot. divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute"[7].

NOTE:

The Nature of God[8]

A "nature" is something inherently belongs to someone.

The Divine Nature, in the context of the true God, is the nature of God himself.

Nature means "set of attributes."

In the Holy Scriptures, the word for this is many and they are the following:

THEOS in qualitative sense ( as in John 1:1).

THEIAS - divine nature ( God-like nature when used to creatures). 2 Peter 1:3, 4

THEIOS -divine nature ( Acts 17:29).

THEIOTES -divine nature ( Romans 1:20).

THEOTETOS - (dual meaning) divine nature plus divine identity. Colossians 2:9 [9]

The following are God's attributes:

God is eternal ( without beginning or ending of life) and hence, his attributes are all eternal.

Psalm 90:2, Romans 1:20

God is ( eternally) love:

1 John 4:8

God is (eternally) wise:

Romans 16:27

God is (eternally) good:

Mark 10:18

God is (eternally) omnipotent

Revelation 1:8

God is (eternally) omnipresent

Psalm 46:1, Psam 139:11-12

God is (eternally) omniscient

1 John 3:20

God is (eternally) immutable

Malachi 3:6, James 1:17

God's nature is eternally one ( Exodus 3:14, Romans 1:20) and it only exists in the three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( Matthew 28:19).Others , like Zeus, Hermes and Athena, are all "not gods by nature"( Galatians 4:8).


SOURCES:
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
[3]American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
[4]Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
[5] http://www.biblestudytools.com...
[6] http://en.wikiquote.org...
[7] http://www.forananswer.org...
[8] threeinunity.weebly.com
[9] https://books.google.de...

1 Corinthians 8:4-6(NASB)[1]

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

The focus of 1 Corinthians 8 is monotheism (God is only one) and the specific way it is taught is by evincing function exclusive to the Deity as well as by the divine title.None of the idols were real.None of the unreal gods created anything through the unreal lords. Only the one God created all things through the one Lord.

The context of the text shows that the many gods and many lord (whether in heaven or on earth) are the idols in the world that are unreal. Galatians 4:8 specifically stated the reason why these gods are unreal and that is because these gods are not gods by nature.

Galatians 4:8 (NASB)[2]

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

NOTE:

In first-century Judaism, the Septuagint is used by Jews.It is known by the Jews that only the God of Israel is the 'one Lord' ( Greek: EIS KYRIOS) based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4 LXX). In the New Testament church, Jesus is identified as the 'EIS KYRIOS' (1 Corinthians 8:6).[3][4]


SOURCES:
[1]https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]https://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]https://books.google.de...
[4]https://books.google.de...






MadCornishBiker

Con

You're welcome.

I agree entirely with what Colossians 2:9 tells us, but what it doesn't tell us is that Christ is God; a god yes, but not God himself. The same goes for the description, which fits not only God and his son, but also the whole body of angels.

Exodus 15:11
ASV(i) 11 Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders?

It would appear that for much of the rest you rely on the words of man, not of God. However whilst I agree entirely with the scriptures you quote, I cannot agree with your understanding of all of them

Whilst it is true that holy spirit is personified a number of times in scripture, that is no more evidence that it is a person than it is for "Wisdom", Blood or Water, all of which are personified at some point.

However let us examine John 1:1; there are in fact two translations of this verse in existence:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1
Diaglott(i) 1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

The interesting thing to me, though about above quotation from the Emphatic Diaglott is that it betrays the deliberate alteration of the verse.

http://studybible.info... have used the interlinear portion of the Diaglott for their quotation from it, but if you check the actual original you will find that whilst the Interlinear column actually does say that, the English only column of the same work has been altered to "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God".

http://archive.org...

The ultimate question has to be, why the deliberate change? Scripture should never be changed in such a way as to alter the meaning away from the original.

Other versions of the same verse are:

Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God."
1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."
14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8]
1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.
1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

All of which presents us with a dilemma. Which version is right.

Trinitarians opt for the "accepted version", but who is it accepted by. Trinitarians of course, who are behind most scripture translation.

However, some of the above were also Trinitarians, so why did they decide on the versions they use?

Scripture contains the only reliable answer.

Revelation 3:14
ASV(i) 14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

Notice there that God's son is described as "The beginning of the creation by God". That makes him the first act of creation by Jehovah, the creator of everything.

Scripture state the rule that at the mouth of two witnesses or three, all matters are proven, so, does anyone other than the Angel who spoke to John tell us that God's son, who came to earth to become the Christ, was created.

Well, think on this scripture and think carefully about what it tells you.

Colossians 1:12-16
ASV(i) 12 giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; 13 who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; 14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Firstly that scripture is giving thanks to Jehovah, not to Christ.

Then it thanks him for what?

"who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love".

Not his Kingdom you notice, but the Kingdom of the son of his love.

Who "translated us"?

Not the son, but the father.

It goes on to say in verse 15 "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"

So what is the son?

The image of God, not God himself.

What else does that tell us?

"That he is the firstborn of all creation "which does rather fit in with Revelation 3:14.

Well, there are your two witness as scripturally required to prove any matter.

Of course some say that his being called "firstborn" in that verse applies to his pre-eminence. Of course it does, any firstborn, whether literally born or created, has pre-eminence, as did Adam. So, his pre=eminence is simply a result of his being God first, and only solitary, creation.

Why God's ony solitary creation?

Well, think about Genesis 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

"Let us make man in Our image", who else would he be talking to other than the one who was already made in his image, his son.

Well, the Colossians 1 scripture quoted above goes on to tell us in verse 16 "for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;"

More later.
Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

ON THE NATURE OF THE TRUE GOD

Con did not address my argument about Colossians 2:9 that Christ is, fully and completely, God by nature.

Christ is not a demi-god (half human/half god) but rather, he is God in the flesh ( Incarnate Deity).In fact, he is fully God/completely God based on Colossians 2:9!

The Bible told us that "in Him dwells all the completeness of the Godhead bodily"( Col. 2:9 NLT).[1]

In this verse, the English word 'Godhead' specifically means "the essential nature and condition of being God" [2];" The essential and divine nature of God[3];the essential being or nature of God[4].

The English word 'Godhead' is from the Old English godhād ( god + -hād ," -hood").[5]

Godhead (Middle English godhede, "godhood") is a term used to refer to various notions of the essence of God [6].

The Greek word translated as 'Godhead'(godhood) is 'Θεa2;τητος' ( transliteration: THEOTETOS).The following are the consensus among scholars about the definition of the Greek word THEOTETOS:

Lightfoot, ("The totality of the divine powers and attributes"), Trench ("all the fullness of absolute Godhead...He was, and is, absolute and perfect God"), Bengal ("not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature itself"), Moule ("as strong as possible; Deity, not only Divinity"), Reymond ("the being of the very essence of deity"), Warfield ("the very deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness");Thayer, the state of being God: "Syn. qeothV, qeiothV: qeot. deity differs from qeiot. divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute"[7].

Christ does not lack any attributes which his Father has.He has in Him all the complete nature of his own Father.Christ is fully God because he is the Only Begotten Son, the Only Offspring who is of same nature with the Father ( John 1:18; Psalm 110:3).[8]

SOURCES:
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com......
[2]Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
[3]American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
[4]Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
[5] http://www.biblestudytools.com......
[6] http://en.wikiquote.org......
[7] http://www.forananswer.org......
[8] http://www.newadvent.org...

ON THE GODS

I concur with Con that angels are called 'gods' in Ex. 15:11 but these angels were not , by nature, gods. Rather, they were created by God (Ps. 33:6, Col. 1:16).

Humans are also called 'gods.'

I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High."Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes." Ps. 82:6-7 NIV1

But these humans were not ,by nature, gods. Rather, they were merely such by title never by nature.

Satan himself is the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4).Yet we know that Satan is not, by nature, a god.

Paul said that the Galatian Christians were formerly slaves to false deities:

Gal. 4:8 (NASB)
However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

These deities are false simply because they are not gods by nature.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ is , fully and completely, God in nature ( Colossians 2:9). He is of same nature with the Father. [1]

In Jn 10:28-30, the Father and the Son are O52;σμεν in terms of having the same abilities to give life and preserve life by a powerful hand [κO36;γP60; δ^3;δωμι αP16;τοQ50;ς ζωP52;ν αO84;a4;νιον...χειρa2;ς μου...χειρP56;ς τοQ66; πατρa2;ς ].In the O.T., only God has these abilities ( Deut.32:39).The Jews correctly understood this but they won't believe (v. 33-38).[2]

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.christian-history.org...
[2]https://books.google.de...
[3]https://www.biblegateway.com......

ON JOHN 1:1

Trinitarians mostly translate KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS as AND THE WORD WAS GOD. This reading is a literal rendering in English Language.[1]

KAI - And ( conjunction - shows relationship between the subject and the verb)
THEOS - God (Noun - Predicate Nominative Case)
HO LOGOS - The Word (noun phrase = the subject)
EEN - was (a linking verb)

Greek: KAITHEOSEENHOLOGOS (P66 etc.)
English: and the Word was God ( ESV, NIV, KJV etc.)[2].

The translation "the Word was a god" makes us ask in what way is Jesus, a deity?

We know that the Bible only speaks of three categories of divinities:

1) True God - God by nature [Trinity: Mt. 28:18;Jn. 17:3;Col 2:9; 1 Jn. 5:20-21).
2) God by function ( Shaliach Principle) - not gods by nature [angels: Ex 15:11; humans: Ex 7:1, Ps 82:6-7].
3) False gods - not gods by nature [idols/demons/Satan: 1 Cor. 8:5; Gal. 4:8, 1 Cor. 4:4].

So, where does Christ belong?

Christ cannot belong either to the gods by function or to the false gods because he is , fully and completely, God by nature ( Col. 2:9;Jn 10:28-30).He can only belong to the Trinity -- three ontologically equal and functionally subordinate persons ( Mt. 28:19).[3]

SOURCES:
[1]http://www.forananswer.org... ; https://carm.org... /
[2]http://www.christiandefense.org...
[3]http://www.iclnet.org...

ON REVELATION 3:14 AND COLOSSIANS 1:15

The English translation the beginning of the creation of God[1] could literally denote the following:
1) The first of God's creation.
2) The source of God's creation.

Why is this so? It is because the English word "beginning" means 'first' as well as 'source.'[2]

We are assured that we cannot define beginning in Rev. 3:14 as first but only as source.The reason is that Christ existed in the beginning (Greek: EN ARCHE) with God based on Jn. 1:2 and Jn 1:1. is clear that he existed in the beginning as God [the Word] who existed with God [the Father].

The Greek word ARCHE also mean 'ruler/rule' as well as "originator/source."**

ARCHE AS RULER/RULE

Κ[0;ΡΙΟΣ O56;κτισ^1;ν με O36;ρχP52;ν P01;δQ82;ν αP16;τοQ66; εO84;ς O56;ργα αP16;τοQ66; Proverbs 8:22 (LXX) [3]is related to Revelation 3:14 by 1 Cor. 1:24.It is clear that ARCHON means 'Ruler.' Prov. 8:22 is a witness for Rev. 3:14's ARCHE as "Ruler."

ΚαP54; παρατηρ^2;σαντες O36;π^1;στειλαν O52;νκαθ^1;τους P17;ποκρινομ^1;νους O53;αυτοP58;ς δικα^3;ους εO90;ναι, O89;να O52;πιλ^0;βωνται αP16;τοQ66; λa2;γου, P37;στε παραδοQ66;ναι αP16;τP56;ν τQ35; O36;ρχQ35; καP54; τQ35; O52;ξουσ^3;Q15; τοQ66; O69;γεμa2;νος. LUKE 20:20[4]

ΚαP54; τQ83; O36;γγ^1;λQ79; τQ34;ς O52;ν Λαοδικ^3;Q15; O52;κκλησ^3;ας γρ^0;ψον Τ^0;δε λ^1;γει P01; O44;μ^2;ν, P01; μ^0;ρτυς P01; πιστP56;ς καP54; P01; O36;ληθινa2;ς, O69; O36;ρχP52; τQ34;ς κτ^3;σεως τοQ66; θεοQ66;, Rev. 3:14

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation." Rev.3:14 (NIV)


Luke 20:20 proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the Greek word ARCHE also denotes "ruler." Jude 1:6 also has ARCHE as RULER [5].


Col. 1:15 Christ is firstborn over all creation (NIV). Immediate context shows that PROTOTOKOS is used in the sense of ARCHE in verse 18 (i.e. rule/ authority, precedence: Ps. 89:27).


SOURCE:
[1] NASB , KJV ,ESV ,ASV
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com...
[4]http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com...
[5]**https://books.google.de...-

MadCornishBiker

Con

In fact I more than addressed it, I showed Pro's understanding of that verse to be in error, as I shall continue to do. I have never denied that God's son posessed the nature of God, howver scripture denies Pro's understanding.

We are not discussing the true God here we are discussing Christ, and as I have already shown Christ and God are two very separate beings.

Christ is God's son who gave up his heavenly position to come to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and thus become fully incarnate.

John 1:14
ASV(i) 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Note, the Word, God's son, "became flesh, therefore he was in existence as a separate being, long before Jesus was born., and as such he was teh only begotten (created) son of God.

Jesus was not the only begotten son of God.

Why?

Because Adam was a human son of God long before Jesus existed. Luke 3:38
ASV(i) 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Sorry, you lose me completely when you turn to the works of ma, that is why I specified the use of scripture, and why i will stick with it.

There is no way that Revelation can be twisted to mean the source of God's creation; it makes no reasonable sense at all. The beginning of anything is the first act of it, not the source of it., and to say he was teh source of God's creation actually puts him above God.

You have to approach scripture with reason, not with the words of Apostate man.

You are very good at quoting doctrine, but scripture should rule doctrine, not serve it as it does in your case.

1 Peter 1:3
ASV(i) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Here Peter praises God as the father of and source of Christ.

Ephesians 1:3
ASV(i) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:

Here Paul does exactly the same, praising not Christ, but his father.

John 20:17
ASV(i) 17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.

Even after his resurrection as a spirit, Christ said he has a God,

1 Peter 3:18-19
ASV(i) 18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,

2 Timothy 1:1
ASV(i) 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus,

Again a distinct and clear separation between father and son.

Again a separation between God and Christ describing Christ as the means by which God performs his judgement.

I am sorry, but you are typical of the sort of "clever person that God cannot use, because you rely on your intellect and man"s words rather than on God entirely as such as I do.

1 Corinthians 1:26-30
ASV(i) 26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong; 28 and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are: 29 that no flesh should glory before God. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
ASV(i) 18 For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was Gods good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. 22 Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; 24 but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

I am happy to be one of the weak and foolish things of God, because thanks to him, Christ and holy spirit it makes me wiser than those who are not of the same kind as I.

James 1:5-8
ASV(i) 5 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; 8 a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways.

If you do not recognise your own, human, lack of true wisdom, and trust God 100% to supply it to you, you will not get it.

I, and others like me, do trust in him and he does not let his servants down.

Yes Christ is the ruler of God's creation, however he does not stay such. He stepped in when Adam's fall meant humans were too unholy for God to deal with 1 Peter 1:16 ASV(i) 16 because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy. When he has brought us back to a suitable level of holiness he then hands the Kingdom back to his fatehr, again denotng separation and submissiveness. 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 ASV(i) 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christs, at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. See also Revelation chapters 20-22;

There is absolutely no way that a Trinitarian view of God and Christ fits into the overall tone of scripture.

God's son became the Christ when he came to earth, but has always been a completely separate entity to his father, and as scripture shows, the designation "father" and "son" is 100% accurate in that they are 1 generation apart, God's son being the product of his father, and all else coming through both of them is another generation down.

I hope you will notice that I have obeyed scripture and only used scripture, rather than disobeying it and relying on the works of man, especially since they are works biased by a belief in the trinity.

I hope, also, that you will notice that I have consistently used a Trinitarian based Translation, the American Standard Version, which the vast majority are, to undermine the foundations of the Trinity teaching, which is rally what we are dealing with here. The reason for choosing the ASV is that of all the Trinitarian based translations, it is the only one translated honestly enough to use the great and holy name of God in all the places it belongs in the Hebrew Scriptures, if not in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Admittedly it uses the English translation of God"s name, but thanks to Satan and Apostate Jews and Christians it is all we have in our language.

The truth is that the Trinity was unheard of in "Christianity" until the end of 4th century. Long after the foretold Apostasy set in. Even in the middle of the 4th century, at the Council of Nicea, the Trinity was not mentioned, but rather the council was called to settle the question of the duality of God and Christ, with no mention of holy spirit brought into the discussio
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

Throughout the debate, I explained that the Godhood of Jesus Christ is Biblical and Con did not address the Biblical arguments I'd presented about it. He just surmised that Scripture denies my understanding of the Scriptures.

The following are details on what's going on throughout this debate challenge:

In Round 1, Con asked what I mean by 'Godhood' and he presented 1 Corinthians 8:5 saying that gods exist both in heaven and on earth.

I explained in Round 2 that the term 'Godhood' denotes 'the essential nature of God' and that Jesus is fully God because in him dwells all the completeness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9).I also explicated the nature of God and the restriction of its subsistence to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit only.I also explained that the gods and lords in both heaven and earth are unreal deities based on the immediate context of 1 Cor. 8:5 ( verses 4 and 6).In here also I presented the argument that these unreal deities are such because they are not gods by nature based on Galatians 4:8 as wells as the argument that Jesus, by whom are all things, is specifically called the one Lord = one Jehovah ( Greek: EIS KYRIOS) who is none other than the true God based on Deuteronomy 6:4.

In Round 2, Con said that I relied on the words of man not of God. Con misapprehended my arguments as well as references. I did quote the Scriptures and because the Scriptures is made up of words,it is only natural thing for anyone to consult a reference of what the words mean. In fact, Con himself was the one who asked me what i mean by the English word "Godhood" and I did give an answer.I even used Biblical Greek in my arguments which Con did not rebut.

Con presented Ex 15:11 to argue that gods exists in heaven.He then goes on to quote different translations of the third clause of John 1:1 and somehow asserts that it's a problem for Trinitarians. None of the 'a god' translation he quoted is a Trinitarian anf the varied Trinitarian translation does not vary in meaning!

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God."
1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."
14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"

My Rebuttals in Round 4:

Con said:

Christ is God's son who gave up his heavenly position to come to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and thus become fully incarnate (quoting Jn 1:14).

Note, the Word, God's son, "became flesh, therefore he was in existence as a separate being, long before Jesus was born., and as such he was the only begotten (created) son of God.

Jesus was not the only begotten son of God.

Why?

Because Adam was a human son of God long before Jesus existed. Luke 3:38
ASV(i) 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Con refuted his own argument.Unless of course if he did not mean Adam as also a "created son."

Con said:

There is no way that Revelation can be twisted to mean the source of God's creation; it makes no reasonable sense at all. The beginning of anything is the first act of it, not the source of it., and to say he was teh source of God's creation actually puts him above God.

Actually, it does not make sense to believe that he who was in the beginning ( Greek: EN ARCHE) had a beginning.

In the beginning the Word already existed.

The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He existed in the beginning with God. John 1:1-2 (NLT)

John 1:1a and John 1:2 plus the grammatical argument from Biblical Greek ( that I presented in Round 3) proves my point.

Both Eph. 1:3 and 1 Pet. 1:3 tell us that Jesus has his Father as his God. This does not disprove his eternal and unchanging Godhood but rather, it proves his Incarnation:

The Word was God ~ Jn. 1:1
The Word became flesh ~ Jn. 1:14

Jn. 20:17 Jesus said his God is his own Father: "My God."
Jn. 20:28 Thomas said his God is Jesus: " My God."


1 Tim. 2:5/ Col. 2:9 evince that Jesus remained fully God after his resurrection as well as human albeit only with bones and flesh not with blood --for he's now a glorified human (LK. 24:39).

Con argues that Christ's rulership over creation isn't eternal. He misused 1 Cor. 15:23-24 by taking it out of context.

Let Con be reminded that a text without a context is just a pretext.

Christ's rule over creation IS eternal. The Bible says so (Then God will give you a grand entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Pet. 1:11).

In fact, Rev. 5:18 shows that both Jesus and his Father are worshiped by every creature. It is an irrefutable proof that Jesus is not a creature:

Rev. 5:13 American Standard Version (ASV)

13 And every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things are in them, heard I saying, Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever.

The Father and the Son are two persons who have one nature.

The Son is eternal God is a teaching that exists prior to 4th century:

1st cen. Jn 1:1,18,5:26,8:42,10:28-38,Mt. 28:19,Colossians 2:9,2 Pet 1:1;Heb. 1;1 John 1:1-3;5:20-21;Jude 1:4-5.
2nd cen.

~Irenaeus (A.D. c. 120– c.200)

The Word, the Son, is always with the Father ( Against Heresies 4:20).

3.rd cen.

~ Novatian ( A.D. 200-258)

The Word is always the Son (On the Trinity 31:1)
The Council of Nicea happened because Arius (a bishop from Alexandria, Egypt) began teaching a new doctrine that Jesus is not 
of same nature with God the Father. He had many followers and this concerned the church itself of the unity of the one body of
Christ and hence, a council was called by the church in order to reject the new teaching which Arius preached.

The Nicene Creed ( A.D. 325 original version) captures the very idea of New Testament Teaching about Jesus' Godhood. It shows the usefulness of the Greek word HOMOOUSIOS ( of same substance;nature) in defining the relationship of Christ with God the Father in terms of nature ( set of attributes). The said word encapsulates the very idea of ontological equality. The formulaic expression of the Creed has its source from systematic theology and it really does adequately and faithfully presented the High Christology of the NT.

Reference:http://www.britannica.com...

John 10:28-30 clearly shows that the Father and the Son have the same powerful hand and that this is the oneness or sameness they have [" Jesus said: I give them eternal life... My hand...my Father's hand...I and my Father are one".] Take note that Deuteronomy 32:39 clearly speaks of Yahweh as the only Deity who has a powerful hand and who gives life.

CONCLUSION:

Con did not address my argument that Jesus is, truly and completely, God by nature based on Colossians 2:9/Jn 10:28-30.I argued that Jesus is such because he is the only begotten Son, of same nature with the Father - Psalm 110:3LXX, Jn. 1:18 ( The Son is God's image because he is begotten not created, Col. 1:15/Heb. 1:3 first-begotten; the very image of his substance/nature).I agreed with Con that angels and even humans are called "gods" but I argued that biblically angels and humans who are gods by title are not gods by nature.In response to Con's John 1:1 translation argument, I presented three logical and scriptural categories of divinities and elucidated that Jesus cannot be styled as "a god" but only " God" (the same way the Father is)in John 1:1c based on the Scriptural data I had proposed.I refuted Con's argument on Rev. 3:14 by showing that the Greek word ARCHE is used in the Bible in its meaning of " ruler/source."I also have shown from un-bias historical data that the new teaching that came into existence in the 4th century was not Trinitarianism but rather, it was ARIANISM.

MadCornishBiker

Con

In act I think I have quite comprehensively addressed Con's arguments from scripture, which is the only source that counts in such a debate.

Again Con relies on the demonstrably altered version of John 1:1, however it is not the only available version and is certainly not the one which fits in with the rest of scripture.

Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist dating from the 14th century:

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God."
1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."
14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8]
1808 "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.
1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
1864 "and a god was the Word" (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible"An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, G"ttingen, Germany

All of which fit in completely with the rest of scripture on the subject without causing any contradictions or difficulties.

I have never denied that, as scripture says, God's son is also a god, but he never has been The True God. Otherwise he wold not need to hand the Kingdom back to his father at the end of his reign.

1 Corinthians 15:22-26
ASV(i) 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christs, at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death..

Even then he is still in submission to his father.

There really is no way to consistently support the trinity teaching, not even historically since it was not accepted into "Christianity" until the late 4th century.

However scripture supports 100% the fact that God's son was:

The first and only solo creation of his father.

The one who took over care of humanity after Adams fall.

The one who came to earth to occupy the specially prepared body of Jesus and thus become the Christ.

The one who, having fulfilled his God-given task of bringing humanity back to a suitable level of holiness, gives the Kingdom back to his father and continues to serve under him.

I thank Pro for this opportunity to present the real, scriptural, truth about God and Christ.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
MadCornishBiker
@ rextr05 part 2.

9) It is easy to prove it. How many bibles have had God's holy name, the name Jesus told us to pray for the sanctification of, removed from their translations. It is easy to prove that at least one translator deliberately altered Jhn 1:1, if you compare teh interlinear, and English only columns of http://archive.org...

As foretold, the Apostasy from truth really took over in the end of the 1st century, start of the second, and is still going strong now. Every translation we have has been made since the start of that period, with either more or less interest in accuracy. Those who wished to remain faithful were commanded not to interfere with it other than by teaching where any would listen. (Revelation 22:11).

Yes you are right, and "yom" carries exactly the same range of meanings as does "day", precisely as you point out.

The most important thing about scripture is that whatever mankind has done to it at Satan's behest, and it is much, God has preserved the essence of it, the meaning of it, the harmony of it, from Genesis to Revelation, and will reveal it to those who ask for his wisdom to help them find it (James 1:5-8). Only with that Wisdom, supplied through holy spirit, God's communication medium with all hi creation, (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

Please feel free to use any translation you wish. Despite all of Satan's efforts they all teach the same things in the end.

Take a guided tour of the bible here http://www.jw.org...

Sorry it took a while to get round to this, but to be honest I didn't even know it was there until now. Just didn't look I guess.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
MadCornishBiker
@ rextr05

1) Depends which "end of times" you are referring to. Jesus was there referring to Armageddon, and no-one can put an exact date on it, though we can say " as soon after 1914 as God chooses to unleash it". The end of the Gentile times God's permission for mankind to rule, was 1914, but will not be enforced until Armageddon.

2) God's love is made conditional on obedience throughout scripture, it is always a case of "if this or if that". That will never change. Jesus taught the same thing frequently. Matthew 7:21-23 is just one example.

3) No not at all. Hell is the grave. Even humans can kill the body and pout it in there, but only God can make sure it is never resurrected. Many misunderstand what "soul" is. We do not have a soul, we are a soul as are the animals also.

4) We eat to sustain life do we not? That is what the command refers to, not using blood to sustain life.

5) There is nothing to say that they cannot administer blood to those who insist on it as a means of treatment, however they cannot take it themselves. God's commands are for each to enforce on themselves, not on others.

6) No, it does not, because Jesus was not referring to the end of the gentile times, or of his commencing his reign. In Matthew 24, for instance, he actually refers to two different times ending.

7) No, I have long known that the "Christians" have a very wrong view of it. That became obvious even as a child, and once I got into the Hebrew Scriptures as well it became very clear that there has only ever been, and would only be one organisation that had God's view, and that organisation would be untied, not divided amongst itself as "Christianity" is. Only Satan promotes division.

8) No, that only applies to the faithful anyway. and it comes from Mark 8:35, any translation. Christ and the Apostles always taught faithfulness to death, as did the Hebrew Scriptures from which their teachings came.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Remind me to vote on this in a few days if I forget. I'm actually glad to see MCB in a debate as he is knowledgable on the bible.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
Question not answered cont.
8) "Letting a loved one die in obedience guaranbtedd that loved one a ressurection, rather than destruction." OK, where have you gotten that translation or idea? Using that logic, no matter what type of life that person dieing w/o a transfusion lives, they are guaranteed salvation. There is nothing in the bible that denotes that concept.

9) "Most of our bibles have been transalted by false ...." I really don't buy. There have been many people to acknowledge that some words are taken for granted to mean something that they MAY not have meant in original text, (take the 6 days in Genesis. the original word is "yom." That word has several meanings including a 24 hour period, yet, another meaning of a very long period of time that isnot defined. Hence the 6 literal days to create everything & an undetermined amount of time to create everything), but the message is universally accepted as sound.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
madcornish. Questions you did not address at all:
1) Jesus said that no one knows of the end times, altho you guys & others give dates for this. I'm just saying, that if Jesus Himself told us don't bother trying to figure this out cuz nobody knows, how do the JW's have privileged info?

2) There is never anything that says "except for this act or that qualifier" to God's grace. OK, one instance that you mentioned re the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit .... only one time. Every other time Paul's message is loud & clear, to accept God's grace with the belief in Jesus.

3) "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell" (Matthew 10:28). So I guess Jesus was teaching pagan beliefs?

4)On the JW web site it gives 4 places in the bible that reference 'EATING' the blood, not saving a life. Even the Acts verse " to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled." I must wonder is someone added a comma after "from blood" which separates it from the strangled animals part that indeed is joined in other versions of the bible. I wonder if someone added that comma to coincide with their own idea to mandate a transfusion prohibition. & since they have used these 4 separate versions & they all, except for the Acts, state that it is not to be eaten, nothing about life saving transfusions

5) Your, "there are doctors surgeons and nurses who are JWs" How is that possible if according to Jw's, cannot associate with blood?

6) Your, "...started in 1914," is something that also goes against Jesus' word as I explained to you earlier.

7) Since you have read the bible many times, haven't you ever questioned why the JW's have a totally different view than most Christians? I think that answer is with the person that came up with his version of JW 'truth.' & that person & version should be able to withstand any doctrinal & biblical question posed t
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
MadCornishBiker
@ Tminusfour20

The dating was not my i8dea, I simly copied and pasted it as is. I am sure it is only there for the sake of interest.

In fact every one of thsoe alternative readings of the verse is sayng the sane thing, God's son is a god, not the True God, soething which, as I showed the rest of scripture agrees with.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 2 years ago
MadCornishBiker
Iam srryyou have not fond my answers sufficient, but I can not give you any answer but the truth from scripture.

Still it is your choice whether or not you accept my answers. My King and example, Christ would not force you to and I shall not try.

I suggest we agree to differ because I cannot move away from teh truth and it seems yu are not interested in moving toward it.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
new cont 3 ... Your last two pages are of preaching & warning to me. Thing is, I have posed some very specific questions to you & you have chosen to preach rather than answer them. That is an example of someone that is unsure themselves. & instead of admitting you may not have all the answers or can't answer what I have posed, you tell me I am wrong & if I do not follow what YOU have been taught, I am doomed. Ya see, that brings us back to my 1st claim of Jesus wanting an all inclusive doctrine made available to all that said, "believe in Me by loving your neighbors & accepting my sacrifice on the cross, (or whatever was used to hane Him on), & believe in the resurrection ..... & TRY to live by my teachings by asking the Holy Spirit to indwell, repent for your sins & they will be forgotten forever. That my friend, is all that one has to do to be guaranteed salvation. You may want to add all these other stipulations, but all you have to read is Paul's many messages stating just this simple rule & all his many warning that people are going to add things that make salvation seem much more difficult, as you are doing madcornish & the JW's, but Paul said to ignore all their peripheral lies & rely on God's grace thru Jesus' death & resurrection. That's it ......... nothing else can take us away from all the times that is stated in the NT. There is never anything that says "except for this act or that qualifier" to God's grace. OK, one instance that you mentioned re the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit .... only one time. Every other time Paul's message is loud & clear. I am sorry you guys want to make it so difficult to receive God's love & grace with all that is required of you & disregard God's grace as stated in the NT.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
new cont 2.... Your, "I presume, from what you say, you also accept the pagan teaching of the immortal soul." Jesus said: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell" (Matthew 10:28). So I guess Jesus was teaching pagan beliefs? But regardless of the immortal soul or resurrected body, we will be rewarded eternally so what does it matter soul or body? You get so worked up over semantics.

Your, "Was it not their place to provide alternative treatment if the patient required it"? Hopefully that was answered in a previous post regarding time & availability & protocol of the individual hospital. We can ask a hospital to accommodate certain things, but they can refuse cuz of protocol. Your, "If a patient says I don"t want blood, I'd rather have saline solution," Once again protocol, but if administering saline will not benefit the patient & it will result in their death, then of course the hospital will not administer it.

Your whole page of, "You obey God - you live, even if it has to by resurrection ..." is due to the JW's interpretation of what individual verses are separated by the message of the context of the whole idea of whatever verse it may be in, which many times the individual verse changes meaning with the context of the message posed. But it seems that you are plenty steadfast with believing JW's are correct even tho they have only been around for a short period & have made doctrinal mistakes, which had to be changed to fit when the mistakes were found. That's scary.
Posted by Tminusfour20 2 years ago
Tminusfour20
I don't see how dating translations is assisting Con's argument. It highlights the fallacy of human interpretation. The further you go back the more variation in translation you will see until it is unrecognizable almost.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
radzMadCornishBikerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON not only addressed PRO's argument regarding Collossians 2:9, he showed how it demonstrates the CON position instead of the PRO position.
Vote Placed by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
radzMadCornishBikerTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's reference material is the version according to a small sect of believers that no matter what other 'proof' is presented, Con stubbornly clings to this bastardized philosophy. Pro & Con both present well researched & compelling arguments. Pro uses the version of the bible that Con rejects because of a Con's non traditional bible interpretation, which I feel Con would not accept of see the truth in it because of his past religious history. As I said, both gave great arguments, I just have to go with what I believe it the correct interpretation that Con unfortunately completely rejects no matter what proof has been given.