The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DNehlsen
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
DNehlsen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 104084
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god.

Rules:
For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.

DNehlsen

Con

The first thing I would like to point out is that God did not just use text. God reveals himself and communicates through many means including:

Nature (Romans 1:20)
Dreams and Revelation (Genesis 15:1, Acts 7)
Audible Conversation (Exodus 3, Mark 1:11)
Personal Experience (Psalm 34:8, 1 Peter 2:3, John 10:14)

Most importantly: Christ
God came to us himself. Christians do not worship the Bible, they worship Jesus Christ. The reason we believe and elevate the Bible is because Jesus said that the Bible was his word to us. It's because of the endorsement of Jesus Christ that we believe the Bible to be God's. Therefore, God himself confirmed for us the Bible.

We know Jesus Christ existed.

  • The testimony of early secular historians confirms the existence of Christ.
    • Tacitus
      • 1st Century Roman Historian –“Greatest Historian of Ancient Rome”
      • Christus put to death under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.
      • May also refer to the early churches belief in the resurrection.
    • Suetonius – Secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138)
      • Affirms Christians being expelled from Rome on account of their disturbances ‘at the instigation of Chrestus.’ (Christ)(Acts 18:2)
      • Records Christians dying for their conviction of the resurrection.
    • Thallus & Phlegon– Separate Eyewitness Accounts
      • Confirmed the three hour darkness after Christ’s death.
    • Pliny the Younger – Roman Administrator
      • Wrote a letter to emperor Trajan about Christian executions.
      • Reported that he was killing countless Christians for their beliefs.
      • Reported that not a single Christian would betray his convictions and denounce the name of Jesus.
    • Lucian – Greek Satirist from Samosata
      • Spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians.
      • Referenced the Crucifixion.
    • Mara Bar-Serapion – Syrian
      • Compared Jesus to Socrates and Protagoras, never doubting the fact that he existed.
  • The testimony of early Jewish historians confirms the existence of Christ.
    • The Babylonian Talmud
      • Yeshu (Jesus) the Nazarene was hung. (Crucified)
      • Crucifixion occurred on the eve of Passover. (John 19:14)
      • Attests to Christ’s miracles and was a wise man/teacher.
      • Details on the Virgin Birth
        • Refers to Jesus as a bastard.
        • Claims Mary ‘played the harlot with carpenters.’ (Joseph)
        • Mary was a descendant of princes and governors.
          • May refer to King David, she being married to Joseph.
      • Jesus was “Near the Kingship.” May refer to decent from David.
      • The teacher had disciples.
    • Flavius Josephus – Pharisee and Jewish Historian (38–100+ AD)
      • Confirmed Jesus lived and was crucified under Ponitus Pilate
      • Affirmed that he performed miracles and a wise teacher.
      • Christ had risen on the third day, and his disciples saw him.
      • Called James the brother of Jesus.
  • The testimony of early Christian historians confirms the existence of Christ.
    • Christians paid their lives or suffered severe persecution for Christ.
      • If their testimony was false, they had nothing to gain and all to lose.
    • Portions of the New Testament are pieces written around 30-50 AD, existing before they were later used by the authors.
      • Luke 24:34
      • Romans 1:3, 4 : Romans 4:24, 25 : Romans 10:9, 10
      • 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 : 1 Corinthians 15:3–5
      • Philippians 2:6–11
      • 1 Timothy 3:16 : 1 Timothy 6:13 : 2 Timothy 2:8
      • 1 Peter 3:18
      • 1 John 4:2
      • The Pre-New Testament creeds sometimes come from the words of Christ himself.
    • All 27 New Testament books directly profess or assume the existence and divinity of Christ.
    • Post-Apostolic Church Fathers and Theologians
      • Clement – Bishop of the church of Rome in 1st Century
        • Wrote of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Church.
      • Ignatius – Bishop in Antioch in 1st Century
        • Affirmed Jesus existed, was from David, the virgin child of Mary, was crucified, and rose again.
        • Affirmed Jesus was both flesh and divine, and was baptized by John the Baptist.
      • Quadrates – Bishop in Athens in 1st Century
        • Taught that the miracles of Christ were obvious to seekers, and could be checked by anyone since they were done publicly with many witnesses.
        • Affirmed men were raised from the dead when Christ died.
          • Said many were still alive when Christ ascended.
      • Other early Christians who wrote of Christ include:
        • Aristides – Apologist and Philosopher in Athens - 2nd Century
        • Justin Martyr – “Greatest Christian Apologist” – 2nd Century
        • Hegesippus – Writer – 1st Century
  • The testimony of miscellaneous writings confirms the existence of Christ.
    • Emperor Trajan – Wrote to Pliny the Younger on how to treat Christians.
    • Macrobius – Affirms Augustus Caesar had babies killed in Bethlehem.
    • Emperor Marcus Aurelius – Describes roman fighting with Christians.
    • Juvenal & Seneca – Both refer to Nero’s torture of Christians for their faith.
    • Hierocles – Refers to Jesus, Peter and Paul as sorcerers.
Ignoring all 27 accounts of Christ in the New Testament, we can still piece together the life of Christ from secular sources. Do not make hte mistake of assuming simply because a source is Christian, however, that it is no longer valuable. These people believed what they said. They believed is so much in fact that they all died miserable deaths because of it. Despite this, we do not know of a single Apostle of Christ who broke and gave up this apparent conspiracy.

Alright, so we know that Christ was a real person, and that he claimed to be God. Now let's look at the text that he subscribed to.

Manuscripts:

The Bible has more manuscripts attributed to it than any other historical document. There are over 25,000 manuscripts in partial or in whole. The most recent manuscripts date to only 200 years after the original writings. We have more than 36,000 quotes of scripture by church fathers in 2nd and 3rd century. In short, there are enough quotes to reconstruct the New Testament from nothing. (1-5)

I want to look at one specific set of manuscripts though. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of these items date back to 300 B.C., well before the time of Christ. When compared to our Bible today, there is about a 95% consistency rate. The Bible we have today is the same Bible that existed before Jesus. (At least the Old Testament) (6-8)

If one were to study the methods by which men copied the word of God, we would understand why we have such accuracies. There was a no error policy when rewriting copies. We can rest assured, knowing that our Bible is God's Bible.

Conclusion
If you think about it, text was the best method of communication God has ever used. God performed miracles, he destroyed nations, he spoke to people verbally...all these things. God even came to Earth himself as a man. Ultimately the only thing we can observe today is text. There is no way for us to revisit Christ, or to reobserve the miracles he performed. Text is the only trancendant method of communication. This isn't simple oral transmission that can be lost like a game of telephone, this is documentation. We know that the Bible Jesus Christ endorsed is the Bible we have today. If we know this, there is no issue in the use of text. If we know this is what God really intended for us, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of text.

(1) - http://www.icr.org...
(2) - https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) - https://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) - http://www.newadvent.org...
(5) - http://www.provethebible.net...
(6) - https://en.wikipedia.org...
(7) - http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il...
(8) - https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

First off we are NOT going to play by your rules, we are going to play by MY rules. The rules were simple enough. Naturally, you the fool among statutory fools, you broke them. So I will ignore everything that you neatly showed yourself to be homeless and will move on from there or I will simply end this debate is its so far off base in which I have the gargantuan feeling that it will be.

“The first thing I would like to point out is that God did not just use text.” Wow. Really? Did you come up with that one all on your own? Or did that pale glued stickum glue you to your brick pillow? In other words, please do not try to lecture me. K? Especially for something that everybody should obviously know.

Nature (Romans 1:20) (doesn’t describe “nature” at all. Invent better excuses please.)

Dreams and Revelation (Genesis 15:1, Acts 7) (which can’t be proved)

Audible Conversation (Exodus 3, Mark 1:11) (in other words “talking to people” which would be evidence. However its not evidence because its never happened to anybody that has been proved because others would be able to talk about it. So if this god of yours can talk to people here, he can talk to people everywhere and thus provide evidence rather than providing this cloak and dagger hide-and-seek nothingness and would not rely on text, not ever.

“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

“If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We’d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor.” Christopher Hitchens

Personal Experience (Psalm 34:8, 1 Peter 2:3, John 10:14) (which can’t be proved)

Most importantly: Christ - I didn’t mention the deadbeat christ which has 0 to do with this argument. So everything you mention as christ shall be ignored.

“God came to us himself. Christians do not worship the Bible,” Oh yes they do because without the bible you as christians have nothing. It is text spread out in over 100 different English translations alone.
http://tyndalearchive.com...
So the version you are reading in in no way correct to trace it back to the original, with in no possible way for you to interpret correctly. And as I’ve asked you before in which you’ve naturally pleaded the 5th… where and how do you get your interpretations from in which are clearly with no doubt false because only a very same percentage of christians, like maybe .00001% of christians in the world might possibly agree with you and you fricken know it you sad pathetic 16 year old teeny bopper who has to invent excuses and flat out lie for something in which he clearly knows nothing about so he pretends he does and yodels his magic wand and thinks he can bluff his way across the poker table in order to take down a royal flush in which I am holding and you are hold nothing. NEWSFLASH: It doesn’t work.

“God himself confirmed for us the Bible.” Well no god according to your bible would be stupid enough to do something so stupid. Wow he would actually talk to you and all of man. Imagine that as an example. Nah. You can’t. The bible is evidence nor proof for nothing.

Now here’s another perfect example of why your god would NEVER entrust text…

Job 36:33 KJV “The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor.”

NIV “His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.”
They are the same verses with two totally different statements and meanings. No god who has any intelligence or an education, in which you obviously don’t have, would ever entrust this and would have his crystal ball out to know that this would occur and know that language would change that drastically to come up with completely different translations that have nothing to do with each other. Your god’s sad frail fragile pathetic ego simply would not allow this. Your god would simply ---never--- use text as any type of a means of communication. Period.

No we don’t know christ existed.
https://www.youtube.com... - Christianity debunked using science and history
https://www.youtube.com... - Did jesus even exist?

OK I’m not going to get into the Tacitus ideals with you because it has nothing whatsoever to do with god using text. Well hey, you proved he wouldn’t here.

OK you are getting off track here, who cares about all this jesus mumbo jumbo false prophet bile that you mentioned in which christ clearly is as he broke many of your god’s laws rules and regulations, so this round is over.

Once again “
For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.”
DNehlsen

Con

The rules were simple enough. Naturally, you the fool among statutory fools, you broke them.
Which rule exactly did I break? Everything I said was directly relevant to the discussion at hand.


In other words, please do not try to lecture me. K? Especially for something that everybody should obviously know.
My opponent claism that God wouldn't use text because it's an unreliable method. When it is stated that God used many other methods of communication my opponent simply scoffs as if he knew that. If that were true, then there should be no issue in understanding why this is relevant to the discussion.


Nature Romans 1:20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
This states that the qualities of God are seen in his creation. Nature. It goes on to say that these qualities are so well engraved in nature that no man is without excuse when it comes to God. I don't see how my opponent missed it.


Dreams and Revelation & Audible Conversation - Proof isn't the topic right now. We're trying to figure out what means God supposedly uses to contact people. It has been stated both by believers in Christ, Early Followers, and the Bible alike that God talks to people by these means. I don't see how my opponent struggles with this concept.

Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 1 - Jesus spoke in parables. There was more than one way to interpret a parable. For those looking for the truth, however, it could be found. (Matthew 13:10-17) God makes it very clear he wants his followers to be devoted to him, not mindlessly following what seems obvious to everyone. (2 Timothy 3:7) God says that he will make this requested 'one translation' available to any who want to pursue it. (John 16:13) In our humanness there may be differences, but there is no confusing the Gospel message, Christ's purpose, and Salvation in the Bible. There is no dispute for anyone actually seeking truth. Those are the only doctrines that matter, so that's all I need address now.

Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 2 - The vast majority of Biblical books are not anonymous. We know who wrote most every book. We also know that the Bible we have, as proven before, is what God meant for us. We don't just have copies of copies of copies, we still have the same thing, essentially. If we know for a fact that we have what Jesus meant for us, why is text bad? My opponent has not responded to this question yet.

Christopher Hitchens Paragraph 3 - Christopher Hitchens makes a fatal flaw here. He presupposes that everything we have did not come from Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, or Moses to state that nothing would be different. How could he say 'what would change if these people didn't exist?' By what logic does he conclude that what we see right now isn't a derivitive of them? But what if they actually did exist? How can he claim that he knows exactly the effect these figures carried over thousands of years? Is Chris claiming to be omniscient?

Personal Experience - These can't be proved, but they can be felt by most everyone. My opponent is really helping my case here though. If Nature, Dreams, Revelation, a Personal Conversation with God, and now Personal Experience is not good enough evidence for God, what method does he suggest God use? It seems he has ruled out most every method of communication available.

I didn’t mention the deadbeat christ which has 0 to do with this argument. So everything you mention as christ shall be ignored.
What better evidence would there be for God than him coming to Earth himself? Again, you cannot simply act as if God only communicated by text; he enacted almost every method of communication imaginable. Despite this, my opponent is not satisfied.


Oh yes they do because without the bible you as christians have nothing. It is text spread out in over 100 different English translations alone.
Christianity starts from Christ then goes to the Bible, not the other way around. For claiming to debate theists for years and years, I'm surprised to see an 'expert' such as you make such a trivial mistake. We're Christians, not biblians.


So the version you are reading in in no way correct to trace it back to the original, with in no possible way for you to interpret correctly.
I can only speak for myself, but I can't say that any major doctrine of the Bible has been threatened by translations. Salvation is always there. Sanctification is always there. Pneumatology is always there. The History is always there. The vast majority of the translations change nothing but the wording style. Nothing essential is ever lost. If it is, it is in the minority.

The translation error my opponent suggests betrays context. These verses, taken in context, are still the same. Job 36:32-33:

KJV: With clouds he covereth the light; and commandeth it not to shine by the cloud that cometh betwixt. The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.

NIV: He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark. His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.

When you take the previous verse in context, these verses no longer appear to be speaking of anything different.


No we don’t know christ existed.
I will not be watching three hours of youtube videos for the purpose of this debate. This would be unfair considering the word limit we are supposed to abide by. I used much of my previous debate presenting very specific facts and evidences as to how we know about Jesus. My opponet has refuted with a blanket statement "No we don't!"


Conclusion:
My opponent seems to have missed the entire point of the debate, so allow me to make it simpler so he may understand.


We, as Christians worship Christ first.
Christ said the Bible was from God.
Therefore, the Bibe is God's Word.
We also know our Bible was Jesus' Bible.

If all of this is true, then we know that the Bible is indeed the word of God based upon the testimony of our leader. If this is true, there is absolutely no issue or fault in using text as communication. Jesus confirmed the Bible, so there is no longer and room for inaccuracy in text and translation. The Bible is, for the most part, completely free of translation error. Almost all translations simply change language style, not doctrine.

Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

“Which rule exactly did I break?” I said god. I did not say christ. Sheesh. Can’t you read? See? That’s why you are still a blundering teeny bopper still in high school with no edumacation nor intelligence. Its pretty easy to figure out. And if you mention christ again, that portion of that argument will thus be ignored once again because christ is a false prophet and has 0 to do with this conversation. Got it? If you don’t like the parameters, that’s too gosh darned bad. The rules are easy enough to understand.

But here’s you.. You think that your gizmo christ has the equality and or is more powerful that your god. NEWSFLASH: Wrong.
I am so stupid in mentioning this as I didn’t in the previous round… Wow, you can’t even prove your god, so how on earth can you prove your christ? Now that’s HILARIOUS.

“Everything I said was directly relevant to the discussion at hand.” Oh it most certainly was not. Once again, only god. And in RD1 I only mentioned “god”. I didn’t mention “christ”. So absolutely NOT IN ANY WAY was “Everything I said was directly relevant…” yadda yadda yadda. BORING.

“My opponent claism that God wouldn't use text because it's an unreliable method.” Text is an unreliable method TO GOD. POINT BLANK AS THE FIRST SENTENCE OF RD1 STATES.

Nature Romans 1:20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
WRONG
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, evenhis eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
So if you make another screw up like that again, I will end this debate and declare myself the instant and rightful winner. I mean I have no idea which translation you are using, but its a clear abomination and a wrong one at that. And you just proved right there why your so-called printed in text god would NOT use text, not ever, so man like you can get meanings incorrect and false.

“Dreams and Revelation & Audible Conversation - Proof isn't the topic right now.” Proof is is the topic right now? Who says it isn’t? You? What babbling baby brained infidel that sits in his highchair and burps up his peas and carrots says it isn’t? OF COURSE IT IS. And you cannot prove your side and you fricken know it you arrogant prick.

“We're trying to figure out what means God supposedly uses to contact people.” Um mmm duh ummm doy umm what? Huh? Doy duh huh? I dunno, huh? What? Doy duh, huh. What? I dunno, Well you must be dummmmber than a doornail in your brain pecking at wood. Um no in its simplicity the subject is, is that in no way would “god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication”. So who cares if you want to violate that subject content? I don’t.

“Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 1 - Jesus spoke in parables.” Did---Matt---ever---speak---of---christ? No---he---did---not. Then---you---have---no---case. NEXT.

“Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 2 - The vast majority of Biblical books are not anonymous.” Oh yes they absolutely are. “We know who wrote most every book.” Who is this “we” stuff”??? I told you to present you where and how you get your information from. Naturally you cannot do it. Now you present it right here exactly for what you say right here and now so I can look it up. Because its 100% false and you know it. I also have information from the second biggest weekly news magazine in the country that also states the same this as Matt stated that will knock you off your stupidsvill rocker.
http://www.newsweek.com... Newsweek THE BIBLE: SO MISUNDERSTOOD IT'S A SIN
And they know one helluva lot better than someone like you who clearly without question has to invent excuses and flat out lie in a meager attempt to gain the upper hand. Now you present your information and exactly where you got it from and you do it right now or you will thus be percieved as a gutless wench with flase information. In other words I'm calling you on your bluff.

“We also know that the Bible we have, as proven before, is what God meant for us.” Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? Then explain to me why you are still in high school with a high school edumacation unless you dropped out? In fact um no. Totally 100% false After all Hitler was a devout christian. Hong Xiuquan knew himself to be the younger brother of christ. The Spaniards spread their filth to conquer The Inca and they spread their disease to kill off most native American Indian tribes with wonderous smallpox that YOUR god invented. Oh and btw, this christ figure that you are in so much desperate love with is the most fought over figure in history next to your god. Go figure. So that’s what your god MEANT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not me and billions of others because we have the ability to think, use common sense, rationalize, reason, and use logic in which case your god, you, religion and bible cannot possibly do.

Christopher Hitchens happens to be a lot smarter, crisper, justified, more right, more honest, more upfront, more truthful that a teeny bopper punk kid like you who knows nothing about something that he tries to pretend he does.

There’s no possible way you could ever outshine Hitchens, Dillihunty, DeGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, Harris, Harris (yes there’s 2 Harris’s and no they are not related) Carrier, Krauss, Glasser etc etc etc in any debate. You demeanor is a dry as drab in any punch bowl set. Not only that but you think you know everything when in fact you truly know nothing and you would get demolished by those who know a lot more than you do who knows a lot more than something. Not only that but here’s the trick of it… you know 0 about psychology and wow does it show. Not only that but you have 0 genuine friends and loved ones and wow does that show. Those in the list... They would plaster your shadow so your flesh would not be able to breathe.

“How could he say 'what would change if these people didn't exist?'Well duh.You figure it out. See. That’s precisely why no one wants to have anything to do with you.

“Personal Experience - These can't be proved,” See but you are a teeny bopper, scarcely 16 years old and still in high school or a flakey dropout. So---you---have---no---personal---experience. Its that simple. Now you look up Hitchens and you look at his personal experience you total dimwitted dullard snot meat sow before you take another blink of life from something in which case you know nothing of and yet you think you do so you have to pretend that you do so you invent excuses to cover for your tracks in order for you to make up for you falling behind and because of that you somehow think by doing this you can gain the upper hand. WRONG. Pathetic.

“What better evidence would there be for God than him coming to Earth himself?” god was not christ. Once again, you cannot prove that god exists, so how can you prove that christ has ever existed? Duh.

“Again, you cannot simply act as if God only communicated by text;” Oh for god sakes teeny bopper, LEARN TO READ. OK I’m ending this round. You have a lot to answer for. Bye.

DNehlsen

Con

I will present two points that I will refer back to in my argument here, by names (1) and (2).

(1) The only thing I've claimed to prove so far is that Jesus Christ existed. That fact is essentially irrefutable to any historian, as shown in my previous arguments.

(2) This Jesus, who we know existed, claimed to be God. We know this both secularly and Biblically. Of course my opponent would not care to open his mind to something like this, considering his present brainwashed nature.

According to Christianity, Jesus was God. Therefore everything I've said so far is still relevant.
  • Christ claimed to be God
    • Christ claimed equality with the Father (John 10:25-33; John 7:17-18)
    • Christ claimed to be the I AM (John 8:58)
    • Christ claimed to be due God’s honor (John 5:23-24)
    • Christ was worshiped as God, and accepted it. (Matthew 8:2, 14:33; John 9:35-39)
      • Worship is for God alone. (John 4:20-22, 24; Acts 8:27; Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8)
      • None but God should be worshiped. (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10)
    • Christ claimed to be the father. (John 8:19; John 14:1; John 14:8-9)
    • Christ taught in his own name, as if he were God. (Matthew 5:20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 44; Mark 13:31; John 3:34)
  • Others claimed Christ was God.
    • Paul (Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-17, 2:9; Titus 2:13)
    • Peter (Matthew 16:15-17; Acts 2:36; 2 Peter 1:1)
    • John the Apostle (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:20)
    • The Author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:3, 1:8)
    • John the Baptist, Thomas (Luke 3:22; John 20:28)
  • Christ claimed things that could only be claimed by God.
    • Christ could forgive sins. (Mark 2:5-7)
    • Christ was in himself the way, the truth and the life. (John 14:6)
    • Christ claimed to be the bread of life. (John 6:35)
  • Christ did not merely say he knew what the answers were, he claimed he, in himself, was the answer. This is unique to Jesus.
    • Other religious leaders, such as Gautama or Muhammad could supposedly lead you to the answer, but none dare claim they in themselves were the answer.The fact of the matter is that Jesus claimed to be God. That is the whole point of Christianity, and in reality the Bible.
The Law laid the foundation for Christ.
The Historical Books show the preperation for Christ.
The Poetic Books aspire to Christ.
The Prophetic Books show an expectation for Christ.
The Gospels record the Historical Manifestation of Christ.
The Acts relate to the propogation of Christ.
The Epistles give an interpretation of Christ
Finally, in Revelation, we find the consummation of all in Christ.
From beginning to end, Genesis to Revelation, Cover to Cover, the Bible is Christocentric. It's about him, for him, and it claims to be by him.

(End Point 2)

But here’s you.. You think that your gizmo christ has the equality and or is more powerful that your god.
Yep, that's foundational to Christianity. (2)

I only mentioned “god”. I didn’t mention “christ”. So absolutely NOT IN ANY WAY was “Everything I said was directly relevant…”
If Jesus is God, then everything I said does relate to God. (2)

Romans 1:20 - I fail to see how the version I used and my opponents are different. Either way they're talking about invisible things being apparent to everyone. Because of this, no one is without an excuse when it comes to God. These say the same thing.

My opponent then claims my translation is an abomination, and the inherent wrong one. How did he come to this conclusion?

Dreams, Revelation, & Audible Conversation - We're talking about God using text to communicate to us. The fact of the matter is God doesn't just use text. That's recorded both Biblically and by Secular history, as shown in previous arguments. Me pointing out that God used an abundance of sources, including text, is fully relevant to the discussion of why he would use text.

“Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 1 - (2)

“Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 2 - Alright, I can list several. (9-13) Do notice that the vast majority of it all is in agreement as to who wrote what, and even when they wrote it. There's not too much debate as to who wrote the vast majority of Scripture. There is only one book in the New Testament, and 1 in the Old Testament. (Hebrews, and Job)

We know the Bible we have, as proven before, is what God meant for us - See (2). Also I don't just have a high school education. I would my opponent to find just two occupational historians who doubt the existance of Jesus. It's really not in dispute.

Hitler - Since you brought up Hitler. He was a Christian, but he changed his Bible. He made his own edition with his own views. He made his own churches to suit his own purposes. His intention in Christianity was not the preservation of it's intent. He purposfully changed it. (14-16)

Smallpox - Please tell me where you got the idea that God created smallpox. I don't recall ever seeing a nametag on it.

Christopher Hitchens - Even the smartest people in the world make mistakes. Simply saying he's smarter than me means nothing. I agree, but that doesn't mean he can't be wrong. Later you told me to look up his personal experience...Well I have. I've read a couple of his books, and I'm very familiar with his story. Please explain the relevance here.

Just a note - My opponent keeps using my age against me instead of challenging my points. I get this, but then he goes on to say God is unfair to Children in every other debate of his. I don't quite understand this contradiction of demanding God to pay attention to Children, but silencing anyone he deems too young as too uneducated to speak.

god was not christ - (2)

I'll simply ignore the personal attacks of my opponent, but I'll take them as freudian slips expressing his personal issues in life.

My opponent has yet to provide me with an superior means of communication than text. My opponent has yet to show how text is at all bad considering the circumstances. My opponent has essentially done nothing but implode.

(9) - https://en.wikipedia.org...
(10) - https://overviewbible.com...
(11) - https://amazingbibletimeline.com...
(12) - https://www.jw.org...
(13) - https://www.gotquestions.org...
(14) - http://www.cbn.com...;
(15) - https://en.wikipedia.org...
(16) - https://www.solas-cpc.org...

Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

It is absolutely amazing how truly naive, simple minded, and gullible you truly are and how you would accept anything that is obviously spoon fed to you. But I really like the fact that you actually tried, unlike most. But that’s not an excuse to invent excuses and be completely innocent, clueless and bewildered.
I know I said I wouldn’t have anything more to do with christ. But I must break my word here because you are just simply so lost that what you stated is so full of gargantuan holes that only a teeny bopper with no knowledge of past, present or future could possibly come up with what you did. And its my pleasure to knock it all down.
Take what you said, all of it in RD3… was there anywhere, anywhere AT ALL in it that stated something to the effect of “I the lord thy god give permission to jesus to have equality to myself and to change my laws, rules and and regulations and he sees fit.”? Um no. The fact of the matter is, is that is does not exist anywhere in your bible at all. So indeed, jesus was in fact a little nobody weakling, and christianity is false, the NT is false and christ is false. Indeed the laws of god from the OT still stand tall until changed by him or ordained by god to someone else for them to be changed. So you follow your god’s laws, rules and regulations and come on down here and stone me to death as is required in Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 you little spoiled brat.
Oh and btw, to utterly prove you wrong and that christ and god are indeed two separate entities well here’s some solid verses for your beady little teeny bopper eyes…

Romans 13:1 “1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Gee that kinda shuts the door on the jesus thingy.

Matthew 3:16-17 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Wow. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Two separate entities. Your god AND jesus according to that CORRECT verse are NOT ONE AND THE SAME!!! Now what part of that don’t you understand?

Matthew 5:34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for---it---is---God's---throne:" Well that’s pretty clear. Right pooky?
People like you only come around once in a lifetime who actually pretend they know something in which they know nothing about.


Oh and digging through your so-called evidence? I’m sorry, but I simply had to stop after the second one with overviewbible when it got down to claiming that “Moses is the prophet who leads Israel from slavery in Egypt…” Oh please!!!!!!! Yeah. He did it through slavery and violence and hate of his own. What a true major hypocritical contradiction in which YOUR bible is loaded with inconsistencies and hypocritical contradictions. At least 2,000, thus making your text bible unreadable. Duh.
Numbers 31 14 - 18 “And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Ah yes the LORD and Moses takes great pleasure in raping women as well as murdering young women. Sick.
Also in Exodus 21 YOUR LORD ENSUES, EMANATES, and cuddles up to slavery.
So DO NOT pretend that this imaginary god of YOURS is in any way good for anyone, or anything.


Really? According to how many billions of christians will disagree with you that christ is more powerful than god? Oh almost 0%. Oh and btw, who says so? A teeny bopper like you? I bet you went around to every household in the world and knocked on their doors to find this information out. Right? Doggie paddling in a gym Duke Nuke-em boy? Oh and where did this christ icon come from? POOF he just happened? He like your god has no proof. So if he is more powerful than your god, then the entire OT is all for naught and you do not believe in creation in 6 days, you do not believe in the great flood nor Noah. You do not believe in exodus. You do not believe in the 10 commandments which are riddled with miss-steaks throughout your bible. You do not believe in the parting of the Red Sea. You do not believe in the 10 plagues. You do not believe in Sodom and Gomorrah etc etc etc because your precious jesus was not even born at that time.
Wow it sounds like Donald Trump, a strong possibility for the worst president of all time, who in nearly every way has the same traits as your demeaning god, could do whatever he wants - to nuke N. Korea without permission from congress. Or he could take away Social Security from those seniors like myself without any wavering from anyone. Better yet he could take away Obamacare without permission from congress simply because he’s p**sed off at it and not because its a good thing. He doesn’t even know what it stands for. I don’t either and neither does nearly 100% of all Americans/. They just want to be p**sed at something just---like---you.

“If Jesus is God,..” You have no proof whatsoever that either of them exists!!! And you mentioned that keyword “if”, which means you don’t know and as usual you are guessing. NEXT!

Romans 1:20 Yeah you don’t know the difference. That’s because you are a teeny bopper still stuck in high school or a dropout with a very limited edumacation. I only gave that as an EXAMPLE as to why your god would not rely on text as a form of communication as text changes over time with different translations after translations with each translation changing with each translation having different text and thus different meanings and thus ALWAYS, no exceptions, NONE, NO WAY being able to trace it back to the original so you and everybody else has no way of knowing if they are reading an authentic bible coming from your god’s lips and what he truly wants. Now since you obviously can’t figure that one out, that means that with a very big DUH, you belong in the slaughterhouse with a 0 education on your so-called god. Period.

“My opponent then claims my translation is an abomination, and the inherent wrong one. How did he come to this conclusion?” OK I’m ending this until you tell me where and how you come up with your translations of your bible as I have before but you always scat when asked. Typical Buddhist monk christian.
DNehlsen

Con

was there anywhere, anywhere AT ALL in it that stated something to the effect of “I the lord thy god give permission to jesus to have equality to myself and to change my laws, rules and and regulations and he sees fit.”? Um no.
If Jesus were God, he wouldn't need to be given permission for equality. He simply would be God.

Oh and btw, to utterly prove you wrong and that christ and god are indeed two separate entities well here’s some solid verses for your beady little teeny bopper eyes…
I agree they're different entities, but the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity to deal with this issue. Before we go on, the idea of the trinity is foreign to us, so I can't say I know any of it for certain or that I fully understand any of it. What I will do is make some deductions based upon what we observe and see.

As shown in the verses of my opponent, Jesus was in one sense different from God. At the same time, Jesus also claimed to be one with God. (John 10:30) The three were clearly taught as equals. (Matthew 28:19) The Trinity isn't just a manmade interpretation, it's Biblical. (1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 1 John 5:7)

God the Father says that Jesus is his son. (Matthew 3:16-17) Spirit Beings (Including God) cannot reproduce in a physical manner like men, (Matthew 22:30) so we must conclude that Jesus is not the sexual offspring of God. Instead, this Father Son paradigm could present us with a mental picture of their authoritative position to one another.

Matthew 1:23 says Jesus was 'God with us,' by the angels. This would only be true if Jesus were God.

Moses - I would be happy to debate the morality of these issues at another time, but that is not the purpose of this discussion.

I never claimed Jesus was more powerful than God. I said they were equal. The vast majority of Christians would believe me in that case. Only a small, small percentile of Christians reject the doctrine of the trinity. (17-19)

“If Jesus is God,..” You have no proof whatsoever that either of them exists!!! And you mentioned that keyword “if”, which means you don’t know and as usual you are guessing. NEXT!
Yep, I said if. It's not that I'm just guessing, but I also don't know for sure. We don't really know much of anything for absolute certain. My goal here is not to prove God exists, however, but to show that if he did he may use text to communicate.

Romans - My opponent never showed how these verses were different, only claimed that they were. This difference is not apparent to either me or I would presume the voter.

OK I’m ending this until you tell me where and how you come up with your translations of your bible as I have before but you always scat when asked. Typical Buddhist monk christian.
I use many translations. Translating text can be difficult, I think we agree on that. Therefore, to get the best idea of what the text says, the christian should use as many sources as he can. It's also important to keep the type of source in mind. Versions with the effort to keep the original intent in mind, (KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV, etc.) are good translations to use. Versions that translate loosely should be used with that in mind (NIV, NLT, NASB etc.) Versions which totally compromise on the initial intent of the text (MSG, Street Bible etc.) should probably never be used, at least with the belief that it is scripture you are reading.

With careful digilance, the original intent of Scripture can be found. We know the manuscripts these texts came from are accurate, and we also know which versions will try to protect that accuracy. There will always be counterfits, but they are generally easy to weed out if desired in an honest manner.

Because of the testimony of Christ, and our current accuracy, I see no reason why God would not use text. (Among other means)

(17) - https://en.wikipedia.org...
(18) - https://www.quora.com...
(19) - https://www.thoughtco.com...
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Debating_Horse 9 months ago
Debating_Horse
@ DNehlsen great job!
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Exactly.
Posted by atjacobmajor 9 months ago
atjacobmajor
Oh my god, Pro's debate makes my eyes bleed it's so messy! Bolded things here, tiny things her. EW!
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Refresh my memory... aren't I supposed to apologize for something? I forget.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
I already told you the rules if you want to debate with me. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
I would love to debate you... especially considering the incoherent gibberish you spouted towards me below. I would wipe the floor with you.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
I also don't consider the win of a debate by one vote or even five. And usually I find here that only one voter votes. Who really cares when it comes to that? That's by no means a win.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
@DNehlsen - Exactly. See that's why I won't debate the goo goo ga ga Diaper baby swastika burn baby burn dsjpk5 child. He's stalked me around into probably a good 18 of my debates or so now? Who knows? *yawn* its rather boring and tiring. He could bore himself to sleep during a nuclear holocaust. And he votes the EXACT same way every single time. Its like his rectal thermometer needs some pulp. But oh yes, its the arguments that truly sways. Sourcing, I dunno. Sometimes yes I mean it only goes so far. And naturally that would depend on the topic.
Posted by DNehlsen 9 months ago
DNehlsen
Sort of annoyed that I keep winning by conduct. I want votes on arguments and sourcing.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
@dsjpk5 - And you really want me to debate with you? A child with a bib of a burping hand grenade weight loss program?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenDNehlsenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "fool" in round two and a "doggie" in round four. This is poor conduct.