The Instigator
elimelek1
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
kjw47
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

two separate Deities, Or One singular Deity????

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,363 times Debate No: 17846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

elimelek1

Con

Hi, if you believe that there is only one singular Deity then please answer this question... "If YAH IS LOVE" 1 John 4:8
8 Whoever does not love does not know YAH, because YAH is LOVE.
(Agape)
then does this mean that YAH the Father has ALWAYS BEEN LOVE FOR ALL ETERNITY (from everlasting, no beginning of this Love and no end?) your answer and WHY please.
kjw47

Pro

There is no argument for or against this debate because Gods word doesnt say how long God existed before he created anything or what he did. As far as God being a single being mono God-that is truth.
Debate Round No. 1
elimelek1

Con

Yes, there is such a verse,
Proverbs 8:22-31
New King James Version (NKJV)
22 " The Lord (Father) possessed me (Son) at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 I have been ESTABLISHED FROM EVERLASTING,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.

So "YES" would be your answer, now I've cleared that up, my next question will be is, can YAH (Father) manifest LOVE by Himself if no one existed with Him from EVERLASTING? if you say "Yes" then that would be opposite Love, because Love is a outward action NOT a inward (self love, which is satan) and if love existed from everlasting as well that MUST mean He had to have someone with Him also from everlasting as well?
would'nt it?
kjw47

Pro

Jesus was the firstborn of all creation--the first and last being directly created by God then all other things created through him, but he wasnt called Jesus until he became mortal.
Debate Round No. 2
elimelek1

Con

Hi, you didn't answer my question??? i will address your add on, Yahushua was the firstborn "HEAD" ("ROSH") in Hebrew, or (αρχηγός in greek, Top or Head, also found in rev 3:14) of Creation, or in charge of Creation, NOT PART of Creation!!! John 1:2 NOTHING WAS CREATED that was Created without HIM (the Son of YAH), which begs the question, "who Created who???" if He (Yahushua) didn't exist? which scripture is VERY clear that both your reasoning and side stepping the question just shows that Yahushua Ha-moshiach existed FROM EVERLASTING and it would be true that YAH is LOVE because from everlasting that His Father shared that Agope Love with His Son Yahushua from everlasting, HE was never Created at ALL, OMEIN. And He was NEVER CALLED jesus, because the letter "j" never existed til the 15 hundreds AD or 500 years ago. (Yahushua was born of a man 2000 and some years ago)

p.s the trick to get the right aspect of scripture, find out what it says in Hebrew first. Don't say that it was first written in Greek, because the scripture that you were quoting was from S'hauls writings in the letter of colossians, S'haul was Hebrew in blood and bone and he could speak Hebrew (mother tongue), greek, and roman (latin).
kjw47

Pro

One thing is for certain in this world-- every trinity based translation on the planet is altered to fit catholocism councils false teachings. The israelites served a single being mono God ( YHWH) -- never a trinity God -- Catholocism translators misused many greek word meanings to try and make it look like a trinity God, but still couldnt hide the truth.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
Actually catholocism had councils lead by a pagan false god worshipping king( my as well say satan lead the councils ) many lies infiltrated along with pagan things. Then catholocism hid the word of God from men and kept it in latin for 1000 years or so after the councils-Then burned humans alive for trying to translate Gods word into the language of the day- finally under the guise of heresy and 1000 years of lies being handed down from generation to generation so no one had a clue to what was truth-catholocism allowed Gods word to be translated from greek to english-many errors occurred because of the lies--every trinity translated bible on the earth is altered.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
FACT) The Israelites at one point worshiped Ba'al, Ashterot, and Molech... just because they did or did not do something does not make it right.
FACT) The book of Proverbs presents another being who acts as YHWH but is not YWHH. The "Lady Wisdom" is personified and treated as synonymous to YHWH but distinct.
FACT) Several places in the Old Testament the Word of YHWH comes to people and speaks to them. They call it YHWH and are not corrected.
FACT) The same can be said of the Spirit of YHWH and The Angel of YHWH.
FACT) It is clear that the concept of plurality within a single divine unity is not entirely foreign to the Old Testament or those who wrote it (The israelites)

Just because the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in those passages does not mean that He is not divine. When Thomas exclaims that Jesus is his "Lord and God," the Father is not mentioned... does that mean the Father is not divine? In addition, prior to God revealing his name to Moses on Mt Sinai, his Personal name was not known... before the Logos became Flesh in Christ, he did not have a revealed personal name either. Just because the Personal Name of the Holy Spirit has not been revealed does not mean that he doesn't have one. Nor does it mean that he is any less divine than the Father or the Son.

Beyond all of that, there is a compelling argument to be made that YHWH is not the Father, rather YHWH is the Trinity. In the OT we see the Word of YHWH, the Spirit of YHWH, and YHWH God acting autonomous of each other. With that evidence in mind, we have three divine autonomous entities so we must either move to tritheism or modalism... or we have to re-translate the Bible to fit our theology, which is what the NWT is.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
Fact) The israelites while serving YHWH-- did not serve a trinity God--
Also the trinitarians teach equality between the Father, son, and holy spirit-- But no mention of the HS at John 17:3-- 1 Corinthians 8:6-in the trinity translations-The Father gets worship- the son gets worship- but not the HS--the Father has a personal name, the son has a personal name, the HS has no name. = no equality.
Its just as Psalm 83:18 states.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
"One thing is for certain in this world-- every trinity based translation on the planet is altered to fit catholocism councils false teachings."

Right? So 1600 years of people got it wrong and then Taz comes along and suddenly knows what is up? JW is just repackaged Arianism... with some other crazy overlays (the archangel Michael? Really?!?)

elimelik1, I think you are sort of on the right track here... only the Bible doesn't teach that there are separate Deities. It is not as if there are two Gods, rather there is one God that exists in the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You make a good point though, can God be love if there was nothing else to love? That very passage indicates that the very essence of God is relationality, and you cannot have relationality if you are monolithic the way that the JWs assert God.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
elimelek1kjw47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asserted, while Con justified. Pro didn't respond to Con's case very well, and was willing to make baseless statements (including a conspiracy attack against the Catholic church)...
Vote Placed by CD-Host 6 years ago
CD-Host
elimelek1kjw47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Umm. S
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
elimelek1kjw47Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct points for his false allegations against the Catholic Church (with no evidence). Con's argument, although rudimentary and undeveloped, was compelling. Con referenced the Bible, Pro simply banged his chest.