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

Jesus is not "the" Son of God - we all are.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 99662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Here I argue that Yeshua (Jesus) of the Holy Bible is not the only Son of God.

Different gospels were written at different times after the death of Yeshua.
I say this to say that the assumption that this claim relies upon is that
the closer to the death of Yeshua they were written, the more reliable the Gospels are


John 3:16New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Debate Round No. 1


I predicted you would use John, because that's the only place where Jesus being the only "Son" (ignore the capital "S", as the Aramaic language doesn't use capital letters).

To refute your simple quote, I will use another, of a Gospel that was written much closer to the time of the death of Yeshua (John was the last one, written 60-80 years after the death of Jesus)

31At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. 32But Jesus answered, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?"

33"We are not stoning You for any good work," said the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God."

34Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: "I HAVE SAID YOU ARE GODS"?

Here we are given clear proof that there is no distinction between us and Jesus except for our deeds.


Your quote is also from John...?

Let"s start with a look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34. The Hebrew word translated "gods" in Psalm 82:6 is Elohim. It usually refers to the one true God, but it does have other uses. Psalm 82:1 says, "God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods." It is clear from the next three verses that the word "gods" refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a "god" indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.

This use of the word "gods" to refer to humans is rare, but it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God"s words and would therefore be God"s representative to the king. The Hebrew word Elohim is translated "judges" in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.

The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: "I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.

Now, let"s look at how Jesus uses this passage. Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The unbelieving Jews respond by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men"albeit men of authority and prestige"as "gods." Jesus" point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title "Son of God"; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered "gods," how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?

In contrast, we have the serpent"s lie to Eve in the Garden. His statement, "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5), was a half-truth. Their eyes were opened (verse 7), but they did not become like God. In fact, they lost authority, rather than gaining it. Satan deceived Eve about her ability to become like the one true God, and so led her into a lie. Jesus defended His claim to be the Son of God on biblical and semantic grounds"there is a sense in which influential men can be thought of as gods; therefore, the Messiah can rightly apply the term to Himself. Human beings are not "gods" or "little gods." We are not God. God is God, and we who know Christ are His children.

Additional Recommended Resource: John, NIV Application Commentary by Gary Burge
Debate Round No. 2


You're absolutely right my quote was from John, and I apologize for that haphazard mistake.

Regarding your quote, an assumption is made in the interpretation of Psalm 82 - that the "gods" that David is referring to "magistrates" among humans - even though that distinction is clearly *not* made.

Psalm 82: 6-7
"I said you are "gods"; you are ALL sons of the Most High
But you will die like mere mortals;
You will fall like every other ruler"

We can surely agree that the Most High is God.

The element of this that we disagree on is that you believe that only "rulers" are being talked to, but it
surely can't mean that humans with influence are 'gods', while humans without influence are not.

For that I refer to Genesis 2:15,
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it
The Hebrew word for "care" is
to "watch, guard, protect". The concept denotes
careful and close observation
specifically, an attentive and protective tending.
Genesis 2:15 reveals that creation is to be worked, that humans are created
to be workers, that work is the plan of God and not a curse, and that humanity is to be provided for through creation.
This passage also shows that, even before the fall, the creation needed to be cared for.
This aspect of caring for creation means we are to guard, nurture and rule creation, second only to God.

That being said - to provide additional proof that we are all directly related to God I refer to
Genesis 2:7
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

In terms of transliteration the word breath is translated from
nshamah (nesh-aw-maw')
a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal -- blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

Meaning that our soul/spirit is directly a part of God, as, like breath, it came OUT of God specifically, and wasn't just put into being like the rest of creation - commonly denoted by the word "formed", also found in Genesis 2:7, in relation to our physical bodies (not a part of God).
From this we can assume that our spirit/soul is a part of God, not the whole.

What I suggest is that Jesus Christ was a human that truly awoke to this truth - and could say plainly - I am the Son of God.


I agree with everything you have just said. You have proved that all humans who have received the breath of life from God are called "sons of God" [emphasis on the lower-case 's']. Another verse that complements this is Matthew 5:9, which states, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called "sons of God" [yet again, emphasis on the lower-case 's'], describing that those who have a personal relationship with God (the peacemakers) will also be called such.

The importance of the lowercase 's' is to bring to light the fact that, as you have also stated, humans will be of the highest order, "second only to God".

At this point, one can notice that Jesus is not called the son of God, but the "Son of God" [upper-case 's']. Although it is used to further highlight the difference between Jesus' rank and humans, as you have mentioned, this is only present in non-Aramaic languages because they do not use capital letters. Thus, continuing, in one of the first verses that you quoted, John 10:33, there is proof of this intended distinction, where the Jews say, "We are not stoning You for any good work... but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God." In other words, Jesus is not accused of being a "son of God" (second to God), but he is accused of declaring himself to be equal to God. Therefore there is a discrepancy, because (as you have just proved), humans have been deemed rulers over the world, second only to God, and yet Jesus is now declared as equal to God. If we continue reading, we realize that Jesus does not deny this accusation, but says "Is it not written in your Law: 'I have said you are "gods"'?" So either we have to agree that Jesus was saying "gods" (Elohim) as how it is used in Psalm 82:1, referring to judges/magistrates/rulers, or else Jesus was contradicting Genesis by now saying humans are "Gods" (equal in rank to God).

To provide even more proof, one most only read the Bible and it is blatantly obvious that humans are deemed 'second in command' to God (and therefore not God), while Jesus is claims to be 'equal' to God, making him the one and only "Son of God". For example, Matthew 11:27 (a more recently written Gospel than John I might add...) "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Jesus does not say "No one knows the Father except the Sons" [plural] (insinuating many Sons of God) but "Son" [singular]. Furthermore, John 14:6 states, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If no one can come to the Father except through Jesus, he clearly is "above" any other human being, and equal to God.

There are a million different verses showing that Jesus claims to be God, and it is obvious that humans are not equal to God. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there are not many Sons of God, but only One: Jesus Christ.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both used the Bible as their source. Both had good grammar. Both had good conduct. However, I have a ThD from seminary and Pro was spot on in his statement that Jesus is not "the" Son of God" - we all are. He commented on the Gospels being written after Jesus' death, and he is absolutely right. Furthermore, the Gospel authors are all anonymous, and most likely not eyewitnesses. The straw that really broke the camel's back was when Con used as a source. That site is HIGHLY biased and flat out wrong on many contextual renderings. -1 point for using it.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both debaters. Solely analyzing Pro"s arguments are insufficient, particularly when that analysis appears to be chiefly couched in the voter"s own knowledge and views of the facts behind the debate rather than arguments given in the debate. The voter is not allowed to use personal bias as a means for awarding points. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to compare the quality of all sources provided by each side, and not merely to dismiss the sources of one side as problematic for using a single source the voter personally disagrees with. Beyond that, awarding this provides the debater with 2 points, not 1 as the voter ascribes in this RFD.
Posted by TheMagi 2 years ago

I used the upper-case/lower-case "s" to highlight the goal I was trying to argue, that Jesus is the "Son of God" (and equal to God), and humans are the "sons of God" (2nd to God). I then proceed to explain that this does not prove anything since, like you said, capitalization was not present in the Aramaic language. Therefore, I proceed by backing my claim with various Biblical passages.

Unlike what you have claimed, my argument is easily summarized in my concluding paragraph:

"There are a million different verses showing that Jesus claims to be God, and it is obvious that humans are not equal to God. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there are not many Sons of God, but only One: Jesus Christ."

The logical sequence that I prove my argument is: If Jesus claims to be equal with God, and humans are 2nd to God, then humans are not equal to Jesus. Therefore, the English translation differentiating between "The One and Only Son of God" and the many (inferior) "sons of God" is correct.
Posted by Nexistential 2 years ago
And Aramaic was the language that the Bible was written in in the first place!
Posted by Nexistential 2 years ago
To summarise - my respected opponent has concluded that the main difference between Jesus as the Son of God and us all as sons of God boils down to a difference in the capital letter S in son.

The problem with this is that in Hebrew and Aramaic (bible language) there is no such thing as a capital letter.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
Jesus is the rotten corpse you are are walking around believing that stuff
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Fletch290 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted con, because he clearly refuted pros argument that Jesus was a normal man who spiritually "awoke" to the fact that we are all Sons of God(pro provided no scripture that proves Jesus had this great "revelation") wheras con refuted this claim in his closing argument with scripture that cleary distinguishes Jesus from normal men.