Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#4091
You can prove that God the Father is a person.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Pretty straightforward to prove from the biblical scriptures as written, that the Father is a person as in one of three persons but the Father specifically.
Also be prepared to answers questions in the debate. Don't run, don't evade, don't think it's just a come and say whatever and run.
Be prepared to defend yourself with responses and answers.
Pretty clear and direct but any questions, leave a comment.
Round 1
You're up. Bible book, chapter and verse that we read Father God or God or God the Father or The Father is a person.
Being that you opted to participate in the same subject, try to bring different points and scriptures for each separate debate session, do you follow?
“Being that you opted to participate in the same subject, try to bring different points and scriptures for each separate debate session, do you follow?”
No. :)
Preamble:
I shall now proceed to prove that God, The Father is a person using several verses from The Bible!
Definitions:
Person- A human being.
“Genesis 2:7 - Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
The breath of God is inseparable from God. It is his Holy Essence and it is in every man. Since a part of God is in man, then man by definition is God. Which also means that God is man.
“I am a God who is everywhere and not in one place only. No one can hide where I cannot see them. Do you not know that I am everywhere in heaven and on earth?”
Well, if God is everywhere, then that would mean he is inside every person. Which means he is every person simultaneously all at once!
Can’t argue with that logic.
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
Well then, if God made mankind in his image, then it must stand to reason that God is identical to us in every way.: Spiritual, moral, intellectual, and physical!
Thus, God is a person too! Pun intended!
“1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV / 457 helpful votes Helpful Not HelpfulYet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”Isaiah 44:6 ESV / 331 helpful votes Helpful Not HelpfulThus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”
Jesus and God are one in the same. Their distinction is metaphorical. Jesus is the version of God that is human in which he addresses himself as “son.” Therefore, I have met my burden of proof and established that God is a person.
If Con objects to any of these arguments, then he is distancing himself from God because he is directly going against the Bible.
I thank Con for this discussion! :)
Vote Pro!
Round 2
Here are my questions.
What is the point of repeating the same points on the same subject with the same individual you're debating in each debate session?
If you're going to just echo everything, why opt to participate in the same topic with the same person if you're not going to say anything different?
Do you have bloodlust so to speak, meaning hungry for debate points?
Is this a sport to you or do you actually seek edification and the edification of others?
Now I did say be prepared to answer questions so don't run.
Unlike you, I will take the initiative to make a purposeful debate, discussion, etc .
On top of this, if I were you , I would use all this opportunity to find scripture where it says as written God is a person.
So far you've yet to demonstrate that but you have several more rounds across all these separate sessions to edify us with something.
I don’t see the relevance of these questions to the debate, but I’ll answer them anyway. Geesh.
What is the point of repeating the same points on the same subject with the same individual you're debating in each debate session?
What do you mean?
If you're going to just echo everything, why opt to participate in the same topic with the same person if you're not going to say anything different?
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Do you have bloodlust so to speak, meaning hungry for debate points?
Of course not.
Is this a sport to you or do you actually seek edification and the edification of others?
Edification obviously!
On top of this, if I were you , I would use all this opportunity to find scripture where it says as written God is a person.
But I already did.
Round 3
Very simple questions and I'm asked what do I mean.
Ok, provide scripture that we can read the Father , God is a a person.
You either provide it or concede that you can't and painfully forfeit.
I already provided the scripture.
Round 4
(In the voice of Gino Jennings) LLLLLIARRRR!!!
You see folks I just asked for the scripture.
The individual says "I already provided it".
If you did, provide it again. Don't be afraid to be caught in error.
What you provided are your thoughts and interpretations on some scriptures.
A scripture that says God fills heaven and earth doesn't read God is a person.
Without playing dumb, the word "person" is a different word from the word "heaven" or "fills" or "earth".
A scripture saying made in the image of God are a different set of words from "God is a person".
It doesn't even come close to meaning God is a person.
The problem comes in the form of a question. How can something be an image of something invisible?
An image is something visible so to say it mirrors what it isn't would be a lie on what invisibility is.
Then to say "oh it must mean God is visible". But that's somebody's thought, assumption and reading that thought into text as the text itself doesn't say that .
It doesn't say God is visible, doesn't say God is a person. This is what happens coming up with your own ideas upon reading something. Then blame contradictions on the text. Blame your faulty understanding.
Then I noticed my counter points weren't countered. What I'm getting is a "I said what I said so there it is".
There's not much the opposing side can say and counter with by displaying their lack of rightfully dividing scripture.
Then they elect three times to waste the opportunity in actually finding a scripture that reads "God is a person".
So the moral is, perhaps to do the research first and be sure before going through all of this let alone three times.
*Sigh*
Extend.
You guys are really that blind as "sheeple" people believing invisibility and visibility is the same. That's what you're agreeing to saying the Spirit and a person human being is one in the same . Really.
Do not add unto his words less you be found a liar . Which many of you no doubt are from these biblical topics.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: see voting tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to a specific argument provided by Pro in the debate, says it's never addressed, and votes on it. Considering that Con apparently doesn't make any arguments against this, nor does he make any independent points, the vote satisfies the standards. I'll note as well that when there are three debates that are virtually identical to one another, copy-pasting the same RFD is not grounds for removal.
**************************************************