Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4405
The Bible clearly indicates that Jesus Christ is God
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1442
rating
22
debates
34.09%
won
Description
none needed
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you to my opponent who accepted my challenge, this is my first debate and I am glad to be able to get this conversation underway.
I would immediately wish to ask my opponent what his beliefs are.
Now, I would like to immediately take the offensive and start off by giving out some verses
John 14:6-7
Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Mark 14:62
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
This verse is the most convincing and powerful since God refers to himself as I AM in the old testament (Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM")
John 5:23 Christ proclaims
"so that all may honour the Son, just as they honour that Father"
This shows that Jesus places himself on the same pedestal as God, no prophet or messiah would do that for they know that God is and always will be their superior.
Mathew 10:1-8
Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
If Jesus were not God why would he have the authority to give his disciples the powers to heal others, resurrect others and drive out demons?
There are numerous more examples and questions I could pose but I would prefer if I kept them for later. :)
Con
#2
Hello Fostok.
Nice to see a new name, hope you stay around for a while.
My Beliefs:
My approach is to say that I do not believe in anything.
One either knows, assumes or hopes.
Belief implies the uncertainty of assumption and hope.
So, to the point:
The Bible clearly indicates that Jesus Christ is God.
Two words grabbed my attention here.
Clearly indicates.
Now, as I see it the Bible is two things rolled into one:
1. A self contained text incorporating a collection of folk tales relating to real characters and places, embellished with fantasy. In short, a Middle Eastern Mythology.
2. A hypothetical study regarding universal creation and the meaning of life, from the point of view of people who understood far less than we do today.
So, from the point of view of a 21st century human atheist being, neither facet of the Bible indicates anything clearly. That is to say, we are no closer to understanding the truth of everything.
Of course, regarded simply as a myth we are free to interpret biblical text how we so choose, within the fairly wide parameters set by the nature of its composition.
Even so, and with reference to my opponents five biblical excerpts. Nothing whatsoever contained within these verses clearly indicates that the character known as Jesus was actually the same entity regarded as God.
In fact John and Mark make clear references to two separate characters, Father and Son.
And with regard to Matthew's remarks:
Authoritative figures dictate, because it's the nature of social hierarchy.
Jesus's authority within his own small collective does not suggest that he was a GOD.
Disregarding the fantasy of the myth and applying logical 21st century thinking. Then it's still reasonable to assume that Jesus of the myth is representative of a fact.
The fact being that Jesus in reality would have been a charismatic human being of Middle Eastern origin.
And if we are prepared to attribute further credibility to biblical recollections, then we can also reasonably assume that Jesus was perhaps the son of a woman named Mary and perhaps the son of her unknown lover.
And even if we stretch our imaginations even further into the realms of fantasy and accept that Mary's lover was a GOD, we are still nonetheless left with a Father and son, two person relationship.
And let's be honest, the alternative and illogically bizarre interpretation of the tryst is somewhat perverse even by today's standards.
And that's also assuming that the age worn concept of a GOD or GODS can be proven to be anything more than a fantasy based creation/meaning of life hypothesis.
Certainly, relative to the proposition, nothing is clearly indicated to me, thus far.
Over to Fostok.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I ask, why did choose to debate if you most likely understood the point of my argument and wasn't for atheists/agnostics looking for an argument on the legitimacy of the Bible but rather for Muslims and nontrinitarian Christians.
And with regard to Matthew's remarks:Authoritative figures dictate, because it's the nature of social hierarchy.Jesus's authority within his own small collective does not suggest that he was a GOD.
Your comeback proves nothing. My point was that Jesus alone gave the 12 disciples abilities. There is no way a prophet could have done such. (It was essentially an argument against the Islamic belief that the Bible calls Christ a prophet and only so)
Even so, and with reference to my opponents five biblical excerpts. Nothing whatsoever contained within these verses clearly indicates that the character known as Jesus was actually the same entity regarded as God.
Is that really so? You say this but don't provide any backing to your arguments.
In fact John and Mark make clear references to two separate characters, Father and Son.
???
Certainly, relative to the proposition, nothing is clearly indicated to me, thus far.
Not a relevant argument.
Back to you if you want to either come up with new and relevant arguments or if you want to reply to mine in a better manner with actual backings.
Apologies for the length of time in which it has taken me to reply.
Back over to zedvictor4
Con
#4
1. I chose to debate because I understood the point of the argument (as presented without clarification). A debate which I also understood to be easily refutable.
2. My opponent made no attempt to clarify the purpose of their proposition, nor to indicate a preference for either a Muslim or Non-Trinitarian Christian opponent.
As the proposition stands, I would suggest that an atheist interpreting the Bible from a modern realistic perspective was always going to be the most likely candidate.
3.My "comeback" certainly proves nothing, just as my opponents evidence proved nothing.
I would contend, that proof of either fact or clear indication is impossible to extract from the ambiguity of biblical text. I would further contend that biblical interpretation is always likely to be relative to the interpreters religious or non-religious bias.
4. As stated previously, my opponent made no references to Islam.
5. Whether or not my argument needs "backing", really only depends upon how a judge will interpret the simplicity of the verses that my opponent provided.
And please note, that my opponent has not attempted to back up these verses with any explanation. As things stand, I see no need to further elaborate my initial responses.
6. Mark: I am Jesus, and you will see the son sitting next to the mighty one.
The act of sitting next to, requires two participants. This is a reasonable interpretation of the biblical extract that my opponent provided, and doesn't require further elaboration.
John: So that all may honour the son, just as they honour the father....Which is clearly indicative of two entities, namely father and son.
My opponent then goes on to clearly state: "This shows that Jesus places himself on the same pedestal as God"....Which is clearly indicative of two entities standing side by side.
7. "Nothing is clearly indicated to me, thus far."
This statement was not intended as an argument, but rather a conclusion derived from my assessment of the brief and ambiguous evidence that my opponent provided.
The burden of proof lies with my opponent, who must "Clearly indicate that Jesus Christ is God". If my opponent wishes for me to provide further "relevant" argument, then the onus must fall upon the instigator to provide "relevant" evidence for me to argue against.
Their evidence in Round 1 has been easily refuted, simply by providing a literal interpretation of the texts provide. So for me to argue further, it would therefore be necessary for my opponent to provide further evidence in Round 2.....Which they have not done.
Fostok.
Take as much time as is necessary.
Round 3
Pro
#5
It is nice to see that you like to act like you did not understand the point of my argument.
If my argument was on the whole subject of the Bible's truth then I wouldn't have just used verses that just prove Christ is God according to the Bible. I (and any other person with over 4 brain cells) would have used arguments relating to cosmology and other sciences.
Lets at least take a look at your refutes
my opponent has not attempted to back up these verses with any explanation(in reference to the verses I had given in the first round)
First of all, anybody who knows the Bible should understand the meaning behind the verses and anybody who doesn't shouldn't be debating about it.
Secondly, I provided an explanation on 3/5 verses I gave.
As stated previously, my opponent made no references to Islam
Anyone with a basic grasp of religion should understand why this discussion is targeted towards Muslims and nontrinitarian Christians.
Whether or not my argument needs "backing", really only depends upon how a judge will interpret the simplicity of the verses that my opponent provided.And please note, that my opponent has not attempted to back up these verses with any explanation. As things stand, I see no need to further elaborate my initial responses.
Lets break this one down a bit.
Whether or not my argument needs "backing", really only depends upon how a judge will interpret the simplicity of the verses that my opponent provided.
You basically said I was wrong in round 1 and nothing else. Don't believe me?
"Even so, and with reference to my opponents five biblical excerpts. Nothing whatsoever contained within these verses clearly indicates that the character known as Jesus was actually the same entity regarded as God." -you
They very clearly did and for most I provided backing as to why they were.
And please note, that my opponent has not attempted to back up these verses with any explanation. As things stand, I see no need to further elaborate my initial responses.
...
"Mathew 10:1-8
Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
If Jesus were not God why would he have the authority to give his disciples the powers to heal others, resurrect others and drive out demons?"
"John 5:23 Christ proclaims
"so that all may honour the Son, just as they honour that Father"
This shows that Jesus places himself on the same pedestal as God, no prophet or messiah would do that for they know that God is and always will be their superior."
"Mark 14:62
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
This verse is the most convincing and powerful since God refers to himself as I AM in the old testament (Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM")"
6. Mark: I am Jesus, and you will see the son sitting next to the mighty one.The act of sitting next to, requires two participants. This is a reasonable interpretation of the biblical extract that my opponent provided, and doesn't require further elaboration.John: So that all may honour the son, just as they honour the father....Which is clearly indicative of two entities, namely father and son.My opponent then goes on to clearly state: "This shows that Jesus places himself on the same pedestal as God"....Which is clearly indicative of two entities standing side by side.
Is this a joke?
Have you not heard of the trinity?
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit/Ghost?
My opponent then goes on to clearly state: "This shows that Jesus places himself on the same pedestal as God"....Which is clearly indicative of two entities standing side by side.
That was the point. If Christ sits besides the Father who is VERY CLEARLY God in the Bible, then does that not make Christ God since he is equal to the Father
The burden of proof lies with my opponent, who must "Clearly indicate that Jesus Christ is God". If my opponent wishes for me to provide further "relevant" argument, then the onus must fall upon the instigator to provide "relevant" evidence for me to argue against.
Lets clear something up
The burden of proof lies with my opponent, who must "Clearly indicate that Jesus Christ is God".
Lets rephrase this to be more accurate
The burden of proof lies with my opponent, who must "Clearly indicate that Jesus Christ is God IN THE BIBLE"
Their evidence in Round 1 has been easily refuted,
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
simply by providing a literal interpretation of the texts provide. So for me to argue further, it would therefore be necessary for my opponent to provide further evidence in Round 2.....Which they have not done.
We're barely arguing in the same argument.
Back to you if you want to actually refute the verses I had given and argue like how this argument was clearly meant to be argued.
Back to you :/
Con
#6
Hello Fostok
Round 3:
And nothing new or evidential from my opponent; so nothing new or evidential required from myself.
As it were, my simple refutations were adequate in relation to both the proposition as presented and the simple verses, as presented.
And as it were, my meagre but ample brain cells were more than able to cope the simplicity of this debate, as presented.
My opponent had the opportunity to prepare and present this debate differently and more precisely, relative to their personal requirements; but they chose not to.
My advice to my opponent would be; in future utilise the introductory section labelled "Description" thoroughly; but in this instance they chose not to.
So short of using my 4 braincells to read my opponents mind, I assumed that as my opponent clearly stated that a description was "not needed", then they actually meant that a description was not needed.
As things stand in the absence of further clarification, "the bible clearly indicates that Jesus Christ is God" proposes exactly what it says.
And as we are constantly reminded by the trinity; meaning a group of three people or things.
The Bible therefore clearly indicates a Father and his Son and the power of the Father.....Three different things.
Otherwise it would have been referred to as the UNITY....One thing.
Simple under the circumstances.
Regards to Fostok, despite their annoyance bubbling over into an unnecessary but nonetheless unperplexing insult.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
1. So it's reasonable to assume that Jesus was a real character.
2. GOD concept is a reasonable hypothesis.
3. Therefore the power of the GOD concept is a relatively reasonable.
I came back to this site and I realize that in your last argument you said that “ The Bible therefore clearly indicates a Father and his Son and the power of the Father.....Three different things.
Otherwise it would have been referred to as the UNITY....One thing.” you realize what the word Trinity means right?
Never refuted my arguments. I see why you have only 35% wins lmao