The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God. He coexisted eternally with the Father, but at the same time Jesus and His father are both the same God. They both are the same God, but yet two different persons with two different roles in the Godhead. They are the same in nature, essence, and being.
Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about whether or not God exists, or about how God can be two seperate persons and still one God. This is a debate about what the Bible teaches. Although I will explain the doctrine of the Trinity and how it could be logically possible if necessary.
The Word became flesh
Revelation 22:8-9 - Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”
1 Peter 2:22 - “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
People interpret the bible, but it does not actually teach. This is why hate groups such as Westboro Baptist Church can read the same bible as U2, but decide on polar opposite morals are contained within. Some even interpret the bible as predicting the messiah Donald Trump.
Using Math books as an example, they teach that 2+2=4, and learning that lesson from them is not one of many interpretations of the information, it is what is taught.
In fact, no other group has studied the bible for as long as the Jews. Increased time with any potential lessons within, lead to the conclusion that Jesus is not God nor even messiah.
Early Christians did not even believe Jesus was God, they started that line basically to mock Romans who insisted their emperor was God.
II. Different Behaviors
To my understanding of the description of this debate, the holy trinity itself is off limits. This removes any time they/he talked to themselves/himself to negate, but likewise removes the directly contradictory behaviors as distinct aspects of a singular entity as a defense.
To use an analogy, even were they in the bible, Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer are not God because they behaved differently than God. If Jesus likewise behaved differently than God, the bible has shown him to be a different entity from God.
This is a Modus Tollens refutation of pro's case:
P1: If the bible teaches that Jesus is God (X), THEN it must teach that Jesus and God exhibit matching behavior (Y).
P2: The bible does NOT teach that Jesus and God exhibit matching behavior (Y).
C1: Therefore, the bible does NOT teach that Jesus is God.
So quick Q&A (I could name a dozen, but that would be a Gish Gallop):
1. How many times does Jesus mind control someone into an action, to use an excuse to murder innocent children? God did this (Exodus 9:12).
2. How many times does Jesus set innocent people on fire over nothing related to any of their actions? God did this (Job 1:16).
3. How many times does Jesus prank his followers by ordering any of them to kill all their children? God did this (Genesis 22:2).
If the bible fails to show Jesus doing these atrocities (or like behaviors), Jesus is clearly depicted as not being (to quote pro) of “the same in nature, essence, and being” as God.
III. Refutations
While my above arguments should be enough, I’ll also address pro’s points.
“The Word became flesh”
Obviously this makes no mention of Jesus, and is so open to interpretation that some believe it indicates Donald Trump (repeated source).
“Jesus being worshipped”
People give gifts to children all the time, it does not indicate that the children are God. It does not even indicate that the people think the children are God. Even by definition worship (Merriam-Webster: “to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion”) does not imply godliness, God could even worship people without them being so much as godly.
Sadly, I need to give a quick grammar lesson here. “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.” Jesus commanded people to worship God, comma, and that they shall also serve God. Worship and service are clearly separate ideas. Further were Jesus also God, why would he speak of himself as a third person? Clearly the bible does not teach that they are the same entity, or else this and others would have been corrected in one of the many edits.
3. Refutations
Clearly it is talking about Jesus.
First and the last.
Isaiah 44:6(Old Testament) - “Thus 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.
Everything was created through Jesus.
Isaiah 44:24(Old Testament) - Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;John 1:3 - All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Acts 20:28 - Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Jesus being called God.
Isaiah 9:6(Old Testament) - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Colossians 2:9 - For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
Hebrews 1:8-9 - But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
early Christians did not believe Jesus was God has been wholly dropped
There is other proof early Christians believed Jesus was God as well.
Are you implying that no matter what interpretation someone has it will never match the authors original thoughts, intent, or purpose? If so, How could you possibly know this?
Because the book in question is not doing the teaching, people with agendas are.
Assuming you are not being bias when using the phrase "people with agendas." This logic makes no sense because the people that is doing the teaching learned it from the book itself. By this logic no one is taught anything from a book and whenever someone reads a book, if they speak about what it says it's just a interpretation and we can't actually know what the author originally intended for it to mean.
All I did was use straight Bible verses with some explanation.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Don't say this isn't referring to Jesus because I clearly showed you context in the last round.)
Hebrews 1:8-11 - But to the Son He says:“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Matthew 28:20 - teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen
1 Peter 2:22 - “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;Hebrews 4:15 - For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
It wouldn't if they read context. The practice of hermeneutics would come in handy for this. people need to practice exegesis and not eisegesis.
I see what you mean here. I accept this refute, but take note that Jesus and the Father are both one God. Also you didn't refute my second argument after this.
Like I said in the last round, "Also I want to point out that normally you don’t want to look up modern English definitions when interpreting the New Testament. You want to use a Greek Lexicon."
This makes me think once again that my opponent doesn't understand the Trinity.
Note that pro has given no analysis within his “More Arguments,”
Did you want me to copy and paste the entire chapters or something so I could show you the context that it is talking about Jesus? I already showed the context of John 1:1 is talking about Jesus. That alone should prove it. Instead of saying that I am not giving analysis or not using context, tell me why they are out of context?
is merely copy/pasted spam lines of the bible without context from a website (one to which he did not even give credit).
What? I used Bible verses. All I did was use Bible verses and put a title over them. I guess I give credit to the Bible?
Men and women are equal, it does not make them the same.
I guess I am going to have to point out the context again.
It's one thing to say men and woman are equal. It's different to claim that you are equal with God the creator of everything that isn't human and higher in everyway than us. Also the Jews knew exactly what he was talking about because they said, "The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” He was claiming to be God. They knew exactly what He was claiming.
Once again you don't seem to understand the Trinity.
Once again putting words in my mouth that I never said. I didn't dismiss the books, and I never said I disliked the books. All I said was you are completely missing the point of those stories and were actually misleading about what God did. You were using words such as "murder" "mind control." when it wasn't that. So I didn't address those because it was irrelevant to the debate.
Actually you are wrong. The Trinity is all over the Old Testament as well.
Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
There is a guy named Mike Winger who has a YouTube channel. He has an entire videos series about how Jesus is all over the Old Testament. So far he has like 22 videos and each are like 1 hour apiece because there is so much of Jesus in the Old Testament.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” – John 1:1, NIV
So quick Q&A (I could name a dozen, but that would be a Gish Gallop):1. How many times does Jesus mind control someone into an action, to use an excuse to murder innocent children? God did this (Exodus 9:12).2. How many times does Jesus set innocent people on fire over nothing related to any of their actions? God did this (Job 1:16).3. How many times does Jesus prank his followers by ordering any of them to kill all their children? God did this (Genesis 22:2).If the bible fails to show Jesus doing these atrocities (or like behaviors), Jesus is clearly depicted as not being (to quote pro) of “the same in nature, essence, and being” as God.
“One of my earlier sources already addressed the book of John, namely that superior books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contradict it.” -R2, calling back to R1, now used again in R3.
Sin in this context means violation of the Torah Law. According to Christianity, Jesus was born under the Torah Law and thus must have kept that perfectly. With that, let’s begin by listing the sins of Jesus.Sin 1: Causing DamagesThe Gospel of Matthew records this interesting passage:"Not far away there was a large herd of pigs feeding. 31 So the demons begged Jesus, "If you are going to drive us out, send us into that herd of pigs." 32 "Go," Jesus told them; so they left and went off into the pigs. The whole herd rushed down the side of the cliff into the lake and was drowned. 33 The men who had been taking care of the pigs ran away and went into the town, where they told the whole story and what had happened to the men with the demons." Matthew 8:30-33.The pigs were the livelihood of the person who owned them. This certainly caused extreme emotional and financial damage to them.Sh'mot / Exodus 21:37 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.”Jesus left town and failed to repay the damage done to the property owner. If Jesus is an all-powerful deity, surely he can cast out demons without causing financial loss.Sin 2: LyingJesus lied to the Jewish court. Here’s the text in question:John 18:20, "I spoke openly to the world, I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing.”But this statement is false. Jesus purposefully veiled his teachings and taught in parables to prevent people from repenting from their sins:Mark 4:11-12 “He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.”This text is especially problematic. The entire goal for Jesus is to “save the sins of the world,” yet he did this to prevent people from being forgiven!
Alright, I think I am starting to understand my opponent. I didn't realize he wanted to know my source where I got my Bible verses. The reason I didn't source them is because I didn't realize not sourcing them would be a problem. Since Biblegateway didn't write the Bible I didn't feel like it was necessary to specifically say what website I got the verses from.The verses I spammed in "4. More arguments" in round 2. All those verses I used were from the NKJV of the Bible. I copied and pasted the verses themselves, but I didn't copy someone else's interpretation of them. The titles I put above the verses were my doing, and the bolding to use emphasis was my doing as well.
not only does it not end that way, but“Jesus” is not in it.
The reason I said that I clearly showed the context in the last round. Is because I believe I did. I will show why again.
I think it's clear it's talking about Jesus here.It is saying "the Word was God" Then "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"
If you talking about the part about Jesus possessing divine names. I actually did put the source right after because I directly copied and pasted that. If it's the part about Jesus possessing the same attributes as God. I admit I used answers in Genesis for help with that as well. I didn't source that time and that was my fault. Sometimes I didn't feel like it was necessary to source, but I understand now you want me to source everything. Even including the Bible itself.
Bible verse Source, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philipians+2%3A5-6%2C+Colossians+2%3A9%2C+Romans+9%3A5&version=NKJV "Bold Emphasis added"
Paul is saying Jesus didn't consider it robbery to be equal with God, and in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Paul even literally called Him God in Romans 9:5.
merely complained that he does not like that it refutes him.
Could you please point out where I complained that it refuted me, because I don't ever remember complaining that it refuted me.
I actually learned Jesus was God from the Bible. You make it seem like no one who teaches Jesus is God has even read the Bible. All my verses that I have already pointed out I think makes it clear that it is teaching Jesus is God.
I didn't say God reaches down and decides what someone learns. I said you cannot understand his book properly without his help. If this is true then anyone other than a Christian is untrustworthy to teach the Bible.
This also shows that the bible does not get a chance to teach that message.
You are making an assumption that just because most claim to be Christian and few actually read there Bible that none can get taught from the Bible that Jesus is God. What about the few actual Christians that do read there Bibles all the time and study them and believe Jesus is God from what they read?
This is purely an off-topic Ad Hominem attack.
I wasn't trying to use an Ad Hominem attack. It's just somethings you were saying confuses me since you went to a Catholic University. Sorry if you thought I was using that against you.
To me this argument still doesn't make any sense. Even if they didn't do the exact same things that does not disprove He is God. It could possibly disprove He was God if there was nothing else showing Him to be God in the Bible, but there is so much other context, prophesy, foreshadows, christophanies, and verses. That show Him to be God. Which I have pointed out a lot so far.
I am going to use a source that I have already used in this same round because I think it is so important. "Why You Don't Let Bart Ehrman Interpret the Bible for You" Also I don't know of any of the other gospels that contradict Jesus being God. Please give me some verses and reasons why they contradict that Jesus is God in John.
Another Ad Hominem attack
I can't defend my position for the Trinity if you are not understanding the Trinity, because if you don't have an understanding of the Trinity. That will affect how you understand my responses, and it will affect the responses you give me.
I want the audience to notice that my opponent is warping what I am saying. He is basically putting words in my mouth and trying to make it sound worse than what I actually said. Throughout this debate he has done this. Please pay attention to that. Regardless of if you agree with me or not, please don't let him warping my words and putting words in my mouth affect how you vote against me.
They don't disagree on what generally happened. They just have different perspectives. It would be less convincing if they all said exactly the same thing. As much as you hate plagiarizing you would never believe it. Please read what a contradiction really is.
Now I want to use some of the Bible verses I have already used since you did not refute them.
And there is no God besides Me."
Last thing before round 4
That he has been editing the bible to say whatever he wants it to, has been wholly dropped.
“I didn't copy someone else's interpretation of them.”
This is verifiably untrue, as my opponent is confirmed to have copy/pasted no less than 28 lines from Dr. Rhodes (and more from another author I did not identify but he admitted), but only gave credit for the “Jesus is Theos” paragraph. Unless Dr. Rhodes is yet another name for God (which are not to be confused with names for Jesus), this is literally “someone else’s interpretation of them.”
“Could you point out where I refused to use quotation marks”?
R1, R2, and R3, roughly half the content. I have already given multiple samples of how to give credit, surround text with quotation marks, and/or use indents where warranted. I am not going to feed this latest Gish Gallop tactic by subjecting the audience to re-reading every line of pro’s spam.
I. The Bible Teaches Nothing, It Is Interpreted
“In your source...”
My opponent has chosen to wait literally three rounds to respond to a source (beyond his earlier mistaking it for Dan Brown, of whom it makes zero mention), likely in hopes that the audience will forget the context of the source. To quote myself:
“Early Christians did not even believe Jesus was God, they started that line basically to mock Romans who insisted their emperor was God.”
Another 1 hour 43 minutes, to add to the 22+ hours he previously asked the audience to watch to be able to understand his case. Without these outside videos, people would not be able to understand what those guys want us to think the bible teaches, because the bible does not teach those things in and of itself. Ironically, one of those videos is even against letting people interpret the bible for you!
R3 under the heading “Because the book in question is not doing the teaching, people with agendas are.” This paragraph was complaining about the scientific information without refuting it; unless pro was serious when he claimed Christianity sprang into existence only last generation (“the people that is doing the teaching learned it from the book itself.”), which I took to be a simple typo to be forgiven without comment.
News stories for verification of this claim? It’s a pretty big one; someone spontaneously becoming Christian in isolation, having not been told Jesus is God (at least not by any figure of authority) before opening the bible. If true, you’re probably in at least a couple scientific journals.
More complaining about scientific information, without refuting it… To be clear, they form that belief before they read the bible, thus are not taught it by the bible.
Voters, please forgive him this typo in misattributed quotes. Those are his own words not mine, even if that simplification touches on part of my case.
The law as seen in Exodus:
“...take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” -Exodus 21:23-25, NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” -Matthew 5:38-40, NIV
My opponent again concedes: “I said you cannot understand his book properly without his help.” This means the book fails to teach. Were the debate that God teaches, he would have a great point, as I explained last round.
II. Different Behaviors
If the bible fails to show Jesus doing these atrocities
Pro asserts some terrible math (1+1=1) in an attempt to dismiss how blatantly their natures and essences differ. It is not about if “they didn't do the exact same things,” it’s about like-behavioral trends. Pro is accusing Jesus of being guilty of every crime committed by God, but cannot find any fault committed by Jesus to suggest he’s the type to execute such horrible misdeeds.
Using math as additional support: We know God is addicted to killing large numbers of people. Looking at only the wholesale slaughters, the estimated total from just the old testament is 20.3 million (20,329,070, again this is excluding various individual killings). At least according to biblical literalists, the bible apparently says the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. To be charitable, we’ll leave that figure alone instead of subtracting years after the old testament.
Their specific exclusion from saying something that would have been so fundamentally important is the evidence, it'd be about like if Columbus refused to mention land in his reports about the Americas. But for an example, Matthew specifically says that Jesus is the genetic son of Joseph (being of that paternal line was required for him to be eligible to be the messiah):
“This is the genealogy a of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham… [39 lines omitted] ...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.” -Matthew 1:1-16, NIV
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” -Genesis 1:1, NIV
Regarding the pigs: The act of destroying someone else's property is a sin, even if later made right, the sin has still been committed. That we have have a record of him incurring the massive debt but and none of him paying, marks an additional sin. If the bible wanted to teach that he was without sin, it could have had him pre-pay for the pigs, but it did not.
They sinners of different categories and magnitudes. The most well known biblical rule is to not murder people, of which need I remind the audience what God did to the Egyption children? For Jesus to be God, Jesus would need to at least be a sinner of the same category.
III. Refutations
“warping what I am saying”
This was his defense to criticism for trying to get the audience to watch 22+ hours of videos… To be a broken record, if the bible was teaching these things, the videos trying to teach that the bible teaches these things would not be necessary. Again, his burden is to prove that the bible teaches those things, not that some people interpret it as teaching those things.
IV. Gish Gallop
As for the biblical quotes pro Gish Galloped…
- Revelation 1:4-8
This specifically refers to God and Jesus as separate, even speaking separately, implying Jesus is a servant and not the same as God whom speaks.
“even those who pierced Him” marks a time limit if Jesus Christ from the rest of the bible is the one in question, because these events must happen before the last Roman from his execution has died; or else wait for a different messiah to be pierced fatally.
Plus it calls Jesus Christ “who is the faithful witness,” which as we know the Jesus seen earlier is a liar, so on multiple accounts it is a different person being called Jesus; possibly due to a translation error and/or the commonality of the name Jesus (Christ was not his last name, it was a title which can be bestowed). - Revelation 1:5
Proof of pro intentionally making his Gish Galloping worse, is that he then repeats what is already contained within 1:4-8. So see my above response. - Revelation 1:17-18
This removes the context that the author was hallucinating (something John openly admits), taken from Revelation 1:16, “In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.” If Jesus looked like that, Matthew or another would have said something about it, like that time he got slapped instead of the guy running away in fear at the sword sticking out his mouth. His appearance was actually specified in Hebrews 7:14 as being quite normal and human. - Acts 20:28
First this is talking about blood offerings to God. It even speaks of animal sacrifices (lambs), which does not mean the bible is teaching that God is a Lamb… The passage goes on to explain the danger of wolves, and the need to use violence to pay in blood for safety. This does not mean Jesus is God and will come kill the wolves, it never even calls Jesus one with God. - 1 Peter 1:18-19
Jesus having blood does not make him God, any more than animal cruelty make the animals God.
Pro is again editing the words of the bible, claiming Acts says “He was God” which is fundamentally untrue, he even showed a translation of it that is absent that phrase. The actual wording can be verified as:
“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, a which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.” -Acts 20:28-29, NIV
Self refuting
I want to resay something I said in round 4.
My opponent was misrepresenting God and the Bible throughout this debate.
To say Jesus sinned you will have to make assumptions, add to the text, and twist the text around and make it say that. There is nothing straightforward that says Jesus to be a sinner. Matter of fact it's the opposite. Like I pointed out in round 1 and 3.
1 Peter 2:22 - “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
if the bible was teaching these things, the videos trying to teach that the bible teaches these things would not be necessary.
I guess I can agree with this. The only problem is that a video actually showing you would be more convenient, and it would take less time and effort to learn.
This is putting me in an unfair no-win or lose-lose situation.
Hebrews 1:8-11 - But to the Son He says:“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Matthew 28:20 - teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Titus 2:13 - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Sources, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+9%3A6%2C+John+20%3A28%2C+Colossians+2%3A9%2C+Matthew+1%3A23%2C+2+peter+11%2C+Romans+9%3A5&version=NASB
I want to thank my opponent for debating with me. I really enjoyed it, and maybe sometime we will have another debate about something. He gave me an interesting challenge and some new things to study and think of, and I really appreciate it.
- A review of the Resolution (written before reading pro’s closing arguments)
- My Education (a skippable review of the Ad Hominem attacks)
- Plagiarism (continued from previous rounds)
- Interpretations (continued from previous rounds)
- Different Behaviors (continued from previous rounds)
- Refutations (continued from previous rounds)
- Gish Gallop (continued from previous rounds)
- Voting Suggestions
- Source List
“Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child,Like infants who never saw light?There the wicked cease from troubling,And there the weary are at rest.”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Don't say this isn't referring to Jesus because I clearly showed you context in the last round.)”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (If you have doubt that this is talking about Jesus. Relook at the context I provided in round 2 and 4)”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.”
- “Eternal” I have previously covered the 28 year lifespan of Jesus, and with this unchallenged he is not eternal.
- “self existent” I have previously shown that Jesus is the genetic son of Joseph and Mary, and with this unchallenged he cannot be said to exist without another cause, as he was directly caused by his parents having sex.
- “Omnipresent” nonsense, he never could have escaped the pig debt if he was stuck always there; nor would he have needed to travel and arrive by boat and other means.
- “He created everything the earth and heavens” I’ve already covered that God did that in Genesis, thousands of years before Jesus’ father Joseph was born.
- “He had power over diseases, demonic spirits, and nature.” This is actually true, but fails to prove the conclusion intended. Antibiotics cure more diseases than Jesus ever did, yet the church has replaced statues of Jesus with statues of pill bottles. Plus this again opposes God who inflicts diseases, as was seen with Job and the innocent Egyptians.
- “He even raised someone from the dead.” An action God has not been shown to do once. God kills, Jesus unkills; a case could be made that they are competing divine beings opposing each other, but such has not been done by pro, he is trying to use how different they are as proof they’re the same.
- https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/one-bible-many-interpretations/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
- https://www.u2.com/news/article/1060/
- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-christ-billboard-st-louis/
- https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/
- https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
- http://southpark.cc.com/clips/411550/its-raining-frogs
- http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104224/the-book-of-job
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship
Pro did challenge this one, that it meant the same thing... - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248892/Connecticut-shooting-Westboro-Baptist-Church-plans-praise-gathering-outside-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-school.html
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/4621936?seq=1&socuuid=effeaf08-0600-4089-b0c4-f4db275626c7&socplat=email#page_scan_tab_contents
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
- https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_WordCount.htm
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Plagiarism
- https://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm
- https://biblehub.com/niv/john/1.htm
- https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-god/
One of pro’s plagiarized sources (he admitted there were more). - https://lifewayresearch.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/
- https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/842
- https://www.debateart.com/participants/Virtuoso
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/in-and-of-itself
Apologies for switching dictionaries, the phrase was not in Merriam-Webster. - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
- https://biblehub.com/niv/exodus/21.htm
- https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people#Perspectives
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
- https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/when-was-jesus-born-and-when-did-he-die/
- https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/1.htm
- https://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/1.htm
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Blaming_the_victim
- http://southpark.cc.com/clips/411551/our-love-grows
- https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/hero-doctor-not-like-jesus/
- https://biblehub.com/hebrews/7-14.htm
- https://biblehub.com/niv/acts/20.htm
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
The strength of your interest in me (some random dude online) is unhealthy and quite frankly disturbing.
When someone explains to you why they don't want to be your friend, you complain they're wrong to not want to be your friend and that it's trying to "shut down the dialogue as a way of avoidance and it is a vicious attack." That is exactly what you just did to me. Then you followed this up by tagging me in random single word posts as a desperate plea for yet more attention. This is all just after admitting you tried to trick the system into thinking I had unblocked you so that you could tag me in page after page of unprompted drivel.
For these reasons, I am telling you to cease and desist, and am blocking you again.
Test
Thus, if the Preterist Christian position is true, the Jews have not recognized their Messiah.
Remember, it was you who said: "For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I disagree with this statement. I believe it is blatantly false. I am willing to put my position against yours as more reasonable. What "those things" boils down to is the OT teaching on the Messiah - prophecy and its fulfillment.
You made the statement. I disagree with its truth claim, not believing it was a true estimation of all Christians. Thus, I challenge you, not someone else.
And, if as you say, I am an antisemite, why would I spend a week out of my life, in the 1980s, working with Jews For Jesus in reaching the Jews with the gospel if I was an antisemite? As a Christian, I am taught in Scripture to love and forgive others as I have been loved and forgiven. People label me with charges that are not true. Buzz words like antisemite, racist, misogynist, are thrown around to incite hatred and anti feelings way too often. It is a way to poison the well or shut down the dialogue as a way of avoidance and it is a vicious attack.
***
You originally blocked me. I went on your profile, saw the padlock symbol, and was curious if it unblocked. So I clicked on it not realizing it blocked you. I have intentionally blocked only one person in my years online and that was because of vulgar language that I did not want to read.
***
I do not preach antisemitism. This is another ad hominem. against my character. I am reiterating biblical teaching. I can logically show you NT Scripture after verse that shows many Jews during the time of Jesus rejected Him and His teaching. Why would I be against Israel or the Jews when Jesus, in His incarnation, was a Jew?
John 1:11 (NASB)
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
He came in judgment of an Old Covenant people, Old Covenant Israel (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A1-12&version=NASB).
Luke 3:4-12
4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.
5 ‘Every ravine will be filled,
And every mountain and hill will be brought low;
The crooked will become straight,
And the rough roads smooth;
6 And all flesh will see the salvation of God.’”
7 So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 9 Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Logically, if many in Israel during Jesus' ministry did not receive Him, did not recognize Him, then many today would believe the same thing since they would still be looking for their Messiah to come.
I see you've now unblocked me, well over a month after I brought it to your attention that you prevented me from tagging you in replies, only for you to tag me in a bunch for attention... As for the friend request, I am not friends with misogynists (for evidence, see your debate arguments based on the assumption that women are not people).
I'm willing to debate with you if Jesus rebuilt the temple. I am not willing to have a debate as a platform for you to preach antisemitism (which broadly calling all Jews irrational for not being Christians would be). But you can create an open challenge, and I'm sure someone will accept.
As for accusing you of word salad, bare in mind you just did five whole posts to reply to a concise three lines of text from me... The choice of calling you that was due to your four post explaining that you think buildings being rebuilt would not imply any physical structures but something akin to someone imagining it really hard.
Proposal for Debate:
"It is Reasonable to Believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah"
The guidelines for this debate will be the Old and New Testament support (or lack of) for the belief, plus what can reasonably be gleaned from the history of the times.
This would be based on your statement in Post 46 in the comment section in which you stated:
"Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I happen to be one of those Christians who disagrees with that last statement (i.e., every Christian knows, He did not). By "those things" I take them to be the OT writings and the prophecies concerning the Messiah.
That was in response to Post #57
Here is what I should have said to make it clearer:
"Again, you have charged a person with a fallacy many times in your debates without providing sufficient evidence (a constant theme).
Do you believe I am schizophrenic, brain-damaged, in a pathological condition, or believe I am about to have a stroke? It is a serious charge.
What I stated on the temple is not only my views. Many others have similar views on the subject."
Correction: "What I stated (regarding the temple) is not only my views."
You said: "As best I can understand, you want to prove the temple was rebuilt by unstated non-physical standards; if so open the debate with the description detailing what criteria for proof you'll use."
***
What I stated is what I believe the NT teaches on the final temple. I gave reasons (i.e., NT Scripture) for a spiritual rather than physical fulfillment of the final temple. I gave reasons for this thinking in comparing many physical things to the spiritual fulfillment as noted many times in the NT.
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:1-2 states, "1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."
The fathers (ancestors) through the prophets are the OT writings.
"These last days" were the time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Furthermore, the sayings attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18, "17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" cannot happen after AD 70.
After AD 70 the Jews cannot live up to the covenant as stated and agreed to (Exodus 24:3, 7). Thus, they cannot make atonement for sin in the prescribed manner of the Law, through animal sacrifice. The Levitical Priesthood is no longer able to do this since it no longer exists in the prescribed manner (hence, Rabbinicalism). The temple/tabernacle no longer stands. The curses of the covenant, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28 have taken place.
The NT is a constant warning of soon, coming judgments. Not one NT canonical writing has a mention of an already fallen temple. For this reason and many others, it is reasonable to believe every NT gospel of epistle was written before AD 70, before judgment.
"Word salad is a term applied to rants that completely fly off the rails of normal grammar and meaning.
Word salad (schizophasiaWikipedia's W.svg) can be a sign of schizophrenia, brain damage or other pathological conditions.
Keep in mind that if an otherwise coherent person suddenly starts speaking word salad, it could be a sign of an impending stroke."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad
***
Again, you have charged a person with a fallacy many times in your debates without providing sufficient evidence (a constant theme). What I stated is not only my views. Many others have similar views on the subject. Do you believe I am schizophrenic, brain-damaged, in a pathological condition, or believe I am about to have a stroke? It is a serious charge.
What, in particular, of my response are you terming word salad?
***
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1])..., typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Association with insults
It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Thanks for the fine example of word salad (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad).
As best I can understand, you want to prove the temple was rebuilt by unstated non-physical standards; if so open the debate with the description detailing what criteria for proof you'll use.
So, the challenge I made in post # 50 stands. I would be glad to debate you on that topic. I believe Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. I still believe my biblical viewpoint makes sense of the whole Bible, both Testaments. I don't believe Dispensationalism or Futurism does. I believe the history available to us supports Scripture and the Preterist view is more reasonable than other views which have more inconsistencies to them. I believe the Jews back then and the Jews today do not recognize the Messiah because He did not fit their preconceived beliefs yet they do the Scriptures.
If you are interested, I will set up the debate which will be initiated in the first week of September after my brother-in-law leaves. We can hash out exactly what to include, what the title will be, etc.
continue,
a spiritual sacrifice, the Second Adam, the Second Moses, the Second Exodus, the spiritual temple, the greater sacrifice that the old sacrificial system was pointing to but could never take away sin, just cover it until Jesus, the new land, the heavenly country, not of this earth, and so on and on.
Ragnar:
"The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer")."
There are five heavy focuses, perhaps more, that I identify off the top of my head; the Messiah, judgment on Israel, repentance and redemption, the fulfillment of OT prophecy, the coming kingdom. Actually, I will add another that ties in with fulfilled prophecy, the greater truth of the spiritual realm which is intertwined and foreshadowed by the physical realm. Thus you have a physical realm (this world of the people), a physical people (Israel) that God makes a physical blood covenant with, a physical country (the land of Israel), a physical deliverer (Moses), a physical exodus (crossing the Red Sea), a physical sacrificial system (animal sacrifices), a physical priesthood (Levitical priesthood), and comparison after comparison between the two systems as laid out in the NT in fulfillment of the OT. So, in almost every OT page of Scripture, you have a typology of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah.
In the NT you have a spiritual coming kingdom (a spiritual realm), a spiritual people (the church of the living God/those born spiritually),
I'm not sure who you are speaking with. Are you referring to me blocking you, because I never did? If I have by mistake, I will find out how to fix it because I believe in free speech and would not do this by choice.
***
Regarding Jesus building the temple, the final temple, I contend, was a spiritual temple, not a physical one. Four examples:
Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
2 Corinthians 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Ephesians 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
This speaks of the church, the called-out believers, the final temple.
***
Since you did not expand on your link I will supply one without expanding on it too.
https://bibleprophecy.com/blog/2013/07/17/more-on-the-temple-and-the-return-to-the-garden-don-k-preston/
I'll never understand why people who block me keep tagging me in shit...
If I'm wrong about Jesus rebuilding the temple, please point to it on a map.
...
A quick reference for anyone curious about the basic messianic prophecies Jesus failed at (please note that anyone who thinks Joseph isn't his father, has already agreed he failed to be of the prophesied lineage): https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/messiah-the-criteria
You said: "For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not."
I very much believe He did live up to those prophecies and I believe the evidence is reasonable to the point that other views are inconsistent. Are you interested in a debate along this line? If so, we can narrow down the topic. It would have to be after my brother-in-law leaves since he is coming for a ten-day visit starting August 23rd.
just refering to scripture.
Would you mind clarify your point in relation to this debate?
There is a difference between personhood and being. They are one in being, purpose and desire. To do the will of the father. They are manifest in different ways to us. There has only and ever been 1 Elohim that is above all elohim, that is YHWH. Yushua has not yet fulfilled the earthly establishment of the kingdom, he has however obviously fulfilled the prophecies of him being in bethlehem and what not. Therefore he did do those things he was told to do and did them.
He indeed is recorded in history, but if you would like to know him personally you just have to seek him and keep seeking him and he will reveal himself to you.
So now that voting is closed, I'll share some of my honest opinions on this topic... Firstly the bible both teaches that, and teaches against it (it contradicts).
The old testament foretold the coming messiah, and outlined some of the things he would do. Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not.
The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer").
Jesus was of course a historical person, to which I don't actually care if he had superpowers. Who he was, what he did (not to mention how he did it), and finally what he inspired are the important things people discussing him should care about; as opposed things which have nothing to do with his personality such as if he the last son of Krypton.
Thank you so much for voting. This will be the last time I take on a debate even half this long.
I fully agree on my second area of contention being weak. It was meant primarily to be entertaining.
Conduct; whilst I may be able to overlook the Gish Gallop - which is significantly unfair and odious: con appeared to dial back some of his arguments to not do the same. What takes this over the edge for the conduct violation is lack of attribution and plagiarism. Con is not arguing against an AIG source and their position: and should not be tricked into doing some due to false attribution. Worse: such lack of attribution leaves the site open to claims of copyright infringement. Added together, imo this was poor conduct that was sufficiently unfair and unreasonable to warrant the penalty.
Conduct to con too
As his argument depends upon this; I feel its his burden to show this is true (com pointed out this argument was circular multiple times). These refutations mostly end up getting dropped by pro to be replaced by a whole swathe of new quotes.
The issue here, is that pros entire argument appears to be justifying his interpretation. Strongly doing so, still makes this interpretation. Pros argument boils down to a few precepts that he holds true (worship, the trinity, and a couple of others), but never fully justified these to be true.
As a result; there’s no real objective argument pro has that the bible teaches Jesus is God as opposed to some closely related divine being, or son.
Pro listed how he could know a book was talking about fish; but did not provide a similar thesis about how the bible unambiguously shows Jesus is God in the same way.
As a result of all these: arguments to con.
Sources:
The NPR source on the origins of Jesus being God was excellent, this basically explains the elevation of God, the way the bible has been interpreted, and lays open a pretty attack for pro to defend. This helps provided an excellent means to weight pros and cons interpretations, to come off on cons side. This substantially aids the warrant of his position.
Additionally, cons Donald Trump, and WBC sources help built up a picture of a bible that can be taken many different ways: this forced pro into a corner, and ended up drawing out the concession of the resolution.
Pros sources were mostly bible quotes and interpretive. There were no knockout sources that elevated his interpretation to the point where it was definitive.
As a result; sources to con.
This whole section is a bit of mess by pro. Pro needs to sit down and explain the differences in behaviours, why they’re okay, and why the underlying syllogism is invalid. Pro doesn’t do that; and really just states that cons logic is bad, with little in the way of justification. There was a lot of talk around the idea that Jesus is a sinners, and whether John should be believed that didn’t really appear to be fully relevant to the key part of this topic.
The main thing is that con states that if Jesus was God - they should behave as such: as he doesn’t, he isn’t. This core argument is unrefuted by pro who mostly danced around this point.
3.) more arguments
I agree with con that this is a Gish Gallop. Pro threw a wall of Biblical quotes. There was almost no context, simply bold parts - if pro is not willing to add an argument - I cannot accept this as a valid argument.
As a result; I’m not going to accept these points as counting towards pros arguments.
4.) What does the bible teach.
Con throughout has argued that the bible is interpreted. He’s explained passages can be used to justify that Donald Trump was predicted by the bible- early Christians did not beleive Jesus was God, and that interpretation is required at all levels.
Pro argues that interpretation is not needed (except where he conceded the resolution) by using the fish example.
In his examples, pro may salvage the debate by showing cleat and unambiguous examples that the bible claims Jesus is God specifically.
All pros examples fall short of one thing: stating Jesus is God.
Con argues that worship is not a big problem, and open to interpretation; as not necessarily being that Jesus was God and argues that the word made flesh could refer to others.
What appears to become clear is that pro requires us to understand and use trinity in order to understand why God is a different person than Jesus - but the same.
On this point, pro was very slippery in general. Pro didn’t really answer the issue with the interpretation of the bible; simply appealed to the possibility that the book could potentially teach something if it was largely unambiguous.
Pro concedes the point by claiming that Gods assistance is required to understand the Bible. Pro stated this is not about the existence or not ; but more important pro concedes his own implicit standard of ambiguity is not sufficient.
Con points out this concession several times and I concur. How can the bible teach that Jesus was God if the only way this conclusion can be drawn is if you need an additional external source to help.
>>>>this on its own concedes the debate resolution, and warrants arguments being given to con.<<<<
2.) different behaviours.
Cons argument is that Jesus exhibited different behaviours from God; and cites a number of examples with scriptural reference.
While I think this area was one of cons weakest - pros response didn’t make sense: I couldn’t make sense of his initial rebuttal logically. Pro doesn’t challenge the underlying syllogism at all. Pro argues that the premise is trying to justify must be rejected to assume the Bible doesn’t teach God.
Con points this out, and points out that pro is begging the question by saying that you can’t reject the trinity - the trinity is what pro is attempting to support. Con also points out that pro dismissed key parts of the Old Testament without providing any explanation to disprove it.
Pro goes on to basically state that con is completely wrong in his logic, but doesn’t appear to explain why or how this is the case: pro then appears to assert that Jesus is Part of a Trinitarian God - but doesn’t explain how this solves the issue con raised; and appears to also be circular.
1.) The bible doesn’t teach anything.
This is an excellent argument here; though a little kritiky: the bible doesn’t teach anything, it’s words are often interpreted.
Pros counter is basically that the words can’t be interpreted if they are largely unambiguous - or not plausibly ambiguous.
In terms of the resolution - if Jesus is not god and was invented, the bible could still teach it so, so I can’t really judge pros argument about early Christians though it’s an excellent point.
Con does a great job of explaining how interpretation can and is used extensively, and how the bible wouldn’t be teaching in this case: and points out that pro himself appears to be conceding the debate by indicating that study alone is not sufficient.
Pros response is slippery to say the least: that if it’s interpreted how does con know that the interpretation doesn’t match intent; he then straw mans pro by arguing that he’s claiming that no book could teach anything. Pro doubles down (I wrote that before I saw cons use of the same word) on his concession: by saying that we need God’s help to understand the bible.
If that forum is anything like the one on DDO (the website most of us fled from), it is full of posers who are offended by any real religious discussion even if that discussion is explicitly to praise God. I once posted a paper from school, on why (assuming God is loving) God cannot be all powerful due to respect for free will in his role as a parent... Were it in person, I would have been stoned to death for sacrilege.
Neatly I used to be Christian, but scam artists at church got me one too many times. I still sometimes debate in favor of religion, since either side to these is an intellectual exercise which won't change anyone's mind...
Weird thing, I went to a bible study the other night (was visiting a very religious friend for their graduation), and there was a lady there who insisted with excitement in her eyes that Jesus kills hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people while riding around on a horse. This stemmed from a discussion of how wonderful it is that God murders innocent people and sends them to hell for not knowing him (most of the rest of the discussion was sane).
Radical BrothgarDTrad doesn't know a thing
.
Mr Ragnar,
Are you represented at the following link that the inept fake Christian Mr. Franklin as shown me below?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/16/topics
It is truly remarkable in the link above, in that there are even more ungodly fake Christians that abound in this section of DebateArt. Their kind of behavior will only stop when Jesus returns with His white hair, eyes of fire, feet of brass, and a sword sticking out of his mouth. (Rev.1:13-16) That’ll momentarily put the fear of the Lord into these ungodly Christians as He cleaves them in two for being fake Christians to His true doctrines! Praise Jesus' revenge!
.
.
Mr. Ragnar,
It is to bad that your knowledge and talent of writing within these debates at DebateArt is not on the side of our Savior Jesus the Christ, but instead, upon the side of Satan. Therefore, and unfortunately for you, the sulfur lakes of Hell await you upon your earthly demise. JESUS SAID: “But as for the cowardly, THE FAITHLESS, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in THE LAKE THAT BURNS WITH FIRE AND SULFUR, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8). Yeah, it is hard to state that Jesus is all loving and forgiving, isn't it? :(
.
.
Mr. Ragnar,
In reading your fine dissertation about my Jesus with its damn disparaging verified disgusting facts, which are somewhat equal to mine in showing what Jesus actually represents, was mind numbing in a truthful way! But, I have to believe in Jesus nonetheless because one of the “hooks” to our faith is the fact that Jesus provides an afterlife to our earthly demise. Unfortunately for the TRUE Christian like myself, I have to accept from the “Burning in Hell Atheist as we speak” Carl Sagan when he stated; “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
You made a good point in that I just don’t call Jesus ever loving and forgiving anymore, because the logic that Jesus genetically gave me at birth, I am sure He wanted me to use to its fullest extent, praise! There should be no torture chambers involved at this time, because our other “hook” of Christianity is that we are always forgiven, where if you think about it, there is no incentive not to sin! “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:43) “Okay Jesus, I believe in you!” See how that works?
Thanks for the update on how large our Heaven will be! What I am worried about is the biblical axioms that Judaism, our Christianity, and Islam are all built upon an Abrahamic foundation with the same Yahweh God at the helm, even though these 3 faiths DRASTICALLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! Therefore, to make matters worse using logic and reason, therefore within our heaven will be the Jews that killed our Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16) and that deny Him as Yahweh God incarnate (Deuteronomy (6:4)! As if this wasn’t enough, our heaven will have Muslims with their smelly camels that deny our Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate as well (Quran, 3:64) What a convoluted mess awaits us, huh?
.
Thanks for the feedback on this debate. I suspect you are the first person to read it all.
> "Jesus is that brutal serial killer God of His creation which makes it hard for me to call Him ever loving and forgiving, but I have to accept this and move on."
Well if you don't call him "ever loving and forgiving," it's off to the torture chambers for you.
> "I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away"
It's honestly a breath of fresh air, particularly (as I proved in the debate with multiple scientific sources) since the vast majority of Christians only know Jesus by reputation, rather than reading the bible.
> "our 1400 square mile Heaven"
Hate to be a naysayer, but that should be cubed miles; as it was a massive square (I wonder if Star Trek writers were picturing this when they made the Borg?). Anyway this should decrease the overcrowding, and give a much bigger perimeter to walk around... I admit to finding it weird that this measurement was verified; the writer is reported to have actually spent several months (or years) double checking everything with a rod.
you know,you would fit the forums really well like the other maniacs, be my guest
https://www.debateart.com/forum/16/topics
.
Ragnar,
Barring the fact that you are a Hell Bound Atheist, nonetheless, as you are aware, I am a TRUE Christian that has to accept that when my Jesus becomes Yahweh God incarnate, then He becomes a brutal serial killer within the Bibles Old and New Testament writings. Since the JUDEO-Christian bible purports that there is only one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Jesus is that brutal serial killer God of His creation which makes it hard for me to call Him ever loving and forgiving, but I have to accept this and move on.
As you can see ad infinitum within DebateArt, it is easier to be a fake Christian, in name only, which represents 99.9999% of the Christians that Satanically post here, than to be in that 0001% percent of TRUE Christians like myself that cannot deny what Jesus truly represents as Yahweh God incarnate within the scriptures. This includes my Jesus being greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and a malevolent. I accept the aforementioned true description of Jesus, and I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away, as I try and move on the best way I can.
JESUS STATED: "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." (Matthew 10:22)
Truer words were never spoken with the passage above, where I will try and stand firm to be saved in the end, where upon my demise, I will be in our 1400 square mile Heaven (Revelation 21:16-17), where I can walk with Jesus around the perimeter for eternity, walking and talking to Him, and kidding Him about when He is actually going to make His 2nd coming appearance, praise!
.
It's been two weeks without getting even one vote yet, so bump.
I gotchu
Given that you were already reading some of this debate, would you mind voting on it at some point?
Prepping my closing statements, and it turns out I used exactly 42 sources. I wonder if that number will ever cease popping up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8
It's all good.
There is a learning curve for most in this field of copyright. I'm still learning.
Welp, yeah
That would have been a decent (if simplistic) rebuttal had my opponent made it. But on actual trials character witnesses are a thing (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/as-defendant-can-i-offer-evidence-good-character.html, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/character-as-evidence.html). Someone having not committed a certain crime before, does not prove they are truly incapable, but does lower the likelihood. So yeah, they should still be investigated for the crime spree, but defense has every reason to show their lack of any criminal record.
Here’s a different example
Three suspects are being investigated for murder, but investigators say it was none of them because the murderer killed someone and none of them have ever killed before
Here’s a different example
Three suspects are being investigated for murder, but investigators say it was none of them because the murderer killed someone and none of them have ever killed before
I am focusing on disproving "They are the same in nature, essence, and being." To which my analogy holds up, since regardless of physical limitations, Bob and Robert are of different natures; just like Jesus and God (admittedly, were my opponent not a literalist he'd have an easier time disputing this).
While we also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are different people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vWvocMc6M), a strong argument could be made for them having the same nature and essence. They both go about helping Gotham, and Batman indeed does attend "fancy rich parties"; as highlighted in a 1997 documentary (wiki entry): "That night, a charity event is held by Wayne Enterprises with special guests, Batman and Robin, and [Poison Ivy] decides to use her abilities to seduce them. Mr. Freeze crashes the party and steals a diamond from the event."
Oops lol
Yeah his rebuttal was the only thing sadder than that argument
And that analogy you gave doesn’t work because we know that bob and Robert are different people
Batman never goes to fancy rich parties, Bruce Wayne does, therefore they’re not the same. See how wrong that is?
You might have tagged the wrong person...
Anyway, my opponent failed to find any logical fallacies within those introductory examples of how Jesus and God behave vastly different.
Taking it out of the mythology: imagine a blood test has revealed Bob (a man known for charitable works) is the son of Robert (a serial killer), and Bob is now on trial for a few dozen murders which Robert committed before Bob was even born. The prosecutor argues fathers and sons are the same, so he should be held accountable... Along with a few dozen other points, what's wrong with the defense using the superior character of Bob having a noted lack of any violent tendencies?
Thanks for commenting.
To quote my link:
"Plagiarism is the use of others' material without proper attribution. ... Please, please, please don't do it, even if your original material is in the public domain. ... Plagiarism and copyright are orthogonal. Plagiarism is about credit, copyright is about whether you're allowed to copy at all."
So my complaint is not about any copyright issues, it's about intellectual integrity. Not plagiarizing is pretty easy, some quotation marks and a URL is usually all it takes.
Were you and I debating this, you getting your bible lines from biblegateway.com and saying that would be fine (even without an explicit version listed). The way my opponent spammed them (especially so many ones which were off topic or already directly refuted), made me suspicious. The suspicion bore fruit that he was stealing not just which biblical lines to use (probably from a webpage which says to use those exact ones, regardless of context), but his actual arguments.
“How many times does Jesus mind control someone into an action, to use an excuse to murder innocent children? God did this (Exodus 9:12).
2. How many times does Jesus set innocent people on fire over nothing related to any of their actions? God did this (Job 1:16).
3. How many times does Jesus prank his followers by ordering any of them to kill all their children? God did this (Genesis 22:2).”
I think you’re a good debater, but those are probably some of the most logically fallacious analogies I’ve ever seen