Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
5
debates
30.0%
won
Topic
#5174

Prove "Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV)

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!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Description

Semantics and logic are included in this debate, whatever floats your boat.

I am LogicalDebater01 as Con who is against using that specific verse to prove "Jesus is God". And you are Pro who is in support of using that specific verse to prove "Jesus is God".

Round 1
Con
#1
....
Pro
#2
My thanks on this opportunity.

"Prove "Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV)"

So I take that as is. As the scripture say prove all things.  Prove Jesus is God by using the context of John 10:30-38. A total of eight verses there so a context is built up there to use. 

The topic statement says use John 10 but does not say only John 10 so why not do this line upon line here a little there a little to prove this?

John 10:30
" I and the Father are one.”

This lines up with verse 38.

38" But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

"The Father is in me". What is the "me"? 

The flesh of Jesus. Therefore Jesus is Father God "in flesh".

This apparently was the impression that the Jewish opponents were receiving from Jesus.

Verse 31

" Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him"

Why?

Verse 33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

They certainly had this perception being that Jesus was seen as equating himself to God, doing works as God, of God. That lines up with John 5.

John 10

"32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father."

The works of or from the Father.

"37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

The works are from God being in that flesh being done. God manifested in flesh. 

So they wanted to stone Jesus. All the more to kill him. The works being done he says is of God and these works were done in a manner that appeared above the religious law to the religious leaders as we learn in John 5. Let's go there.

John 5 and we go to verse 16

" So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

So the leaders and Jesus knew that it wasn't just simply God being the Father of him , his body like any other body but Jesus the Son,  that body was GOD living and working of whom they can see .

That of course lines up with John 14 seeing the Father.
Round 2
Con
#3
Okay, before I begin, I'm going to state that I might have started this debate during a time when I was not mostly able to debate because I was bored. I am currently in an occupied situation, and I do have things to do, but I will put very little effort into knocking some sense and logical sense into this debate. or a little effort into knocking some sense and logical sense into this debate, which I believe should be enough to explain and clarify my argument.

Now, in relevance of the topic.. let me clarify what the topic is or what the topic "says".
"Prove "Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV)"

So I take that as is. As the scripture say prove all things. Prove Jesus is God by using the context of John 10:30-38. A total of eight verses there so a context is built up there to use. 

The topic statement says use John 10 but does not say only John 10 so why not do this line upon line here a little there a little to prove this?

The topic does not "say" or the topic is not written as "Prove Jesus is God by using the context of John 10:30-38"..  neither does "the topic statement".. "say".. "use John 10" or "not say only John 10", and it doesn't even "say".. "only use John 10".. and this may take away your reputation for legibility.

The topic "says" or is written as :
Prove "Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father
are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV)
Hence, you are meant to prove "Jesus is God"  by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV) and not by using "the context of John 10-30-38"..
Because that is not what the topic "says" or is written as.
For a simplification.. or in simple terms:
You are meant to prove "Jesus is God" by using what is given to you from the topic because it is what you're meant to work with in addition to the debate.. and not use words or sentences out of the topic because it would be obviously out of the topic and irrelevant and not in the context of the debate or the topic. I mean.. it should be obvious now.. no shittering around.. (expressively written as a figure of speech to provide a humorous moment or to provide more than a humorous moment).

Moving on to..
John 10:30
" I and the Father are one.”
An evaluation that is also logical which also is a simplification that I have created for the verse "I and the Father are one" is against "Jesus is God" logically which is:
"I and the Father are one." *
"I" here should refer to "Jesus"  *(1)
"the Father" here should refer to "God" *(2)
1) I and the Father are one.
2) "I" is not "the Father".
3) "the Father" is not "I".
4) "I" is not one.
5)"The Father" is not one.
6) "I" and "the Father" are one...
If I was to replace "I" with "Jesus" and if I was to replace "the Father" with "God" , then we can consider that we arrive at a conclusion.. which is "Jesus is not God"...

This may look odd but, I don't think that this verse is relevant whenever it comes to proving "Jesus is God".. but do not confuse this thought with the relevancy of this verse whenever it comes to the topic.

Moving on to..
John 10:30
" I and the Father are one.”

This lines up with verse 38.

No. Firstly, this is partially irrelevant when it comes to disproving 'Jesus is God.' Most sources, or some sources, don't even have verses that line up with each other. That is because most sources, including the Bible, have verses that are mostly arranged in columns, including columns and verses together. Judging from my look at how the verses are written in the Bible, it's just verses that are written mostly or completely in columns. Verse 38 is not even next to verse 30. I appreciate the effort that you put into your argument by including this small sentence within it. But, if you do want a source to see how it's not what you think it is, or if you want a source to see how it's not what you have written, then I can provide a source. I can also provide more than one source, including the Bible, but this should be enough."

Moving on to..
38" But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

"The Father is in me". What is the "me"? 

The flesh of Jesus. Therefore Jesus is Father God "in flesh".
No.
To answer your question, I am going to provide the answer in quotation.. which is "me is me".. but the "me" here should refer to "Jesus".. not "The flesh of Jesus." or.. 

The flesh of Jesus. Therefore Jesus is Father God "in flesh".

because in simple terms, the verse mentions the term "I" as in whole and no the flesh of Jesus" or part of Jesus—figuratively, it speaks for Jesus, not the flesh of Jesus. It is also irrelevant to "Jesus is God.". It is also irrelevant to the verse; it is not what the verse "says" or is written as; it doesn't have any relevance within verse 38 because there is nothing about "the flesh of Jesus" and it does not speak for the flesh of Jesus, but the verse speaks for Jesus himself (figuratively written sentence to explain what Jesus did or does for the purpose of clarity and allow one to understand the written sentence).

Moving on to the other parts of the argument given in round 1 by Pro..

This apparently was the impression that the Jewish opponents were receiving from Jesus.

Verse 31

" Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him"

Why?

Verse 33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

They certainly had this perception being that Jesus was seen as equating himself to God, doing works as God, of God. That lines up with John 5.

John 10

"32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father."

The works of or from the Father.

"37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

The works are from God being in that flesh being done. God manifested in flesh. 

So they wanted to stone Jesus. All the more to kill him. The works being done he says is of God and these works were done in a manner that appeared above the religious law to the religious leaders as we learn in John 5. Let's go there.

John 5 and we go to verse 16

" So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

So the leaders and Jesus knew that it wasn't just simply God being the Father of him , his body like any other body but Jesus the Son, that body was GOD living and working of whom they can see .

That of course lines up with John 14 seeing the Father.
Verse 33 only has the Jewish opponents saying such things.. and Jesus didn't claim to be God in any verse between verse 30 to verse 38..  Jesus also didn't claim to be God in verse 30 and 38, but Jesus did claim to be God's son in between verse 30 and verse 38.

In addition to my explanation, I am going to state the verses.. 
30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[a]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
I am going to provide an explanation or an interpretation of the verses that are mostly relevant to proving "Jesus is God" or relevant to the action of proving "Jesus is God" as it is:

If you take a close look at verse 36, you will see how Jesus mentions that he said " I am God's Son", which in simple terms means that Jesus said that he is God's son, not Jesus is God. Verse 36 also follows verse 37 "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father".. which in simple terms means that Jesus said not to believe him if he doesn't do the works of his father. Verse 37 also follows verse 38.. and verse 38 is "But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” which in simple terms means that If Jesus does do the works of his father, even though the Jewish opponents do not believe him, he tells the Jewish opponents to believe the works.. not the works he does in that segment of the verse.

Then Jesus talks about the works that they may know and tells them to understand that the Father is in him and him in the Father, however, this doesn't mean that Jesus is the father or that Jesus is God, but rather point out where they are.. not what they are or what Jesus is. 

But, more importantly, in addition to the interpretation or explanation given by Pro:
The interpretation or explanation given by Pro mostly seems irrelevant whenever it comes to proving "Jesus is God" or when it comes to the action of proving that "Jesus is God." The interpretation or explanation that Pro has given proves something else that may not be entirely relevant to the topic or the debate.
Pro seemed as if he was manifesting his own idea of the verses into an interpretation or an explanation by not interpreting or explaining the verse's idea in its own manifestation of the verses into an interpretation or an explanation.
Pro
#4
"The topic does not "say" or the topic is not written as "Prove Jesus is God by using the context of John 10:30-38".."

Whether it's known or not , accepted or not,  the Bible is written in contexts. So wherever you read, a context will apply. So let us not try to evade that. Face it, take it on the chin, etcetera.

"Hence, you are meant to prove "Jesus is God"  by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV) and not by using "the context of John 10-30-38".."

What is supposed to be the difference in your mind?

"and not in the context of the debate or the topic. "

Oh the debate has a context. Well so does the scripture you provided.

If you're looking for me to take things out of context then honestly it doesn't matter what the exact words say in scripture if it's not what is meant by the writers. 

"Verse 38 is not even next to verse 30. I appreciate the effort that you put into your argument by including this small sentence within it. But, if you do want a source to see how it's not what you think it is, or if you want a source to see how it's not what you have written, then I can provide a source. I can also provide more than one source, including the Bible, but this should be enough.""

Let me explain what I mean by "lines up". I mean it relates obviously being in the same context and connected of an event, circumstance or situation.

Now if you want to argue how they're unrelated, come bring forth your witnesses as the scriptures teach.

"No.
To answer your question, I am going to provide the answer in quotation.. which is "me is me".. but the "me" here should refer to "Jesus".. not "The flesh of Jesus." or.. "

Let me speak with great plainness of speech as the Bible say. What does Jesus the Son of God consist of particularly at that time?

You saying no is pretty much saying"no he was not flesh and blood". I read some where for as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he likewise took part of the same. 

I know you're not saying he didn't. Going ahead and clean up what you just said before you have to lick it up .

"It is also irrelevant to "Jesus is God.". It is also irrelevant to the verse; it is not what the verse "says" or is written as; it doesn't have any relevance within verse 38 because there is nothing about "the flesh of Jesus" and it does not speak for the flesh of Jesus, but the verse speaks for Jesus himself"

Ok was Jesus God in the flesh?

"Verse 33 only has the Jewish opponents saying such things.. and Jesus didn't claim to be God in any verse between verse 30 to verse 38..  Jesus also didn't claim to be God in verse 30 and 38, but Jesus did claim to be God's son in between verse 30 and verse 38."

Interesting you say Jesus claims but your choice of words. So are you looking for a verse in the passage you provided that actually says the words "I am God" from Jesus?

I don't want to repeat everything I just explained. You wanted proof by using the passage and now you're shifting to exact words as it appears.

" If Jesus does do the works of his father, even though the Jewish opponents do not believe him, he tells the Jewish opponents to believe the works.."

I'll say this much. Jesus would have them believe the Father is in him. The Father is in that flesh. That would make him the Father in the flesh. Those works are of the Father. The Son is not doing the works of the Father but the works they see is of the Father, he doeth the works . So they believing the works would be believing the Father that was in him doing it .

See this should be without controversy, no debate. This is the great mystery of godliness. According to 2 TIMOTHY 3 God was manifested in the flesh.

"Then Jesus talks about the works that they may know and tells them to understand that the Father is in him and him in the Father, however, this doesn't mean that Jesus is the father or that Jesus is God, but rather point out where they are.. not what they are or what Jesus is. "

See what's not coming to you is that your just looking at this on a surface level. Seeing the deep things of God , having the mystery, you would understand fully what you're reading. As the book says he took not on the nature of angels. When Jesus said about the Father being in him, what did he mean?

Scripture teaches God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. You got to comprehend the full nature and taking on of flesh and blood.

"The interpretation or explanation given by Pro mostly seems irrelevant whenever it comes to proving "Jesus is God" or when it comes to the action of proving that "Jesus is God." The interpretation or explanation that Pro has given proves something else that may not be entirely relevant to the topic or the debate."

All you can say is it's irrelevant. But was Jesus not God in the flesh?
When you say Jesus is God, what are we talking about here? Was the flesh and blood God or was that in him God?

Jesus said himself the Father was in him. The Father was in his flesh. Maybe easier for you to look at it this way. The entire being of Jesus was comprised of God the spiritual plus the flesh the natural.

"Pro seemed as if he was manifesting his own idea of the verses into an interpretation or an explanation by not interpreting or explaining the verse's idea in its own manifestation of the verses into an interpretation or an explanation."

I gave you line upon line scriptures.

I gave you John 5 along to line up with John 10 plus referencing , mentioning other scriptures in these past two rounds.

I think you wanted verbatim text but you should of stated that somewhere before this began. Don't reject the scripture given to you now .
Round 3
Con
#5
"The topic does not "say" or the topic is not written as "Prove Jesus is God by using the context of John 10:30-38".."

Whether it's known or not , accepted or not,  the Bible is written in contexts. So wherever you read, a context will apply. So let us not try to evade that. Face it, take it on the chin, etcetera.

"Hence, you are meant to prove "Jesus is God"  by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV) and not by using "the context of John 10-30-38".."

What is supposed to be the difference in your mind?

"and not in the context of the debate or the topic. "

Oh the debate has a context. Well so does the scripture you provided.
1) You need to understand what the topic is about and you also need to be cautious of what words you use and which words you use because it can help define it's relevancy or connection to the topic, or the connection within the topic. 
Even if the Bible is written in contexts, the contexts entirely wouldn't be relevant to the topic, if it is also not mentioned in the topic. You are supposed to work with what you are given, not work with what you pull out of your ass (figuratively written to allow further understanding of the information I am exchanging within the argument).

2)  The difference between prove "Jesus is God"  by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV) and not by using "the context of John 10-30-38"
is:
"Jesus is God"  by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV)  is simply what is mentioned in the topic, and the other one is not mentioned in the topic..
the other one is pulled out of someone's ass and the other one is included in the topic and also can be considered part of the debate. Sure, the debate "has a context" to work with even though I disagree with the choice of words that you've used to define the context that the topic also contains, I am going to allow you to use the choice of words anyways in order not to cause any further confusion because it is time-wasting and it wastes both of our time unproductively, and the further confusions can cause us "to carry away" from the topic and this would poorly define the relevancy of our argument to the topic and the debate.

3) Let me also note that: relevancy is also defined by what is closely connected to the topic, and what is closely connected to the topic is considered "relevant". Confusing relevancy, such as using the term "John 10" for "John 10:30-38".. becomes less relevant, it also becomes irrelevant. A reason for that is because "John 10" is not mentioned in the topic.. and it has its own identity in the bible as well as other sources. John 10 includes all the verses within john 10 (includes the verses from verse 1 to verse 42), John 10:30-38 includes all the verses within john 10:30-38 (includes the verses from verse 30 to verse 38), hence the connection between John 10:30-38 and John 10 is weakened due to how distant John 10:30-38 is away from John 10, this in result, can create a separation between John 10:30-38 and John 10 which also separates John 10 from John 10:30-38. Since John 10 and John 10:30-38 have a difference or a separate meaning, we can say that John 10:30-38 is more relevant to the topic and that John 10:30-38 is more relevant in the topic (more than John 10) because "John 10:30-38" is also mentioned in the topic, and also is in the topic, hence also is about the topic and also has relevancy within the topic (considering that anything within the topic is relevant in the topic and is relevant to the topic).  So, in a conclusion, If you were to use John 10 for the topic, it can be considered "off-topic", or not about the topic. 

If you're looking for me to take things out of context then honestly it doesn't matter what the exact words say in scripture if it's not what is meant by the writers. 

"Verse 38 is not even next to verse 30. I appreciate the effort that you put into your argument by including this small sentence within it. But, if you do want a source to see how it's not what you think it is, or if you want a source to see how it's not what you have written, then I can provide a source. I can also provide more than one source, including the Bible, but this should be enough.""

Let me explain what I mean by "lines up". I mean it relates obviously being in the same context and connected of an event, circumstance or situation.

Now if you want to argue how they're unrelated, come bring forth your witnesses as the scriptures teach.

"No.
To answer your question, I am going to provide the answer in quotation.. which is "me is me".. but the "me" here should refer to "Jesus".. not "The flesh of Jesus." or.. "

Let me speak with great plainness of speech as the Bible say. What does Jesus the Son of God consist of particularly at that time?

You saying no is pretty much saying"no he was not flesh and blood". I read some where for as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he likewise took part of the same. 

I know you're not saying he didn't. Going ahead and clean up what you just said before you have to lick it up .
line up
phrasal verb of line
  1. arrange a number of people or things in a straight row. (as defined by Oxford languages)
    2. have someone or something ready or prepared. (as defined by Oxford languages)

Your definition of "lines up" or your meaning of "lines up" doesn't seem to follow the commonly used and understood definitions of "line up", unless if you have been using the wrong words or the wrong terms to define what you mean, but of course, I can agree on the base that Verse 38 is also related to verse 30, however this does not seem to follow what you have written within your argument entirely (due to lack of using words necessarily, seemingly indicating that you were unable to use the correct words or necessary words for the sentence structure in order to clarify your means correctly or for the argument in order to closely clarify your means, which appears to be more of a "you" issue instead of being more of an "argument" issue, figuratively, and of course with all the respects I can give, this figurative sentence isn't meant to be offensive in any way, we can all be unable at times, including me, for it is a common thing to happen to people and nature in general.)  

Apparently, John 10:30-38 doesn't care enough to mention "the Flesh of Jesus", it can give less "flying craps" about it (figuratively written). It also doesn't have relevance to proving "Jesus is God", in fact it can prove that he is more of an "animal" instead of a deity or a god, or God. That animal can be considered "a human". Whether if I had agreed or disagreed to "he was flesh and blood" is simply irrelevant to the argument I disagreed to, I only disagreed to the quotation of yours which lacks logical consistency. John 10:30-38 does not mention the Flesh of Jesus. So "Reading" is necessary enough to clarify this and "Reading" is necessary enough to not go on about it, figuratively. Here you go:https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4813038#:~:text=%5B29%5D%20My%20Father%2C%20which,works%20do%20ye%20st


"It is also irrelevant to "Jesus is God.". It is also irrelevant to the verse; it is not what the verse "says" or is written as; it doesn't have any relevance within verse 38 because there is nothing about "the flesh of Jesus" and it does not speak for the flesh of Jesus, but the verse speaks for Jesus himself"

Ok was Jesus God in the flesh?

"Verse 33 only has the Jewish opponents saying such things.. and Jesus didn't claim to be God in any verse between verse 30 to verse 38..  Jesus also didn't claim to be God in verse 30 and 38, but Jesus did claim to be God's son in between verse 30 and verse 38."

Interesting you say Jesus claims but your choice of words. So are you looking for a verse in the passage you provided that actually says the words "I am God" from Jesus?

I don't want to repeat everything I just explained. You wanted proof by using the passage and now you're shifting to exact words as it appears.

" If Jesus does do the works of his father, even though the Jewish opponents do not believe him, he tells the Jewish opponents to believe the works.."

I'll say this much. Jesus would have them believe the Father is in him. The Father is in that flesh. That would make him the Father in the flesh. Those works are of the Father. The Son is not doing the works of the Father but the works they see is of the Father, he doeth the works . So they believing the works would be believing the Father that was in him doing it .

See this should be without controversy, no debate. This is the great mystery of godliness. According to 2 TIMOTHY 3 God was manifested in the flesh.

"Then Jesus talks about the works that they may know and tells them to understand that the Father is in him and him in the Father, however, this doesn't mean that Jesus is the father or that Jesus is God, but rather point out where they are.. not what they are or what Jesus is. "

See what's not coming to you is that your just looking at this on a surface level. Seeing the deep things of God , having the mystery, you would understand fully what you're reading. As the book says he took not on the nature of angels. When Jesus said about the Father being in him, what did he mean?

Scripture teaches God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. You got to comprehend the full nature and taking on of flesh and blood.
Let me just clarify that "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is God in the flesh" are two completely different statements that are also not the same. "Jesus is God" means Jesus is God, "Jesus is God in the flesh" means Jesus is God in the flesh, or to more precisely put it, Jesus is God in the human flesh. Which still does not prove that "Jesus is God". 
To provide a simple explanation that also has figuratively written sentences within: 
Jesus is God simply means that Jesus is God, this explanation can seem circular, but to spatially imagine it, you can imagine God as the creator that is Jesus and you can also spatially imagine that Jesus is God in the flesh.. and this in conclusion can create two different spontaneous imagination of two identities, "Jesus is God" includes something very very superior, hardly imaginable being Jesus, and "Jesus is god in human flesh" or "Jesus is god in flesh" a human on earth that is God in human flesh, which should clearly express a different scenario for both imagination. You need to understand that semantics can be complex, a slight difference can mean a gigantic difference, a slight difference can change history itself, a slight difference can make sense of the most abstract pieces of information that can enlighten the knowledge that human kind has. 

Yet again, nice try, but, if you have used "Jesus is God in the flesh" to prove that "Jesus is God", then you would be logically incorrect, or illogical, especially by the means of semantics; the semantics between "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is God in human flesh" doesn't make semantic sense. Aside from that, all of the other explanations or interpretations are mostly irrelevant whenever it comes to proving "Jesus is God". What I had given in this argument should be enough to answer for all questions, and possibly cancel out some irrelevant matters, Since Pro appears to be romantically in love with "shitting in" irrelevant matters when it comes to the topic. 
"The interpretation or explanation given by Pro mostly seems irrelevant whenever it comes to proving "Jesus is God" or when it comes to the action of proving that "Jesus is God." The interpretation or explanation that Pro has given proves something else that may not be entirely relevant to the topic or the debate."

All you can say is it's irrelevant. But was Jesus not God in the flesh?
When you say Jesus is God, what are we talking about here? Was the flesh and blood God or was that in him God?

Jesus said himself the Father was in him. The Father was in his flesh. Maybe easier for you to look at it this way. The entire being of Jesus was comprised of God the spiritual plus the flesh the natural.

"Pro seemed as if he was manifesting his own idea of the verses into an interpretation or an explanation by not interpreting or explaining the verse's idea in its own manifestation of the verses into an interpretation or an explanation."

I gave you line upon line scriptures.

I gave you John 5 along to line up with John 10 plus referencing , mentioning other scriptures in these past two rounds.

I think you wanted verbatim text but you should of stated that somewhere before this began. Don't reject the scripture given to you now .
All you can "say" is "Jesus is God in human flesh" and that they were inside each other, which is sort of worded in a funny way.. (truthfully they explicate their location".. but aside from that, when I "say" Jesus is God, we are talking about "Jesus is God", to expressively explain it as an example:
It's like saying, a computer is a wall.. or that the mother is father.. or that.. a car is a bike. See how nuanced it is, claiming what is what and what is "to be"? 

Plus you've given me things like "john 5" and "John 10", which are both irrelevant within the topic, which includes the irrelevancy towards "prove "Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father are one" John 10:30-38 (NIV) 
Working with what you have, there also has to be a connection between the usage of "I and the father are one" and John 10:30-38 and (NIV). I also have to admit, the context that I had given is actually a little complex to work with, including when there is no trinity involved, after all.. the trinity is a theological concept within Christianity. I also don't think that verbatim is necessary, or that any verbatim text is necessary, just a play of words. 


Pro
#6
"Even if the Bible is written in contexts, the contexts entirely wouldn't be relevant to the topic, if it is also not mentioned in the topic. You are supposed to work with what you are given, not work with what you pull out of your ass"

No I'm pulling from John 10:30-38. It's unbelievable that you think eight verses don't have a context. 
I trusted that you knew what a context was.

I'm not going to explain what it is. You, the readers, y'all can go from round 1 up until this point. You can follow me going over each verse, breaking them down with explanation using the words from the verses. I'm not making anything up . 

Now because I've done that, you can't handle or don't like it or something. Then to substantiate the breakdown, other scriptures are provided that line up as confirmation.

" The difference between prove "Jesus is God"  by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV) and not by using "the context of John 10-30-38"
is:
"Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father are one." John 10:30-38 (NIV) is simply what is mentioned in the topic, and the other one is not mentioned in the topic..the other one is pulled out of someone's ass and the other one is included in the topic and also can be considered part of the debate. "

That's the way you see it. Even if I never mentioned the word "context", my responses would be the same. It's just like saying in the book of saint John 10. You say "no , I didn't say Saint John, just John 10. " 

Well the same is being referred to. I can say the opposing side has offered John of the holy scriptures the word of God to look at. You say " no in the bible book of John". It all refers to the same . You getting hung up on a word which makes you appear as purposely to throw as a red herring to make a case to technically declare "oh you're actually off subject, automatically you forfeit".

But obviously I've went into the scriptures to use them  to make explanation at proving Jesus is God(in flesh). So to get finicky over a term that I used doesn't help you because it doesn't change what I used to explained what I explained in John chapter 10 VERSES 30-38.

"  Sure, the debate "has a context" to work with even though I disagree with the choice of words that you've used to define the context that the topic also contains, I am going to allow you to use the choice of words anyways in order not to cause any further confusion because it is time-wasting and it wastes both of our time unproductively, and the further confusions can cause us "to carry away" from the topic and this would poorly define the relevancy of our argument to the topic and the debate."

I'm glad you came to your senses.

"Confusing relevancy, such as using the term "John 10" for "John 10:30-38".. becomes less relevant, it also becomes irrelevant. A reason for that is because "John 10" is not mentioned in the topic.. and it has its own identity in the bible as well as other sources. John 10 includes all the verses within john 10 (includes the verses from verse 1 to verse 42), John 10:30-38 includes all the verses within john 10:30-38 (includes the verses from verse 30 to verse 38), hence the connection between John 10:30-38 and John 10 is weakened due to how distant John 10:30-38 is away from John 10, this in result, can create a separation between John 10:30-38 and John 10 which also separates John 10 from John 10:30-38. Since John 10 and John 10:30-38 have a difference or a separate meaning, we can say that John 10:30-38 is more relevant to the topic and that John 10:30-38 is more relevant in the topic (more than John 10) because "John 10:30-38" is also mentioned in the topic, and also is in the topic, hence also is about the topic and also has relevancy within the topic (considering that anything within the topic is relevant in the topic and is relevant to the topic).  So, in a conclusion, If you were to use John 10 for the topic, it can be considered "off-topic", or not about the topic. "

My fellow comrade John 10 is mentioned in the topic. It's not mentioned alone but it is mentioned. 

You could of said prove this or that only using this or that but you didn't. At the least I was required to use a specific passage (context). But it wasn't the most I could use. In argumentation, you substantiate and support what you're saying.

Another thing this is a big credit to you because the scripture does teach that ALL scripture is good for doctrine, correction and that it's not broken so to isolate part of it trying to teach something is flawed anyway. The book teaches line upon line (context), here a little, there a little.

"Your definition of "lines up" or your meaning of "lines up" doesn't seem to follow the commonly used and understood definitions of "line up", unless......"

I'm making a point here of saying that I could respond to this more in depth but it does nothing to progress to the bottomline. Instead of saying all this, we can get down to the epicenter with those questions I asked which it appears your responses are circular. I'll show you why consecutively.

"Let me just clarify that "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is God in the flesh" are two completely different statements that are also not the same. "

I think I'll stop with the questions for the sake of time and they probably won't get answered by you honestly or from a lack of knowledge, understanding, etc.

Yes there is a similarity between the two statements. "Jesus is God". Both statements contain these prefixes. Now you say they're completely different.

Let's see how you explained the difference.

"Jesus is God" means Jesus is God, "Jesus is God in the flesh" means Jesus is God in the flesh, or to more precisely put it, Jesus is God in the human flesh. "

Yes so this is circular. This is why I asked the following clarification question.

When you say Jesus is God, what are we talking about here? Was the flesh and blood God or was that in him God?

See instead of being circular, you ought to be clear in full detail in what you're talking about in what you're defining in what point you're attempting to get across. Just to say Jesus is God means Jesus is God, you're saying nothing. The book teaches properly explaining the word of truth.

"Which still does not prove that "Jesus is God". 
To provide a simple explanation that also has figuratively written sentences within: 
Jesus is God simply means that Jesus is God, this explanation can seem circular, but to spatially imagine it, you can imagine God as the creator that is Jesus and you can also spatially imagine that Jesus is God in the flesh.. and this in conclusion can create two different spontaneous imagination of two identities, "Jesus is God" includes something very very superior, hardly imaginable being Jesus, and "Jesus is god in human flesh" or "Jesus is god in flesh" a human on earth that is God in human flesh, which should clearly express a different scenario for both imagination. You need to understand that semantics can be complex, a slight difference can mean a gigantic difference, a slight difference can change history itself, a slight difference can make sense of the most abstract pieces of information that can enlighten the knowledge that human kind has. "

You are admitting halfheartedly that you're circular but what I see here is over thinking , over complicating as the book teaches.

I broke it down in simple questions.

Is Jesus God? 
Is the body God?
Was only that was in him God?

While this was in mind, I'll go to Philippians 2.

"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,"

This passage points out the essence. What Jesus is in nature taking on another nature. So even the book puts it as Jesus is God or GOD is in flesh , in man, in another nature.

That part about equality lines up or connects to John 5 in verse 18 where it stated "making himself equal with God."

He didn't  consider to use that equality but he was looked at as such so when we come to John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”, it's all connected.

You made a point about John 10 . The scripture is not broken. So be careful in talking about what is relevant. All of this is line upon line all the way through.

"Yet again, nice try, but, if you have used "Jesus is God in the flesh" to prove that "Jesus is God", then you would be logically incorrect, or illogical, especially by the means of semantics; the semantics between "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is God in human flesh" doesn't make semantic sense. Aside from that, all of the other explanations or interpretations are mostly irrelevant whenever it comes to proving "Jesus is God". What I had given in this argument should be enough to answer for all questions, and possibly cancel out some irrelevant matters, Since Pro appears to be romantically in love with "shitting in" irrelevant matters when it comes to the topic. "


The topic doesn't say with the passage provided prove it says Jesus is God. If it was that straightforward, there wouldn't be any debate. It would just be in those exact words or not. The topic says prove Jesus is God. So we have to go beyond the words and break down what they mean.

This is why I asked what does "Jesus is God "mean? See because we're going to be lost if we don't get that straight as the book of John again in chapter 4 teaches God is a spirit. Jesus was flesh and blood. You communicated  that flesh and blood wasn't mentioned in John 10. It still doesn't change that's what he was. 
You gotta go in-depth with this. Jesus spoke in parables for the sake of people that would only look at that which was on the surface not going in-depth of what his underlying teaching was.

We have flesh and blood and spirit in regards to the nature. JESUS WAS GOD INDWELLED .

"All you can "say" is "Jesus is God in human flesh" and that they were inside each other"

THERE YOU GOOO. We come back full circle to Jesus saying " I and the Father are one" and "the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

I'm saying what Jesus said and it was in the passage you provided.

"It's like saying, a computer is a wall.. or that the mother is father.. or that.. a car is a bike. See how nuanced it is, claiming what is what and what is "to be"? "

So bringing it back to Jesus and it's taken this long for you to explain to some extent because you just used an example to try in articulate what "Jesus is God" would mean when talking about two natures in which I pointed out. 

This is why I put it as Jesus is God in the flesh to understand this better.

In the book of Hebrews God calls his son God. Before we get to John 10 , starting in John 1, laying out how or why God can call the son God. Again in essence, in nature. But I believe you're asking about a whole. 

Was Jesus God inside and outside (the body of Jesus)?

Was flesh and blood a spirit?

I think the answer is in the question if you know what a spirit is. So why debate that?

You want to debate in basic terms, is Jesus saying he is God by saying him and the father are one?

The people charged Jesus as a man claiming to be God. They didn't struggle with differentiating him being God or clarifying it being him as God in flesh or trying to distinguish all the language. Just based on what he was saying and doing, in essence that's how he appeared to them . Making a declaration of being God.

Now Jesus responded in John 10:


"34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[a]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? "

In other words, what are we really arguing over here? 

This man is God in man and by law man is god although he himself dies.

Even Jesus connects from other scripture. You want to say this scripture that scripture is not relevant but the scripture cannot be set aside. 

Says this right in the passage you provided. A lot of proof and information in these eight verses.

Then this comes to mind as I was entering this text.

Matthew 1:23

" Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Why?

Going through alllll the passages in this debate fills us in on the answer.

"Plus you've given me things like "john 5" and "John 10", which are both irrelevant within the topic, which includes the irrelevancy towards "prove "Jesus is God" by using "I and the Father are one" John 10:30-38 (NIV) "

I spoke my peace on this already. The horse is dead. I won't even beat 'em once.

"Working with what you have, there also has to be a connection between the usage of "I and the father are one" and John 10:30-38 and (NIV). I also have to admit, the context that I had given is actually a little complex to work with, including when there is no trinity involved, after all.. the trinity is a theological concept within Christianity. I also don't think that verbatim is necessary, or that any verbatim text is necessary, just a play of words. "

Ok I'll conclude with this.
I think this round has had the most exposure of layers to the topic thus far.

I'll use some examples here like you used one in trying to convey what "Jesus is God" would mean and this speaks to indicating essence.

Saying Jesus is God is a true statement. Besides the scripture that says before Abraham was , I AM, adding the context of "in flesh" doesn't change that statement.

Just adds clarity and solidifies accuracy.

For example, the scriptures say "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?".

You mentioned about a computer.

Ok, is the computer electronic?

Yes but what does that mean?

In essence it has electronic components. To say it is not electronic would be error.

The computer IS electronic.

Is your stove gas or electric?

My stove IS gas.

Now to get an accurate understanding of what I'm talking about, we can add the clarifying context to it like the computer.

So these are true verbatim statements such as the one in this topic.

To say Jesus is not God is error.

To get up hung up on the "within flesh" added clarification with this, that and the third, is fruitless because the statement is still true.

Round 4
Con
#7
Forfeited
Pro
#8
Cased closed.