Instigator / Pro
1
1477
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#950

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
7
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

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.

-->
@PGA2.0

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.

-->
@Barney

Test

-->
@Barney

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.

***

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@PGA2.0

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.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Barney

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."

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Barney

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),

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Barney

just refering to scripture.

-->
@Melcharaz

Would you mind clarify your point in relation to this debate?

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

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).

-->
@BrotherDThomas

Radical BrothgarDTrad doesn't know a thing

-->
@Barney

.
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!


.

-->
@Barney

.

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? :(

.

-->
@Barney

.
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?

.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

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.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

you know,you would fit the forums really well like the other maniacs, be my guest

https://www.debateart.com/forum/16/topics

-->
@Barney

.

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.

-->
@Barney

I gotchu

-->
@Speedrace

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

-->
@PGA2.0

It's all good.

-->
@Barney
@Skye2468

There is a learning curve for most in this field of copyright. I'm still learning.

-->
@Barney

Welp, yeah

-->
@Speedrace

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.

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@Speedrace

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."

-->
@Barney

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?

-->
@Speedrace

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?

-->
@PGA2.0

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

“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