How do you feel about Jesus Christ, Who's God in the flesh? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

How do you feel about Jesus Christ, Who's God in the flesh?
in Religion

I present to you 4 options: Do you love Him, hate Him, are you apathetic about Him, or undecided? For me, Jesus is the love of my life, and I am in love with Him, not in a strange way, just so in awe of Him, but I want to hear what YOU think. I removed everyone from my mute list, so everyone can participate freely.
mickygZombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • First of all I personally view Jesus as seperate from the Christian religion, which I believe are both man made things.

    With that said IF Jesus was real I don't view him as God. Instead I see him as an enlightened person trying to share the best way to live with the world. He is on the same level as Buddha.

    Now for further context my spiritual views are heavily influenced by Eastern traditions, the majority of which is Zen Buddhism, but other sects of Buddhism, Daoism, confucianism, and Hinduism all also contribute to my spiritual beliefs.

    I don't believe that it's possible to know if their is a God. However I do believe in Jesus' messages like let he without sin cast the first stone. Love sinners. Washing his followers feet not expecting the other way around. The lost sheep is the important one and shouldn't be scolded. That we have a moral duty to help those that are less fortunate.

    In conclusion, on the basis that I stated I like Jesus.
  • Well ok, you asked...

    If the man actually existed, he probably was a well intended philosopher trying to re-frame the ancient Golden Rule into something more contemporary to his days. Too much of esoteric gibberish mingled in for my taste but eh, this was 2000 years ago so it's understandable and overall, I got no beef with he guy, he's ok...

    Now, the deified version of the man, I do have problems with... I outright reject any notion of divinity as total nonsense and detrimental to humanity's flourishing.
    Kinda like religious people who say: Love the sinner but hate the sin... I say: Tolerate the faithfuls but despise the faith...

    Remember, you asked...
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • I present to you 4 options: Do you love Him, hate Him, are you apathetic about Him, or undecided?

    Here’s the 5th choice 

    He’s a scam because there’s no evidence of his existence so I can’t hate, love, be apathetic or undecided about something that doesn’t exist 

     For me, Jesus is the love of my life, and I am in love with Him, not in a strange way, just so in awe of Him, but I want to hear what YOU think. I removed everyone from my mute list, so everyone can participate freely

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you mute someone that you disagree with

    OppolzerPlaffelvohfenmickyg
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • If inspected as (maybe) a real historic character, then a great philosopher indeed, although has lost much of his grip due to overfocusing to hippy "turn-your-other-cheek"-metaphora. Real or fictional, I think has contributed a lot to our western values of dignity in suffering for a cause, compassion and leading by example and staying true to his moral.
  • Jesus of Nazareth was one of the first dissidents in the recorded history. Promoting a very naive version of anarchism, coupled with the concept of ultimate individual responsibility, he opposed the governmental and societal established structures to the extent few do even today. I suppose the best way I can characterize how I feel about him is to say that I respect him for standing true to himself to the end, doing what he thought was right even when it led him to a very slow and painful death. He defied the authority with unbroken resolve and never bound his knee to the oppressors.

    I do not necessarily view him positively overall, but I find him a worthy individual. He had a stronger will (even if it was partially coming from his madness) than 99.999% of humanity has today. People who stand by their principles not only in words, but in actions, regardless of the circumstances, are and have always been a rarity.

    That is as far as the historical persona goes. How do I feel about everything that allegedly happened after his death, all the resurrection stuff and such? I do not. Alternative history does not incite any emotions in me, as I simply ignore it and move on.
  • First of all I personally view Jesus as seperate from the Christian religion, which I believe are both man made things.

    With that said IF Jesus was real I don't view him as God. Instead I see him as an enlightened person trying to share the best way to live with the world. He is on the same level as Buddha.

    Now for further context my spiritual views are heavily influenced by Eastern traditions, the majority of which is Zen Buddhism, but other sects of Buddhism, Daoism, confucianism, and Hinduism all also contribute to my spiritual beliefs.

    I don't believe that it's possible to know if their is a God. However I do believe in Jesus' messages like let he without sin cast the first stone. Love sinners. Washing his followers feet not expecting the other way around. The lost sheep is the important one and shouldn't be scolded. That we have a moral duty to help those that are less fortunate.

    In conclusion, on the basis that I stated I like Jesus.
    Fair enough, let's debate! I will take the affirmative that Jesus is God, you may take the negative. I will use my collection of evidence to prove my claims. Are you game?
  • MayCaesar said:
    Jesus of Nazareth was one of the first dissidents in the recorded history. Promoting a very naive version of anarchism, coupled with the concept of ultimate individual responsibility, he opposed the governmental and societal established structures to the extent few do even today. I suppose the best way I can characterize how I feel about him is to say that I respect him for standing true to himself to the end, doing what he thought was right even when it led him to a very slow and painful death. He defied the authority with unbroken resolve and never bound his knee to the oppressors.

    I do not necessarily view him positively overall, but I find him a worthy individual. He had a stronger will (even if it was partially coming from his madness) than 99.999% of humanity has today. People who stand by their principles not only in words, but in actions, regardless of the circumstances, are and have always been a rarity.

    That is as far as the historical persona goes. How do I feel about everything that allegedly happened after his death, all the resurrection stuff and such? I do not. Alternative history does not incite any emotions in me, as I simply ignore it and move on.
    Don't just sit there and tell me I'm wrong, debate me.
    Zombieguy1987
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    There are more than 4v options.You need to add..5.Have found no eyewitness accounts or even a mention of the gospels before 160ad@YeshuaBought
    Zombieguy1987YeshuaRedeemed
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    DEBATE YOU?you never reply.Once again.The gospels are anonymous and don't appear in history until 160ad.@YeshuaBought
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987 ;
    @mickyg

    "No evidence for Jesus' existence" false
    See https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

    Summarized succinctly, "Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus."

    Even historian Flavius Josephus mentions him in 93 AD.

    The gospels are indeed anonymous. The earliest gospel, Mark was written 66-70 AD. Most of the epistles are named, however.

    Let's look at what neutral sources say on the matter.

    https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence - Jesus existed
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.45c7dfae6962 - Jesus did not exist (but this was written by the author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God, so this source is biased)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died - Jesus existed
    https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/was-jesus-real?rebelltitem=10#rebelltitem10 - Jesus existed
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201605/did-jesus-exist - Jesus did not exist
    https://www.livescience.com/13711-jesus-christ-man-physical-evidence-hold.html - Jesus existed (although said by Biblical scholar)

    So, there is strong evidence that Jesus was at least a real person, supported by Christian and non-Christian scholars.
    YeshuaRedeemedZombieguy1987
  • mickyg said:
    DEBATE YOU?you never reply.Once again.The gospels are anonymous and don't appear in history until 160ad.@YeshuaBought
    You need to stay on topic. How do you feel about Jesus?
    Zombieguy1987
  • mickyg said:
    There are more than 4v options.You need to add..5.Have found no eyewitness accounts or even a mention of the gospels before 160ad@YeshuaBought
    Citation needed.
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    The gospels are anonymous and no one mentions them until 160ad.So who saw jesus?Give one eyewitness account.@anonymousdebater
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    This is the citation.JUSTIN MARTYR mentions the gospels for the first known time in 160ad.I concede that date.I HAVE FOUND NOTHING BEFORE 160AD.how do i give a citation for this?@YeshuaBought
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    How i feel about jesus is that he never existed.There are zero eyewitness accounts of him.@YeshuaBought
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    The Roman Catholic church admitted the shroud of turin was fake in 1389ad.@anonymousdebater
  • mickyg said:
    The Roman Catholic church admitted the shroud of turin was fake in 1389ad.@anonymousdebater
    I'm not a Catholic.
    Zombieguy1987
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    Flavius joseph is a universally known forgery.The text is called the testimonium flavium or TF.The TF does not appear in history until eusebius mentions it in fourth century.Other church fathers use josephus in their defense of christianity before this but no one mentions the TF until eusebius.@anonymousdebater
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • @mickyg And I'm still not a Catholic.
    Zombieguy1987
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    My statement was that the gospels are anonymous and no one mentions them until 160ad..As usual the reply starts quoting the gospels.An anonymous text showing up 130 years after event is not evidence of anything.ONE SIXTY.....130 years after the fact.@anonymousdebater
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    IF jesus existed he did and said nothing original.@hoemjuusto
  • @mickyg Are you an antitheist?
    Zombieguy1987
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    Yes I am antitheist .Christianity is the world evil to infect our planet.Christians have been murdering Jews for 1700 years culminating with Hitler.@YeshuaBought
    Zombieguy1987
  • SandSand 57 Pts
    I love Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus is not God.


    I have watched several debates about the belief of God

    This is my break down of the Trinitarian argument.

     

    The Idea is that Jesus is God

    If Jesus is God why does he have to be proven that he is God?

    My idea is that someone has already made the claim.

    Now he is trying to rationalize Jesus’ claim, or perhaps the viewpoint that he is making the claim

    The questions that I have for the Trinitarian, and I am just trying to understand

    Is Jesus claiming this?

    Or are you claiming this for him?

    Notice this conservation with Jesus and Satan, I find it very intriguing. But it builds many questions. Why is it tempting to Jesus to prove he is the Son of God? Shouldn’t he be trying to prove he is God? And if proving he is the Son of God proves he is God, then why does he want to prove this? Also why does Jesus quote scripture to Satan? If Jesus was talking to a Jewish man I would understand why he would quote scripture because this the authority the man recognizes. But Satan would recognize the authority of God his creator, who he would know is Jesus, right? Then why quote a scripture, why not just say the words? Who in life ever quotes themselves, its redundant, just restate it. You see a people only quote others or an authority, because the authority is from a different source, especially when speaking with Satan. But Jesus as God has no need to quote the Bible, him doing so is very strange. It would be better if this scripture read like this:

     

    And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.”

           Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”

    Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”

           Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan!, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’”  

     

    Without quoting he could very well say this:

     

    And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF MY MOUTH.”

           Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”

    Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, YOU SHALL NOT PUT ME YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”

           Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan!, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP ME, AND SERVE ME ONLY.’”

     

    But Jesus over and over quotes the Bible, as if it has a higher authority. If you are the actual authority that gives the book the power, then why would you quote a lesser authority?

     

    And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”

           Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”

    Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’”

           Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’”

     

    If you look at the previous conversation with God and Satan, there are no quotations. In fact they speak as if they are very familiar with each other, in a regular conversation mode. But the first thing Satan says to Jesus is “If you are the Son of God” as if it is his first time meeting him. Then Jesus response was like he could not go beyond what is written. Why couldn’t Jesus speak outside the Bible? Why didn’t Jesus claim Godship here?

     

    The reason I ask these questions, because if someone is claiming to be God, the only thing they have to say is “I am God”.

    The question is he directly claiming Godship or indirectly claiming Godship?

    Nevertheless, lets look at the proof of the Trinitarian

    Apparently the Trinitarian cites similar supports for their proof that Jesus is God

    #1 Others call Jesus God

    #2 He calls himself the “I am”

    #3 Jesus is worshiped

    #4 Deduction through Prophecy and Fulfillment

     

    Prophetic and verbal identification as God, treated as God, and the verbal claim of God.

     

    Looking from a different perspective, if a person was called God, worshiped, claimed to be God would that constitute merit?

    Because throughout history many people have been called God, worshiped, and claimed to be God.


    Owobusobozi Bisaka, Moon Sun Myung, Inri Christo, Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, Sergei Torop, Arrifin Mohammed, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, Ryuho Okawa, Reverend Father M.J. Divine, Matayoshi Jesus

     

    Just to name a few, because I am sure there are many others that are not as prominent.

     

    Now the Trinitarian would probably point to with in the confines of the Bible.

    Which is very fair.

    So the question becomes is their anyone outside of Jesus who is prophetic and verbal identifies as God, treated as God, and the verbal claim of God in the Bible?

     

    I would say yes, Angels.

     

     

    2 Chronicles 18:12-22 show the angels being called God, when a rare scene is explained of what really happened in heaven.

     

    The Angel is not only called God, but identifies himself as God to the prophets.

     

    Exodus 3:2 shows another Angel identifies himself as God, uses the famous words of “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be” or “I am what I am”.

     

    This Angel was called God, worshiped, and claimed to be God. If this is idolatry then your definition of idolatry is not the same as God’s. If the Angel represents God, then worship to the Angel is worship to God.

    According to Jesus words at John 5:37 - No one has heard the Father’s voice at any time.

     

    This means every instance in the Bible where God’s words were heard it was an angel

     

    Exodus 3:8 - God says “And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey”

    When we know that an Angel fulfilled those prophecies

    Isaiah 63:8 ,9 shows that God is the savior, then says the angel of his presence is the savior.

    So Angels have prophetic and verbal identification as God, treated as God, and the verbal claim of God.

     

    So does this mean that the Angels is also God?

    Or does this prove that Jesus is an Angel?

    If the Trinitarian believes in sola and tota scriptura then they should recognize these scriptures as similar arguments they place on Jesus.

    Nevertheless, I expect them to fight this adamantly, because their goal is not understanding but miss understanding.

    They would no doubt reference Hebrew Chapter 1 - citing Jesus was worshipped by the Angels.

    That the scriptures says he is better than the Angels.

    Lets look at this information:

    “having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they”

     

    So Jesus is only better than the Angels because of his name. This is verifying that Jesus is an Angel, the only difference is a name. In verse 9 the Angels are called Jesus companions, fellows, friends, partners. It also says the only reason he was anointed because he hated lawlessness and loved righteousness. So if one of the other Angels had loved righteousness and hated lawlessness more, they would have been selected. Verse 5 says “today” I have become your father. Showing a starting point in Jesus becoming the Son. This kind of indicates that this is a title. Look at verse 6 again “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Everyone is so focused on the worship part, they do not see the fact that God brought him into the world, which indicates created. It also calls him first begotten or first born, further proof he is created. Other proofs Jesus is an angel is

     

    1 Thessalonians 4:16 shows Jesus using the voice of an Archangel. If you are calling the dead, wouldn’t you want to use the strongest voice? Why would Jesus use the voice of an Archangel? Wouldn’t the Archangel’s voice be lesser than God’s? Why not use his own voice, the voice of God? Unless……..his own voice is the Archangel, because he is an Angel.

     

    I have spoke to many Trinitarians who use this Alpha and Omega scripture to prove Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. They say this because the statement afterwards in Revelation 22:16 “I Jesus”. Nevertheless who is speaking? If you look back at verse 8, John falls to worship a Angel, who corrects him and directs him to worship God. Notice verse 10, “He also tells me” indicating he was still speaking, and this Angel finishes the remaining statements. So it is the Angel who says “I Jesus”! How could this be when Jesus is clearly worshiped on other occasions? Jesus no doubt can accept worship in connection to the Father, but not directly to himself, because he is not God. As he says here he is a fellow servant. This is proof that Jesus is an Angel. There is another indication that Jesus is an Angel, one of his titles mentioned there is the bright Mourning Star, Mourning Stars are Angels in Job 38:7.

     

     

     

    Notice more in Hebrews 5:9, Paul writes about Jesus being ‘made’ perfect by God. This indicates that Jesus was created. Which agrees with the original definition of the words “firstborn”, “only-begotten”, and “beginning of the creation”. Now the Trinitarian would say these words mean “prime” thus indicating that Jesus is the origin of creation. But we never see such terms applied to the Father in tota scriptura. Nevertheless, the question becomes, could the word “prime” be applied to the first person created? When you think about how way man was created, Adam first and then everyone else. It kind of gives the idea that Jesus first and everyone else. If that is the case, wouldn’t the words “beginning of the creation” have more meaning? Wouldn’t make more sense to call Jesus the first born of every creature” or “only-begotten” if Jesus was the prime creation? It just seams odd to make a new definition for these words to be applied only to Jesus for someone who believes in tota scriptura. Notice how John describes Jesus creating everything, he uses the word ‘through’, indicating he is not the origin.

     

    One of the accusations made by Trinitarians to Unitarians is that they assume Unitarianism. I assume Trinitarianism and run into these problems, terms and reference. Consider reference. When you refer to the whole you cannot refer to the part as an addition. In John 1:1 we read “the Word was with God”. This is a problem to a Trinitarian. This scripture should have read different if we are to believe Trinitarianism. It would be better to say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was God.” Nevertheless, by not including Jesus in the whole it indicates Jesus only has a title of God. This is also seen in John 17:3 “the only true God, and Jesus Christ”. This scripture should have read different, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true Father, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By Jesus referencing the Father as God it denotes that Jesus is not apart of God. I will give you an example. If you buy a car, it is with the understanding that the car includes the engine. If someone sell you a car and a engine this denotes that you are getting two engines, one in the car and one outside of the car. If reference to God is just another title for Jesus, the switching terms should be ok. But Jesus destroys all possibility of it being just another title, by use of the word “thee” or “you”. He is referring to someone else. Trinitarians say all the time that the use of the singular words can have a plural reference. But he excludes himself by saying you, and then referencing the whole. The better word would be “me”, like “And this is life eternal, that they might know me the only true God and Christ.”

     

     

    Then there is the issue of mortality. Jesus had to be mortal in order to die for our sins. Trinitarians jump back an forth on this subject. But they all conclude that in order to save mankind Jesus has to be God. Nevertheless, this is a sound good theory or some personal idea concept, because this goes contrary to Paul information in Romans 5:19, “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. ” It mentions a man, not a god. It says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:21, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. ” This is why Trinitarians say that Jesus has a dual nature, an idea nowhere found in scripture, 100% Man and 100% God. Some say the God part came out right before his death. To me that defeats their argument that God has to die for your sins. Because you are essentially saying God died for our sins but he didn’t die. Some Trinitarians say that Jesus part of God did die for our sins. Nevertheless, this brings up the mortality issue. Trinitarians dance around this issue by stating just because Jesus died doesn’t mean he ceased to exist. He existed in hell. But here is the issue I think is more important than ceasing to exist, immortality. Jesus can no longer be called immortal, because he did die.

     

    1 Timothy 1:17 describes God as, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Notice the characteristics King eternal, immortal, invisible. Jesus is none of these things. With the words firstborn, only-begotten, beginning of the creation, and made perfect, heavily indicates non-eternal. Since the definition of mortal means can die and we have the understanding Jesus did die, he could not be considered immortal. Plus we have four gospels and hundreds of witnesses to confirm he was visible, so he is not invisible.

     

    What makes man not capable of being God? Then again what makes angels not capable of being God? Is it the fact that they are capable of sin? Was Jesus capable of sin? The scriptures are clear that God cannot be tempted to sin. Nevertheless, Jesus three times was tempted by Satan. Then when Peter told Jesus to be kind to himself, he at once rebuked him saying Peter was a offence to him. Now Jesus knows the scriptures better than any of us can fathom. But his choice of words, he didn’t know Psalms 119:165 “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them”. Then there was the prayer at Mount of Olives where Luke 22:43 says an angel strengthen him. All five of these verses show Jesus battling to stay faithful, thus indicating his capability of sin. Although we are glad Jesus did not sin, the scriptures cannot be nullified, it says he was tempted, thus capable of sin.



  • SandSand 57 Pts

    Now we know Trinitarians will disagree with my conclusions. Nevertheless, I have seen trinitarians admit and agree on some of the limits that Jesus had when he was a human. I am only presenting a varying viewpoint to the Trinitarian strongest evidence Jesus is God. I know Trinitarians have other proofs, and I will address them later. I want to present my strongest evidence for Jesus being an angel. This gives the Trinitarian material to attack, dissect, and bring out weaknesses. It is my hope and goal to find this new truth. It can only be found through spiritual development. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

     

    The Godship of Jesus

    I personally feel if a person was the God there is a different way of carrying yourself. Jesus avoids this presentation. To me this is very problematic to the Trinitarian. The words he chooses to use paint a different picture than him being God or a part of God. He intentionally goes out his way to use these words, which requires extensive sentence structure. Consider the words he used:

     

    Sent

    Jesus on many occasions said he was sent from heaven. This is a problem because that word is only used for representatives or messengers. Because if Jesus is a part of God or God, he should have used a different word. Like the word “came”. Why is Jesus sent? If he is God the better terminology would be “I came” here to save mankind. Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures always speaks with authority, even when he is not personally doing things, he said “I”, “myself”, and “who else”. For Jesus to say “sent” like that requires restructure of sentences and specific choice of words. The word sent means the person is not going under their own authority, or of their own volition, but they are under so form of compulsion.  What makes it worst is Jesus’ statement about sent persons, at John 13:16. Jesus here is calling himself a slave. As a slave to the Father could Jesus really be called an equal? Do we know any situation where a slave is considered an equal to his master?

     

    Ask

    If you are God would you ask permission from anyone? Everything is yours, just do it. Jesus constantly defers to the Father, praying to him, asking the father for things. There are somethings he says with authority, but not in all things. The Son will ask the father constantly, why…..you are God. You know when you ask for permission is when you do not have absolute authority. Not to say you don’t have any authority, but not absolute. The question I have, if Jesus is God, did he ask his Father permission to be God?

     

    Will

    This is a very interesting view. Does Jesus want to die for mankind? The answer may seem obvious. But Jesus indicates otherwise. He on many occasions speaks about not coming of his own self. He seeks not his own will, but of the will of the one who sent him forth. If Jesus is a slave this statement indicates he is just being obedient or humble. But if he is God this statement indicates he didn’t want to die for us. The choice of words is different for someone in authority. It means that the Father’s will was that Jesus come to die for our sins. But Jesus will was different, and the holy spirit agreed with the Father, so Jesus was forced to come down here. So if you are a Trinitarian, it is better to thank the Father and the holy spirit than to thank Jesus, because Jesus didn’t willfully die for your sins he did so reluctantly. Some people would say your splitting hairs, but am I really? Two different wills show two different lines of thought. Especially when the wills are compared. Why even say something like that if you are collectively God? How often does this happen? This builds skepticism.         

     

    My God

    There are too many locations in the Bible where Jesus calls the Father “My God”. If we are to believe Jesus is considered God because of people calling him God and worshiping him. What connotation are we to get with Jesus worshiping and calling the Father “My God”? Jesus on many occasions prayed to the father an act of worship. Then he compares our viewpoint and his viewpoint and places them on the same level in spirit form. He told Mary “My God” and “Your God”. With that statement he identified himself with humans in spirit form. Why would he do that? He is no longer ‘limited’ like the Trinitarians repeatedly stress. If anything Jesus should have said, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my rightful place as God.” But by referring to a part as a whole and separating himself from the whole, concludes he cannot be God. Jesus refers to the Father as God or the whole, if anything he is referring also to himself in the third person. But by stating the word ‘My’ separates himself from the whole so he couldn’t be referring to himself in the third person anymore. Jesus confirms this by comparing himself to a human while in spirit form, now we know Jesus is not God. The same reasons that is used to prove Jesus is God is the same things Jesus does to the Father. So a Trinitarian believing Jesus is God, and Jesus saying, “My God”, the Trinitarian would have to admit Polytheism. This is not a bad thing it just shows Trinitarians cannot believe in tota scriptura. They would have to make a new conclusion in order to realign themselves in tota scriptura. Because this scripture here is undeniable proof Jesus is not God.

      

    Illogical viewpoints

    It is amazing that Trinitarians use logic to prove their conclusions. Because their conclusions are very illogical. What is the goal of the Trinitarian? Listen to a statement one Trinitarian made during a debate: “Day we wrap our minds around God - Day we reduced him to our level - making a God our image”. This is the underlying goal of the Trinitarian, Confusion, misunderstanding, and illogic. They do not want to clear things up, because they feel if you understand God, you reduce him. Their goal is to keep him blurry, make God confusing while asserting clarity. They are masters of convincing people they are trying to rationalize evidence when they are actually trying to build a unsound conclusion. Think about some of the concepts they present. 100% God and 100% man. Can anything be 200%? Dual personality, does anything have a dual personality? I often hear Trinitarians say they recognize differences between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How can any single entity be the same and different at the same time and in the same sense. This is what is called conflicting statements, a contradiction, and an oxymoron. Occam's razor essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.

    What is more simpler:

    The Father is God, and Jesus is an Angel, the things Jesus does have been granted for him to do.

    Or

    The Father is God, and Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, they are completely different, but they are all one and the same.

     

    Which concept has more assumptions? Which concept is more complex? The Trinity is an extraordinary claim, and an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence. The Trinity is very, very, very complex. Think about it. If a person claimed to be God. This would be a extraordinary claim, you would need a lot of proof! Why do we not treat Jesus the same way? Especially with him making statements that say otherwise, like sent, begotten, ask, will, my God, etc. Other wordings in the Bible that causes problems like, intercedes, anointed, priest, mediator, appointed, has a head, doctrine is not his, subjected to God,etc. There are too many things that say otherwise. When someone is something everything has to line up, he cannot be not something at the same time and in the same sense is something. Information that says otherwise we can’t just paint over it. We have to consider it. For Trinitarians who say they adhere to tota scriptura should not go back to the same conclusion. I have always heard Trinitarians explain when they are three but never have them explain when they are one. How can they be one entity and be completely different? Do they argue with one another? They obviously disagree with one another because Jesus came to do the fathers will not his own. Jesus is not even closely the same, he is completely different. In the scriptures the supremacy of the Father is mentioned over and over and the inferiority of the Son is clear, simple, and consistent. Whereas the concept of the Trinity of their equality is clothed in mystery, needs imagination, creativity, encumbered with difficulties, and heavily dependent upon few scriptural passages for support. You would need the similarities to out numerate the differences, but there are too many differences to justify a workable concept, let alone be considered true.

     

    Holy Spirit

    It is interesting in the terminology Jesus uses to describe himself. He must have a problem against the holy spirit. He says if he glorifies himself his glory is nothing, but it is his father that glorifies him. Why not the holy spirit? Why couldn’t he say it is the father and the holy spirit that glorifies me? Why is only the father glorifying the son? At the mouth of two men a matter is made firmly established, I am one and my father is the other. Why didn’t Jesus use the Holy Spirit? No body has respect the Holy Spirit, Jesus, the Apostles, or the Angels. In the letters opening and closing remarks Jesus and the Father is reference but not the holy spirit. Jesus always prays to the Father but never to the Holy Spirit. The Father heals, resurrects, and can send angels but not the Holy Spirit. Why isn’t the holy spirit respected as God? In Revelation they say thanks to the Son, thanks to the Father, but no thanks to the Holy Spirit? No worship, no throne, and no thanks, its ruff for the Holy Spirit.

     

    Sacrifice

    I do want to present what I feel is a real challenge to salvation and the Trinity teaching. If Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and all together they are God, then when you sin against a part of them you sin against them all. In fact any sin against anyone is a sin against God. The problem is Jesus words which has profound effects. At Matthew 12:31, 32 Jesus says, “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” So with Jesus words if the Holy Spirit is God then no one can get life. Jesus sacrifice would not cover sinning against the Holy Spirit, not in this world or the next. This is proof that the Holy Spirit cannot be a portion of God or Jesus. Jesus makes this comparison not to say he is one with the spirit but to separate himself. Trinitarian would say, I don’t believe Jesus is the Holy Spirit. But to be clear, we are not talking about the Holy Spirit being Jesus, we are talking about the Holy Spirit being God. If the Holy Spirit is God then no one gets life. This is proof that everything called God, is not God.  

     

     Conclusion

    There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Jesus is not God. That is why the majority of religious people whether Jewish, Muslim, and some Christians do not agree with Trinitarianism. Plus Jesus says too many things to indicate he is not God. The reasons Trinitarians use to prove Jesus is God are the very same reasons that could be used to prove he is not God. Then there is the clear disrespect of the Holy Spirit with no regard. The fact Jesus is mortal, temptable, limited, and begotten is heavy proof he is an Angel. But not the only evidence Jesus is an Angel. Jesus is has the keys to the Abyss, but in Revelation an Angel has the keys to the Abyss. Jesus uses an Angel’s voice to call the dead. In Revelation an Angel claims to be Jesus.  The reason why the direction was not clear before, is because fourth century Christians banished and killed those who argued against their  viewpoint. Now Trinitarians will say they have way more evidence that proves Jesus is God. Nevertheless, I have way more evidence that proves Jesus is not God.






  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    ======================================
    When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??@Sand
  • SandSand 57 Pts
    They are anonymous because unlike our day individualism was not important. People did not write books for profit. The gospels were put together much eariler than 160ad. You must refering to the Gospel of Nazorean, the Gospel of Saint Mark, or the Gospel of Peter. Those books are not part of Cannon. Nevertheless, its not important who wrote it, the importance is on the information. When the viability is questioned, I can tell this person has not studied the book. When you drink a incredible drink, you do not say who invented this? Why are they anonymous? Why did they take so long to bring it out? No......you appreciate the drink, the experience. You may even study why the drink tastes so great!

    You should do the same for the Bible. Study the information. Ill give you another example. Do you know who invented numbers, or what year numbers were invented? Does it really matter? Do you question the viability of number? Or do you apreciate your cell phone? Do you marvel at an Airplane? Do you value your car to take you to work? Because you use numbers everyday! Without them man would not be able to advance technology this far. Stop trying to determine the viabillity of the book, study the book. This book is the most influential book ever! Why? ......................................................................

    What in it is so powerful? What makes this book so alive and authoritative?This book is the building block United States was built on! It was the reason why settlers traveled to the United States. It assimulated Rome! It was the basis for Brittian, Germany, Russia! The people who fight against it are the very ones who don't study it, or who have a superficial knowledge of it. This book has undergone the heaviest scritiny in human history and passed! But people are on some kind of merry go round, where this generation doesn't want to read the tests the Bible took, they want to requestion and retest the exact same tests. This time they want to place more assumptions against the Bible and not even give the Bible a fair review or chance to answer.

    Lets appreciate the drink. Study the Bible.





  • SandSand 57 Pts
    I noticed many people want eye witnesses to Jesus. Let me ask a question, your great great great grandfather, did he exist? Do we have documented eyewitnesses that he existed? You may say I have pictures. But what evidence do you have to substatiate that the person in your pictures is him? You may say my grand parents were eyewitnesses. Even if that were possible. Are your grand parents historians? What are their creditials? How do we know that they didn't make the story up to make you feel at ease. You may say the fact that I exisit is evidence of his exisitance. So you use the effect as evidence of the cause. Could we do the same with Jesus. For him to be a fictious character, would he have this kind of effect on human history? And the story to coincide with actual history and geography so accurately, could this really be someone who did not exist? 
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    WOW!
    Talk about useless blather.

    First thing idiot......When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??



    @Sand
  • SandSand 57 Pts
    I can see why you are an antitheist. You asked the same question even though you received an answer. Like you are like a robot or a recording. You just repeat, until you get the answer you want. I'll play along.
  • SandSand 57 Pts
    When you look at your history ..did you notice ..as i did...that your ancestors are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear until you research them until 2019ad??
  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts
    PROVE THE AUTHOURSHIP OF ONE GOSPEL.
    HOW ABOUT LUKE..WHO WAS LUKE?
    TELL ME ABOUT HIM

    @Sand
  • SandSand 57 Pts
    Proof of four of the gospels are identified by over 5000 secretaries, scribes, and scholars.
    Including some of the most influential historic figures in verification known in life.
    Some of the people who verified the bibicial gospels, taught the scholars and writers of the people who wrote the books on verification.
    One of the guys name is Origen was so famous that some believed that his name influenced the word 'origin'.
    In fact in the school of Alexandria, the subject of verification used the Bible as its passing training subject.
    In order to get the degree on verification, you had to use the Bible as guideline for class.

    And you call me stupid?                  Wow you need to study.

    It like asking, how do we know the history books are written by historians?
    And Who verified the historian wrote the book? And who was his eyewitnesses?

    Wouldn't the book be the proof of the writer.
    Instead of the writer being proof of the book.

    So I will ask my question again to you.

    When you look at your history ..did you notice ..as i did...that your ancestors are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear until you research them until 2019ad??

    The answer is .............you. The fact we have you is proof that you have ancestors.

    They existed because you exist.

    We have scholars, scribes, and secretaries all point to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the writters. You have these books there is no one else claiming authorship.
    We have to take these people word for it, who lived during their time.
    Reguardless of who wrote it, we have the books, it is historical fact of Jesus being alive! Because it is four separate view points of the same events.

    Stop trying prove the book, based on the writer.

    Its like me saying you do not exist because I have no documented proof (eyewitnesses) of your great great great grandfather.

    Afterwhile you be asking for photos of Mark.
    Video of John
    Finger prints of Matthew
    & DNA of Luke

  • mickygmickyg 82 Pts

    Luke 1
    1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
    1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

    THE UNKNOWN WRITER CLEARLY SAYS HE WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS...@Sand
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch