Is the WORD in John 1 Father God ?

Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret. Answer all questions directly. Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit.

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Round 1

1 of 4

Mal

Pro #1

We gonna get to the topic.

But first, I think there was an individual not bold enough if it all to tackle this subject on divorce.

Did Jesus Christ permit, approve or justify divorce and putting away of a married spouse at all and did he justify remarriage to another while the first spouse is still alive?

Let me get your answer to that.

On to the topic.

Was the Word in John 1 the Father Jesus Christ?

Now if the opposing side agrees that God is the Father, the answer is yes.

If the opposing side agrees that God never stops being the father but is the EVERLASTING Father, the "opposing side" is not truly opposed.

The alpha and omega, the word was there in the beginning and until the end of the age or world, the word in the beginning, Jesus basically said I'm with you until the end.

Jesus is the alpha and omega. God is the alpha and omega. The first and the last , the beginning and the ending according to scripture.

If the opposing side which I refer to for now wishes for proof of that from scripture, we can go there and get it.

John 1 and 1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

So the word was.....God.

Is God the Father?

There is only one God, right.

If there isn't just one , the opposing side can show me more than one in the book of Genesis.

The opposing side can show "let us" that was there in the beginning that made everything .

Then the opposing side can show me the following verse that reads God, one God, right, in the verse that follows.

Scripture say without HIM was not anything made .

"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

We don't have anyone else but him. Him who?

I dare the opposing side to say "him" is not the Father.

"4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

I dare the opposing side to say the life that was in the beginning in him is not everlasting life.

Does the Father have everlasting life?

Is he the everlasting Father?

Yes , life is in the Father. I dare the opposing side to say otherwise.

It's really that simple.

I made it so plain , need not a wayfaring man to error .

God is the Father according to scripture. Does the opposing side challenge this?

We'll see. Does God ever stop being the Father?

If God stops being the Father creator, well then, what do we have?

We have a God that changes.

Need I say more?

Like the scripture say basically, I do a quick work. I do a short work.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #2

"Did Jesus Christ permit, approve or justify divorce and putting away of a married spouse at all and did he justify remarriage to another while the first spouse is still alive?"

Jesus did not allow divorce because divorce is trying to break something that cannot be broken. He did allow separation or "putting away." He definitely did not allow remarriage while the spouse is still alive.

"Was the Word in John 1 the Father Jesus Christ? Now if the opposing side agrees that God is the Father, the answer is yes."

Well, God is not always the Father because we have God the Son in the Bible. Sure, God may be our Father, but Jesus is not the Father of God.

"The alpha and omega, the word was there in the beginning and until the end of the age or world, the word in the beginning, Jesus basically said I'm with you until the end.

Jesus is the alpha and omega. God is the alpha and omega. The first and the last , the beginning and the ending according to scripture."

These are God the Father and God the Son saying it. Just because they give themselves the same title doesn't mean they are the same person.

"If there isn't just one , the opposing side can show me more than one in the book of Genesis."

Pro is simply trying to use Scripture to defeat Scripture. You can't use the Bible like that. The Bible can't be in disagreement.

"The opposing side can show "let us" that was there in the beginning that made everything ."

Well, who do you think the "us" is in Genesis 1:26, 2:18, 3:22, 11:7?

"'3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.' We don't have anyone else but him. Him who?"

Why does John 1:1 also say "with God"? This would be useless. It would be saying He was with Himself.

"Does the Father have everlasting life? Is he the everlasting Father? Yes , life is in the Father. I dare the opposing side to say otherwise."

Life is also in the Son as seen in John 1:4.

"We'll see. Does God ever stop being the Father?"

Well, Jesus' Father is God. His Father cannot be Himself. Jesus cannot be the Father.

"If God stops being the Father creator, well then, what do we have?"

Well if we mean father in the sense of a creator, then Jesus is definitely a father.

"We have a God that changes."

Not if that is part of God's nature. Your god changes because he appears in different forms and roles. This is why you refuse to call it modalism.

Now some of my own questions and arguments:

I'll let you give your answer for why John 1:1 says "with God." Decide your reason.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

How can the Word be begotten of the Father if He is the Father? Can you be begotten of yourself?

And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God. (John 1:34)

How can the Word be the Son of God if He is the Father?

And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Mark 1:11)

If Jesus is the Father, why does this voice come from heaven? Why would the Father say call Himself "beloved"? Why would He call Himself His Son? Why would He say He is pleased with Himself?

Your logic just won't hold up.

Round 2

2 of 4

Mal

Pro #3

"Jesus did not allow divorce because divorce is trying to break something that cannot be broken. He did allow separation or "putting away." He definitely did not allow remarriage while the spouse is still alive."

The scriptures don't teach separation is putting away. If you read back through Matthew 19, you can learn that.

Moving on.

"Well, God is not always the Father because we have God the Son in the Bible. Sure, God may be our Father, but Jesus is not the Father of God."

Can you give scripture that says "God stopped being the Father and become God the Son"?

Also, give scripture that says" God may be

our Father?"

"These are God the Father and God the Son saying it. Just because they give themselves the same title doesn't mean they are the same person."

Watch how easy I'm going to make this.

You said "themselves" and "these" and "they" but how many Gods are we talking about in this context?

"Pro is simply trying to use Scripture to defeat Scripture. You can't use the Bible like that. The Bible can't be in disagreement."

What's the matter? Are you scared to go to Genesis?

The bible teach even the fool can be wise to keep silent. Yeah you keep silent on this. Rest of the debate duration really.

"Well, who do you think the "us" is in Genesis 1:26, 2:18, 3:22, 11:7?"

The one God according to verse 27 I believe and if you don't believe it, read it.

"Why does John 1:1 also say "with God"? This would be useless. It would be saying He was with Himself."

Right, why does it say that when it's just one God?

You do believe it's one, right and whatever explanation you give, it better be written in the scripture or you stand in violation in terms of the debate.

"Life is also in the Son as seen in John 1:4."

Of course you won't say otherwise.

"Well, Jesus' Father is God. His Father cannot be Himself. Jesus cannot be the Father."

Does God ever stop being the Father? Yes or no .

"Well if we mean father in the sense of a creator, then Jesus is definitely a father."

So the scriptures teach two creators, is that correct?

"Not if that is part of God's nature. Your god changes because he appears in different forms and roles. This is why you refuse to call it modalism."

A part of Father God's nature, is that right?

See, because if God never changes from being the Father, you now admit it's a part of the Father's nature which that part of the nature is flesh and blood. For the scripture says he took not on the NATURE of angels. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He likewise took PART of the same the bible says.

Is this a part the Father God took part in that the word became flesh?

I don't call none of this modalism because the scriptures didn't call any of this that. See unlike you I speak as the oracles of God. You constantly add to scripture .

"How can the Word be begotten of the Father if He is the Father? "

God never changes from being the Father, you now admit it's a part of the Father's nature which that part of the nature is flesh and blood. For the scripture says he took not on the NATURE of angels. For as much then as the children of partakers of flesh and blood He likewise took PART of the same the bible says.

Hebrews 2:14.

In Matthew chapter one Jesus is referred to as God . The God that never stops being the Father, right. See, because he's called the EVERLASTING FATHER according to Isaiah. So saying he's not the Father, let alone everlasting, you contradict Isaiah.

The scriptures say "conceived of the holy ghost".

So yes God conceived a child that is God with us just like in the beginning was the WORD and the word was with God and was God.

Still JUST ONE GOD. Once you accept there's one God, you will not have a God that is not the Father because you only have one.

If that one God is not the Father, where did the Father go and what nature is he?

"Can you be begotten of yourself?"

No.

I'm not God who took on another nature who was conceived of God. Scripture says "only begotten son". I'm not the "only".

It didn't say two begotten sons and I'm the other one.

"How can the Word be the Son of God if He is the Father?"

It's because the word was God according to John 1 and Jesus the son of God was God with us according to Matthew 1.

Just think. One God. One God. One God.

"If Jesus is the Father, why does this voice come from heaven? Why would the Father say call Himself "beloved"? Why would He call Himself His Son? Why would He say He is pleased with Himself?

Your logic just won't hold up."

I'm not using logic. How many times do have to say logic has nothing to do with this?

You're this stiff-necked I have to say it over and over.

How can God be with God ? That's another question to add.

Basically the scripture speaks the way that it does , does not change that there is one God. Being that there's one God and the scripture says "unto us".....not "maybe unto us"....but "unto us there is one God the Father", it's not "sometimes, the Father".

Then you have two Gods when God doesn't stop being the Father but have a God that is not the Father.

Then you double talk saying The Son of God is a father pretty much teaching there's a father besides a father besides a creator besides a creator besides a God besides a God.

Where God says there's no God besides him, not them but him and stretched forth the heavens ALONE and spread abroad the earth by himself.

The one God . If you're talking about a God that is not Father, you're talking about another and this God said there's no GOD BESIDES HIM.

THAT'S SCRIPTURE. SCRIPTURE HOLDS UP .

DROP THE LOGIC AND GET SCRIPTURE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. STOP LEANING ON LOGIC. GET SCRIPTURE.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #4

"Can you give scripture that says 'God stopped being the Father and become God the Son'?"

Well, isn't that what you believe? You believe that the Father became the Son. The Son in relation to whom? If He is the Son of God, how is He His own son?

"You said 'themselves' and 'these' and 'they' but how many Gods are we talking about in this context?"

Enough complaining about me using plural pronouns. You have ignored that plural pronouns are used in Genesis 1:26, 2:18, 3:22, 11:7. Elohim, a name for God, is also plural.

"What's the matter? Are you scared to go to Genesis?"

You're scared to go to Genesis because of the plural pronouns.

Me: "Well, who do you think the "us" is in Genesis 1:26, 2:18, 3:22, 11:7?"

Pro: "The one God according to verse 27 I believe and if you don't believe it, read it."

Exactly. We know there is singularity and plurality in God.

Me: "Why does John 1:1 also say "with God"? This would be useless. It would be saying He was with Himself."

Pro: "Right, why does it say that when it's just one God?"

Exactly. We know that there is one God, but the question is how many persons are in the one God.

"Does God ever stop being the Father? Yes or no ."

Well, the Son is not Father in relation to the Father. The Father is Father from all time.

So the scriptures teach two creators, is that correct?

The scriptures say "through Him" all things were made.

"See, because if God never changes from being the Father, you now admit it's a part of the Father's nature which that part of the nature is flesh and blood. For the scripture says he took not on the NATURE of angels. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He likewise took PART of the same the bible says."

This is a problem for you. You believe that Father is part of God's nature, but I don't. Father is part of the Father's personhood. You believe the Father became the Son and changed nature.

"In Matthew chapter one Jesus is referred to as God . The God that never stops being the Father, right. See, because he's called the EVERLASTING FATHER according to Isaiah. So saying he's not the Father, let alone everlasting, you contradict Isaiah."

Jesus has a Father, so He cannot be His Father's father. He is a father to us but not to the Father.

Me: "Can you be begotten of yourself?"

Pro: No.

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" is found in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 & 5:5. Is the Father begetting the Father?

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14 is another example of God begetting.

"I'm not using logic. How many times do have to say logic has nothing to do with this?"

So we're just throwing out logic? I don't think that's what God really wants us to do. Why do you even believe the Bible then?

Round 3

3 of 4

Mal

Pro #5

"Well, isn't that what you believe? You believe that the Father became the Son. The Son in relation to whom? If He is the Son of God, how is He His own son?"

The bible said be prepared to give an answer. I asked the opposing side a question and ducked it with more questions.

There was no scripture given that God stopped being the Father, so the opposing side concedes , thus conceding that the word in John 1 is the Father because the Father was there in the beginning. The Father is the beginning and ending, he's from everlasting to everlasting, the everlasting Father.

"Enough complaining about me using plural pronouns. You have ignored that plural pronouns are used in Genesis 1:26, 2:18, 3:22, 11:7. Elohim, a name for God, is also plural."

The opposing side ducked another question thereby conceding there is only one God.

The opposing side has violated the debate stipulations.

"Answer all questions directly. Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit"

The opposing side has forfeited this debate.

I reiterate:

THE OPPOSING SIDE HAS FORFEITED THIS DEBATE.

"The scriptures say "through Him" all things were made."

This is not saying "correct" or "incorrect" to my question.

All these questions are being ducked and the opposing side is fleeing from where no wise man pursue.

The opposite side position doesn't hold up or else these questions could be answered without contradicting the scripture.

"So we're just throwing out logic? I don't think that's what God really wants us to do. Why do you even believe the Bible then?"

How many times do I have to say it?

No offense but are you dumb?

I've said this over and over and over. This is a biblical based debate. All these biblical topics are biblically based. Not a logic based debate.

It has to be written. It has to be scriptural,not logical. Written.

Written. Written. Written.

If you can't get that, you got to be as the scripture say, dumb dog.

It's not about believing the bible. It's about what does it teach.

We're not debating believing the bible, we were debating what does it teach. Big difference.

You already forfeited. Case closed.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #6

Pro does not understand anything. Pro assumes that the Trinity is polytheistic. It's not. Trinitarians believe in one God.

Pro claims that I have forfeited the debate. I don't know about this. Pro seemed to have asked a rhetorical question on how many gods we were talking about. This is obvious. I believe in one God. I pointed out inconsistencies with pro's logic. For example, pro complained that I used plural pronouns to refer to the persons of the Trinity but ignored that God Himself used plural pronouns for Himself. Pro already accepts that plural pronouns don't make multiple gods, but for some reason, I don't get a pass.

Pro made two offensive comments:

No offense but are you dumb?

If you can't get that, you got to be as the scripture say, dumb dog.

They say that if you have to say "no offense," you probably shouldn't say it. Dog is a derogatory. The Philistine insulted and cursed David and called him a dog. (1 Samuel 17:43)

Pro has decided to throw logic out of this debate. Look what happened in the "Logic doesn't exist" debate, where SatanLucy challenged people to prove logic exists without using logic.

Pro only gave us one actually logical argument:

There was no scripture given that God stopped being the Father, so the opposing side concedes , thus conceding that the word in John 1 is the Father because the Father was there in the beginning. The Father is the beginning and ending, he's from everlasting to everlasting, the everlasting Father.

I don't think everlasting means from all time, beginning and end. Won't believers receive everlasting life? Does this mean they were alive from all eternity? With your reasoning, this would make them gods.

The Bible is clear. Jesus has a Father. He cannot be His own Father. Jesus is the Son.

Everlasting Father means He will always be our father. He cannot be the Father's father.

Round 4

4 of 4

Mal

Pro #7

The opposite side did not answer the questions. Has presented no scripture to prove the opposite case because the opposite side has self refuted the opposite case.

So this case is as good as closed.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #8

The only one unable to answer questions was pro.

We know the the Word (logos) is Jesus.

Jesus speaks of His own Father. He is said to be begotten of the Father.

Jesus cannot be His own Father, so Jesus the Word of God is not the Father.

The Word of God means He is a separate person. The Word belongs to God but is also God. This is why the Word was "with God" but also "was God."

Mal

People should be voting on the scriptures teaching one God and that one God never stops being the Father. Not on how much combativeness there is.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Mal

Are you going to start voting on debates?

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Mal

Yes, that voter does indeed know nothing. He is a polytheist.

Mal

Voter knows nothing about scripture.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

There's a subject in this debate that talks around a concept with neither participant engaging the concept, which is the suggestion that since God is alleged to be omnipotent, he is compelled to be omnipotent on all occasions, particularly in the arena of creation. After all, who else to create but a perfect, omnipotent being? Well, as it happens, I don't read that requirement in scripture; neither that only an omnipotent being creates, nor that an omnipotent being can only act omnipotently all the time. I do bot believe either statement. Creation is not black magic, nor white for that matter. It is not magic. It is simply the ability to organize chaos and uselessness of raw materials into order of useful materials. Even art, as conceived by man, fits this description, doesn't it? So, in matters of creation of "heaven and earth," why is it so hard to believe God may have had subordinate assistants involved in creation of "heaven and earth?" The idea does not offend me whatsoever, and I sure believe God is not so jealous as to be offended by it, either. What artist does not sometimes have assistants, maybe in training to become, one day, as proficient as the master. What father does not want a son or daughter to one day acquire his skills? I think God, our Father, has such interest in us.

melcharaz

--> @GreatfulGoy, @Mal

No need to insinuate greatfulgoy is a coward in the first opening statement.

Come on man.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @Mal

Are you looking for someone else? I can definately debate this, but if you’re tried of me, I won’t debate you.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Unfortunately, this debate became overly and personally combative, including a two-round argument which began each participant's rounds with a subject beyond the scope of the debate re: whether or not Jesus condoned divorce and an argument whether a married man putting a wife away was equivalent to divorce, or not. Absurd argument, considering its existence beyond the debate scope. Since both participants engaged the argument, it neither adds nor subtracts to/from either participant in the score. It was just frustrating as a voter to endure. Pls stay on point.
I will also add that I do not appreciate Q&A debates because the points made in them can be couched in simply making argument and rebuttal. The nature of Q&A tends to stray from the scope of the debate, just like the above criticism. Both participants engaged in this nonsense as well, and so neither gain. nor fail due to the distraction it caused.
The true scope of the debate was simply described by the Resolve, curiously, given by the Instigator/Pro, who was also the one instigating, in debate, both distractions noted above. The Resolve: "Is the WORD in John 1 Father God?" John 1 is a classic example in NT scripture of describing and differentiating God the Father and God the Son. But then, given an opportunity to define these terms in Description, which is always a best course of using the Description section, to define critical words of the Resolve, Pro failed to offer definitions. Pro's argument began, and really ended with the mandate that God the Father, and God the Son, are one person. He argued from the Genesis creation story that God was one person, saying he created man in "his" [singular] image.
Con's argument sided clearly with the concept of two separate beings, arguing that, from Genesis, "Let us make man in our image..." signifying two separate gods involved in the creation.
The Q&As distracted all main point arguments of both sides, and the real interrupt in argument occurred in R2 when Pro began personal attack on on Con: "You're this stiff-necked I have to say it over and over." Not kosher. Then further, Pro argues, "DROP THE LOGIC AND GET SCRIPTURE TO PROVE YOUR POINT." Since Pro did not stipulate in Description that all sourcing must be biblical, Pro is open to source at his pleasure, and defeated Con's "argument."

Them in R3, Pro asserts, "THE OPPOSING SIDE HAS FORFEITED THIS DEBATE." No, I see no evidence of Con forfeiting the debate, as all three rounds of argument to that point in the debate were entered by Con, and the fourth round, as well and I charge foul against Pro for claiming forfeit.

Both Con's argument of refuting the Resolution by demonstration that God the Father and God the Son are two separate gods, and that Pro abuses by absurd argument and accusation of forfeiture. Con. wins the debate.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

New comment