The lord our god is NOT one lord according to the bible therefore everything god is, is false

No, 'Jealous' isn't literally God's name. If that's the way you want to read things, than why not go with Psalm 111:9, "Holy and awesome is His name." But the word 'name' here is being used in the same sense as in the sentence 'I have to clear my name' - a person's name sometimes just means their standing, their reputation, and 'holy', 'awesome', and 'jealous' are just adjectives. The scripture in Exodus 34:14 that describes him as a jealous God uses his name Yahweh or Jehovah in the Hebrew text just like thousands of other scriptures in the Bible. Then you seem to say I 'have no proof' of the trinity, despite my having never made any such argument anyway - I'm not sure why you bother to say that. I also hadn't mentioned the magesterial plural in an argument, since it wasn't an argument you'd brought up thus far, though the video mentioned it. Since you mention it now, I will point out that 'elohim', the Hebrew plural of 'god' which the video makes great mention of, can be meant as a merely magesterial plural - for example, it is used of Moses, despite Moses clearly being only one person, at Exodus 7:1. http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... "Oh you don"t know that and since you don"t know that [the meaning of Deut 6:4] and it point blank obvious that you are 100% wrong" Indeed I don't know that for certain. If you propose a alternative understanding of it that seems more reasonable, that's fair enough. In this instance, I simply put forth what seems the most natural way of understanding the words, once you recognise that it doesn't actually say 'one lord', as you quote it in the debate title. Neither does it say 'one god', or any such thing. The Hebrew for 'lord' is 'adon', often with an 'i' on the end, and you'll notice that word wasn't in that scripture. The word for 'god' was in there (it was the 'elohenu') but only once - the word often mistranslated as 'lord' was in there twice, and it was the tetragrammaton, God's name. So, was it pointing out anything about the number of gods, or the number of lords? If that had been its intent, it was using the wrong words - at least in the original text. But you yourself later say (though for what reason I don't know), Baal was worshipped as being many gods, even though he was sometimes given a single name. Was the same true of Yahweh? It would seem that the purpose of the wording at Deuteronomy 6:4 was to answer that question, and the answer is 'no, that is not true'. I can't think of any other possible meaning of the phrase, 'Yahweh is one Yahweh' or 'Jehovah is one Jehovah'. Perhaps it could mean that he always has the same thoughts and purpose (similar to the usage at John 17:11) - but that meaning wouldn't seem to fit the context so well. http://biblehub.com... ""and Jesus quoted this Psalm in John 10:34-36:" Umn no he didn"t. Not even close. OK that"s strike 1 for super bad misinterpretation. I decided to see how reliable your interpreting skills are with that jesus one, and wow did they SUCK. I mean where did you hamburger blackened ask that one up from?" Well, I thought it rather intuitive (though I guess that's just because I've learned this stuff for decades - it's intuitive in the way that algebra is intuitive if you've been studying maths for decades, otherwise it probably isn't, no shame in that), but since you ask, let me back it up with some sources, various commentaries on John 10:34: Meyer's NT Commentary John 10:34-36. In Psalm 82:6, unrighteous authorities of the theocratic people"not angels (Bleek), nor yet heathen princes (De Wette, Hitzig)"whose approaching destruction, in contrast to their high dignity, is intended to stand out, are called gods, agreeably to the old sacred view of rulers as the representatives of God, which was entertained in the theocratic nation. Compare Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:28. From this, Jesus draws the conclusion a minori ad majus, that He might call Himself God"s Son without blasphemy. He is surely far more exalted than they ([some text removed - DDO corrupted the greek characters] etc.); and nevertheless had designated Himself, not [theos];, as though wishing to make a God of Himself, but merely [son of theos]. I deleted some due to character count, but you can find plenty more at http://biblehub.com... or just Google 'John 10:34', it's the standard understanding of that verse. What source were you looking at? "it basically depends on whether you choose definitions for 'god' and 'angel' that have a certain amount of overlap." STRIKE 2. Where on earth do you come up with that one?" That's just basic reasoning ability - definitions of key terms affect conclusions. "Definition of angel in English by Oxford Dictionaries - a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God" By this definition, the existence of angels couldn't really be said to contradict monotheism. By some other definitions, it might. Since the conclusions will depend on the definitions, all I can argue in this case is that the definitions by which I would be understood to be correct (i.e. that the existence of angels like Jesus (when in heaven) does not contradict the God of the Bible being monotheistic) are the most commonly held definitions. And, perhaps one could also argue, are the more consistent definitions - you have not yet supplied a definition of monotheism that would remain meaningful if the mere existence of other powerful beings were to contradict it, and certainly no such meaningful definition springs to my mind. (Neither does the person in the video, as far as I see.) Some tangential topics you mention like whether we can prove God exists and whether God would use text are probably whole debates in themselves, but there were a few things that could be explained quite briefly: "he cannot control satan, is NOT in charge of everything, is NOT omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect." Who said he couldn't stop Satan? He can stop you speaking against him, but lets you continue for a time. Why would we not expect that he makes the same allowance with Satan - or say that this means he is not omnipotent? In the book of Job (part of the Bible, which you strangely continue to claim I have never read at all, despite the clearly mounting evidence against such a claim) God allows Satan to make some actions against Job, but sets limits on them. He can set what limits he chooses on Satan's actions. In Luke 8:31, the angels who followed Satan begged Jesus not to order them into imprisonment - so the Bible implies they have restrictions to which they must hold, and that they can be overpowered. And ultimately, Satan can be eliminated. (Revelation 20:10) Try to remain aware that your not knowing a solution to a biblical problem has far more explanations than simply that anyone who still believes it must not have "read YOUR bible at all to not know that". The possibility exists that others have simply studied the Bible more deeply than you, and consider the problem to have a solution - indeed, maybe one that they don't even consider that hard. Kids think quadratic equations are hard, math graduates don't - it's all relative. https://www.jw.org... "Oh and btw hopping around the bunny trail as far as translations really damages your credibility and integrity because who knows which version is correct? Because none of them are." Usually it is considered that an argument is strengthened, not weakened, by citing a variety of sources. While opinions may differ on whether that applies to different translations of the Bible, certainly it does no harm to show that they all back up the same points. That was why I did it, it wasn't for convenience. "Likewise, Isaiah 44:13-18 but has nothing to disprove "us" or "our" and doesn"t prove a "god" nonetheless." It wasn't meant to. You raised points of plural pronouns your section entitled Part I, and I addressed them in my first four paragraphs. When I used the Isaiah scripture it was to address some of the claims in Part II, namely the claim that God would not draw comparisons between himself and a god that didn't exist - the scripture in Isaiah served to show that he actually would be willing to do that. It didn't prove anything about those other arguments because the subject had moved on from them. "So you follow your god"s orders and coone down here and kill me for the simple reason that I don"t believe and am trying to sway you." I'm presuming 'follow' must be in the imperative mood rather than the indicative, otherwise this would be a false statement. Even in ancient Israel, an average Joe wasn't supposed to go and kill someone for idolatry! Earlier Psalm 62 was discussed, and its reference to the judges and how they were to represent God - the law stated how these judges would have to get testimony from witnesses, investigate, and execute judgements. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21) Average citizens like me didn't just decide to go all vigilante on anyone who committed idolatry or adultery. They testified before the judges, and the matter was decided with due process. Now, our judge is Jesus. We leave these matters to him. (John 5:22; Romans 2:16; 1 Peter 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 ) Note how an accurate understanding of Jesus' role in the Bible contradicts your first video that claims that Christianity has moved on to worshipping Jesus instead of his father (comparing it to polytheistic religions that worshipped mothers, then fathers, then sons). "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 2:5) Yahweh, or Jehovah, retains his role in biblical Christianity. It is the roles of the judges of Israel, the kings of Israel, and the priests of Israel, that have all been replaced by Jesus. (Hebrews 3:1,2; Hebrews 5:5,6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28