Is Jesus the Most High According To The New Testament?
DEBATE: Is Jesus The Most High According To The New Testament? Godlogic VS The Orthodox Muslim
The case is decided
It wasLibiano.
Libiano presented a clear, logically structured case based on essential divine properties, using modus tollens to argue that Jesus lacks highest authority, thus cannot be the most high God. He anticipated Avery’s role/nature distinction and refuted it by showing authority is essential to Yahweh, and that the New Testament nowhere qualifies Jesus’ subordination as merely functional. In cross-examination, Avery conceded that begetting the Son is not an essential property of divinity [3196s] and struggled to coherently explain how Jesus can lack essential authority. Libiano maintained internal consistency and directly addressed Avery’s points, while Avery relied on ad hoc theological distinctions without effectively countering the philosophical core of Libiano’s argument.
Why Libiano won
- Libiano frames his argument around essential properties and modus tollens [465s]: 'If Jesus is Yahweh then he must have the highest Authority... Jesus does not have the highest Authority... Jesus is not Yahweh.'
- He highlights that New Testament authors never qualify Jesus’ subordination as merely in role, but do qualify other potential misunderstandings [588s], undermining Avery’s expected response.
- Libiano argues Jesus receives worship only because of his sacrifice, not essentially [711s], whereas Yahweh is essentially worthy—showing Jesus lacks an essential divine property.
- In cross-examination, Avery concedes that generating another divine person is not an essential property of divinity [3196s], opening the door to Jesus not having essential divine attributes.
- Libiano demonstrates Avery’s inconsistent logic by noting that if authority is essential, lacking it in any sense contradicts being the most high [8143s].
Where Avery scored
- Avery got Libiano to admit that Jesus is 'most high' in a sense limited to creation [4665s], which he then spun as a concession, though Libiano clarified it is subordinate to the Father.
- Avery’s opening used Hebrews 1:3 and Philippians 2 to argue for Jesus’ exact divine nature [1367s], but Libiano countered the morphe argument by showing it refers to outward appearance [2234s].
- Avery’s appeal to early church fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Tertullian) being orthodox was partially effective in creating doubt about Libiano’s historical claims [2823s], though Libiano provided specific quotations.
Closest callWhether Avery’s point from Hebrews 1 quoting Psalm 97 and Deuteronomy 32—applying 'most high' language to Jesus—was adequately refuted by Libiano’s rebuttal that the author only uses familiar passages to show superiority over angels rather than ontological identity [2358s]. Libiano’s explanation was plausible, but the strength of Avery’s textual linkage left room for debate.
Crowd verdict
1 voteThe model called this for Libiano. Who do you say won?
Spread the verdict
Receipts attached. The link opens at the deciding moment.
Another case?
Try the next debate.