The Instigator
christisking
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
SkepticsAskHere
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist as Catholics understand it

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
SkepticsAskHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,699 times Debate No: 16892
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

christisking

Pro

Greetings SkepticsAskHere,

In this debate I will be taking the position that the bread and wine blessed by Christ at the Last Supper became his real and genuine body and blood (I can expand on this later).

My opponent will take the position that the bread and wine did not become Christ's real body and blood as many Christians hold.

The main definition which this debate will need is that of the word Eucharist:

Eucharist: The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.
http://www.newadvent.org......

The structure for the round will be as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance, definitions, and questions
Round 2: Presentation of main arguments
Round 3/4: rebuttals
Round 5: final rebuttals and closing arguments

I hope that sums everything up and I wish my opponent a good debate.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Well this seems like an interesting debate and I accept.

I will not define anything, however, I reserve the right to define terms for later rounds if need be.

I hope this will be an intelligent debate over the subject of transubstantiation.

I thank my opponent for the chance to debate, and I look forward to his first constructive.
Debate Round No. 1
christisking

Pro

First of all, I thank SkepticsAskHere for accepting this debate. This is a topic I find interesting and I look forward to hearing his arguments.

Though it sounds like my opponent is well acquainted with this topic, I will give a little background into what is being debated especially for the benefit of the audience. Catholics believe that at the Last Supper Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist. In this sacrament, Christ turned the bread and wine in His hands into His actual body and blood. The appearance of the bread and wine did not change, but their essence did. This is called transubstantiation, which means that the very essence of something, the bread and wine, is taken away and replaced with something else, Christ himself. It still looked like bread and wine, but since God is all powerful he was able to take the place of the bread and wine without even changing their appearances.

Most Protestant Christians on the other hand believe that what Christ did was merely give men a symbol of His body and blood and sacrifice on the cross (please correct me SkepticsAskHere if you believe something different).

Since both sides agree on the legitimacy of the bible as God's word, both of us being Christians, I hope that we can both use strong Biblical arguments to support our points. I hope that both sides will strive to prove that it is either more likely Christ really did initiate transubstantiation or that he did not.

Now to present my arguments:

Contention 1: The Last Supper

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
http://www.biblegateway.com...

Matthew 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
http://www.biblegateway.com...

In these accounts of the Last Supper, we see that Christ said that "this is my body" concerning the bread, and "this is my blood" concerning the wine. Neither before nor after does Christ say that He is merely talking symbolically. If Christ doesn't tell us that He is speaking symbolically or give us any context to cause us to believe otherwise, then we must take Him at His word and believe that the bread really is His body and the wine really is His blood.

Contention 2: John 6

John 6:53-59 53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
http://www.biblegateway.com...

In this passage, Christ says several times that the people must eat His body and drink His blood. Since nowhere else in the bible does Christ condone cannibalism, He is obviously foreshadowing what He would do at the Last Supper. By turning bread and wine into His body and blood, He would indeed make it possible for these people to consume His body and blood.

Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 27(AB) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord(AC) in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning(AD) the body and blood of the Lord. 28(AE) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
http://www.biblegateway.com...

In this passage, St. Paul tells us that whoever "eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." To take the words at their face value would mean that Paul is condemning those in Corinth who were receiving the Eucharist (for Christ passed on the power to change bread and wine into his body and blood) in an unworthy manner and reminding them that they are desecrating the very body and blood of Christ himself. There is no suggestion from Paul that he is speaking symbolically, so must indeed take this statement at face value, showing that Christ did indeed institute the Eucharist.

I hope that my points have been clear and understandable, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Well thank you once again for offering me with this debate. It’s an interesting debate and I’m well acquainted with it because I spent most of my life in a Catholic school.

Contention 1: The Last Supper

Matthew 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
http://www.biblegateway.com......

When we examine verse 28, I see two possible meanings. Either Jesus is referring to His crucifixion which is about to take place, or the contents of the cup. Remember that in the Old Testament that one of the main ways to atone for sins was a blood sacrifice. So did the contents of the cup forgive many sins, or did the blood sacrifice that Jesus took on the cross forgive many people?

With this aside, I will examine the rest of these passages in my case.

In these accounts of the Last Supper, we see that Christ said that "this is my body" concerning the bread, and "this is my blood" concerning the wine. Neither before nor after does Christ say that He is merely talking symbolically. If Christ doesn't tell us that He is speaking symbolically or give us any context to cause us to believe otherwise, then we must take Him at His word and believe that the bread really is His body and the wine really is His blood.

My opponent’s logic supposes that if Jesus does not say that He is speaking symbolically, then we can’t take him as such. Well if that’s true then we must take the following verse quite literally.

Contention 2: John 6

In this passage, Christ says several times that the people must eat His body and drink His blood. Since nowhere else in the bible does Christ condone cannibalism, He is obviously foreshadowing what He would do at the Last Supper. By turning bread and wine into His body and blood, He would indeed make it possible for these people to consume His body and blood.

Well if we are to interpret these passages literally then there are several verses in which Christ condones cannibalism of His body. So the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic, it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.



Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 27(AB) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord(AC) in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning(AD) the body and blood of the Lord. 28(AE) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
http://www.biblegateway.com......

This verse is echoing the words of Christ by Paul, so in order to compensate for time I will cross-apply arguments from my case that I’m about to present to this argument.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now on to my Case.

Just so you know I may refer to the Eucharist as the Lord’s Supper.

Contention 1: Jesus speaks of the spirit, not the flesh.

Some of the verses used to substantiate transubstantiation are the following:

  • Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
  • John 6:52-53, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.'"
  • 1 Cor. 11:27,Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Let's take a look. First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood..." and "This is my body..." This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc. Jesus often spoke in figurative terms and in the context of Jesus telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood, He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63).

After Jesus said, "This is my blood," (Matt. 26:28), He said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom," (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was His literal blood? We can clearly see that Jesus was speaking figuratively.

This argument is taken from Carm.org and the source is listed below.

Sources:

http://carm.org...

http://carm.org...

http://www.biblegateway.com...

That is my case and I look forward to my opponent’s response!

Debate Round No. 2
christisking

Pro

I would like to start by thanking SkepticsAskHere for a variety of interesting and well developed arguments. I'm glad to hear that my opponent went to a Catholic school since this should make our communication all of the easier. I will begin by considering my three contentions, followed by discussing the point brought up by my opponent.

Contention 1: The Last Supper

---When we examine verse 28, I see two possible meanings. Either Jesus is referring to His crucifixion which is about to take place, or the contents of the cup. Remember that in the Old Testament that one of the main ways to atone for sins was a blood sacrifice. So did the contents of the cup forgive many sins, or did the blood sacrifice that Jesus took on the cross forgive many people?---

My opponent is correct to point out that Jesus seems to be referring to his crucifixion which is about to take place. After all, it was Christ's death which brought about the forgiveness of sins mentioned in verse 28. However, when we look at what preceded verse 28 we see that it says, "Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant…" It is obvious that he is referring to the wine in his hands which he is telling them to drink when he says "this is my blood". The only way to reconcile these two facts is to accept the doctrine of the Eucharist which states that the very cup of wine which Christ holds is the very blood which he shall shed the next day for the forgiveness of sins.

---My opponent's logic supposes that if Jesus does not say that He is speaking symbolically, then we can't take him as such. Well if that's true then we must take the following verse quite literally.---

Yes, I am saying that we should believe what the bible says. If there is no compelling other reason why Christ would have said ‘this is my body', then we have to assume he meant exactly what he said.

Contention 2: John 6

---Well if we are to interpret these passages literally then there are several verses in which Christ condones cannibalism of His body. So the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).---

Firstly, I would like to point out that the ‘cannibalism' of the Eucharist as you have phrased it is far different from normal cannibalism. To destroy human flesh so it may be devoured is wrong and repulsive. Through the miracle of bread turned into flesh in the Eucharist, Catholics do not have to be cannibals to eat Christ's flesh, since they are eating him under the appearance of bread. Thus, passages like "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," do not condone cannibalism but foreshadow the miracle of the Eucharist.

As for the Old Testament law that Jews were not to eat flesh, the Old Testament passage was obviously intended to apply to normal flesh with normal blood. Something as unique and miraculous as bread which is God would not fall under this ban. Thus Christ's body is exempt from this passage of Scripture just as Christ himself is exempt from the passage of St. Paul's saying, "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:10)

Finally, the fact that Jews were forbidden to have anything to do with eating blood goes to show that Christ was speaking literally. John 6:66 says, "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." I ask the question ‘why did his followers suddenly turn back?' The answer is found a few verses earlier where it says that the Jews were grumbling after Christ finishes saying, "whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." They are leaving because as Jews they abhor the thought that Christ would have them drink genuine blood and commit cannibalism. If this truly were a misunderstanding, then why did Christ not correct the mistake? His silence is louder than words.

Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11

My opponent did not really address this point for the sake of time, but I would appreciate it if he would devote at least a few sentences to it. Specifically, I am interested to know how he explains St. Paul's strong language in reference to the punishment for eating the bread and wine unworthily. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord(AC) in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning(AD) the body and blood of the Lord." He specifically says they will be guilty of Christ's body and blood.

Now for my opponent's case:

Contention 1: Jesus speaks of the Spirit

I believe that there are four main points being made and I will break it up as such

P1: Nowhere in Scripture is this teaching: To the contrary, all three of my Contentions point to the fact that Scripture does preach in numerous places to the fact that it is Christ's real body and blood. "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:55)

P2: Jesus often uses figurative language: Christ said more than "This is my body". He said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," (John 6:53). Of the three examples given to show that Christ often speaks figuratively, two can be taken quite literally "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48) and "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25). The third was obviously meant to be figurative, "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), since he didn't start sprouting branches or provide a supernatural way for it to happen. Thus, we can see that Christ does not always speak figuratively in this manner, and that when he does it is quite obvious.

P3: My words are spirit and life: Let us take a look at this passage again, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). You will notice first of all that the words are ‘spirit' not ‘spiritual'. Other translations read "…they are full of the Spirit[e] and life". Christ is certainly not trying to say that his very strong and literal language was merely figurative in this verse. On the contrary, looking at the previous verses will show that Christ is telling His doubting listeners that his words are full of the inspiration of the Spirit of God. In addition, if this was what Christ was attempting to say, he did a poor job since many of his disciples left anyways, and this seems very unlikely that God would make such a mistake.
http://www.biblegateway.com...

P4: Not drink ‘wine' again: Since Christ's blood in the Eucharist is still to all appearances wine, it isn't too strange for him to still refer to it as wine. Catholics today will still often refer to the Eucharist as the host and wine since it just seems to come out naturally. In addition, Christ could have said this to emphasize his point. It is not a pleasant thought to drink blood, while it is a pleasant thought to drink wine. Thus, Christ is using the fact that his blood still appears as wine to emphasize the fact that he will be missing out on the enjoyments of his apostles company during his passion.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals in the next round and I hope they will be equally as interesting and logical as his past arguments.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent for the compliment and I hope my arguments are polite, logical, and easy to understand.

I would like to point out before I begin this round, that my opponent’s contentions are all one contention. He offers three different set of verses to show that transubstantiation occurs, however for the sake of time and space I will attack all of his evidence as one contention. My opponent may divide them into three contentions if he would like, but I will attack them as one. I will address a few things my opponent has stated, though.

Contention 1: The Last Supper

My opponent is correct to point out that Jesus seems to be referring to his crucifixion which is about to take place. After all, it was Christ's death which brought about the forgiveness of sins mentioned in verse 28.

My opponent affirms my position and then goes on to contradict himself. He has agreed with me that the wine and bread were in reference to the crucifixion that was about to take place. Because of this, I should win this debate.

Yes, I am saying that we should believe what the bible says. If there is no compelling other reason why Christ would have said ‘this is my body', then we have to assume he meant exactly what he said.


(Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. Well Christ doesn’t say that He is speaking figuratively, so my opponent must believe this verse is telling us to hate our family.

Contention 2: John 6


Firstly, I would like to point out that the ‘cannibalism' of the Eucharist as you have phrased it is far different from normal cannibalism.

If we are to take the verses in question 100% literally then the Catholic Church encourages the consumption of flesh and blood. Don’t you claim that the food turns into actual blood and flesh? If this is true then this is cannibalism.


As for the Old Testament law that Jews were not to eat flesh, the Old Testament passage was obviously intended to apply to normal flesh with normal blood. Something as unique and miraculous as bread which is God would not fall under this ban.

Why is this exempt from the rule? Where are you getting this information from and from where does it say in scripture that if something that is considered sinful happens miraculously that it makes it ok? My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side.

Finally, the fact that Jews were forbidden to have anything to do with eating blood goes to show that Christ was speaking literally. John 6:66 says, "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." I ask the question ‘why did his followers suddenly turn back?'

Just because some followers turned away does not change the sense in which Jesus was speaking. Just because people misunderstood what Jesus was communicating does not change what Jesus has actually stated.

Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11

My opponent did not really address this point for the sake of time, but I would appreciate it if he would devote at least a few sentences to it.

No, I did not address this contention, because it is specifically in reference to the Last Supper so it would be irrelevant to attack this because it would be making the same attack twice. Which is why I said I would cross-apply my arguments to this contention.

Now I’m going to defend my case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention 1: Jesus speaks of the Spirit

I believe that there are four main points being made and I will break it up as such

P1: To the contrary, all three of my Contentions point to the fact that Scripture does preach in numerous places to the fact that it is Christ's real body and blood. "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:55)

No, I was saying that nowhere is the transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is it described. My opponent has misunderstood the claim I was making.

P2: The third was obviously meant to be figurative, "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), since he didn't start sprouting branches or provide a supernatural way for it to happen. Thus, we can see that Christ does not always speak figuratively in this manner, and that when he does it is quite obvious.

Well how do we know that he didn’t sprout branches? Maybe he appeared normal but he was being transformed into a vine. My opponent does not take this verse literally for the same reasons that I have not taken the Lord’s Supper literally. There is no indication of the process occurring in scripture, just like there is no process that describes Jesus becoming a vine. Also, because we can see that Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well.

P3: Let us take a look at this passage again, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). You will notice first of all that the words are ‘spirit' not ‘spiritual'. Other translations read "…they are full of the Spirit[e] and life". Christ is certainly not trying to say that his very strong and literal language was merely figurative in this verse.

If you were to take this particular verse literally then Christ is saying that he speaks of the spirit, not of the flesh. So Christ is speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively? My opponent’s logic does not follow suit in this example.


P4: Not drink ‘wine' again: Since Christ's blood in the Eucharist is still to all appearances wine, it isn't too strange for him to still refer to it as wine.

Well it also would not be strange to call it wine because it really is wine. After He has finished His wine, Christ calls it wine once again. This is another indication that He is referring to the crucifixion and not to the dinner.

This debate will ultimately boil down to whether or not Christ was speaking literally during the Last Supper and such. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. Therefore I say that I should win this debate.

I wish my opponent good luck in his next round.

Debate Round No. 3
christisking

Pro


I thank my opponent for the last round, and I hope to be able to give a comprehensive rebuttal to his arguments.



Contention 1: The Last Spper

My opponent affirms my position and then goes on to contradict himself. He has agreed with me that the wine and bread were in reference to the crucifixion that was about to take place. Because of this, I should win this debate.


Looking back, I realize that I did not explain my point well at all. I apologize and will proceed to explain how my opponent’s belief that Christ was referring to his crucifixion and the fact that Christ said ‘this cup of my blood’ can only be reconciled in the Catholic view point. According to Catholic teaching, every time the Eucharist is offered, through a miracle of God who transcends time, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary is also being offered. To phrase it differently, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. Just like the Trinity, this is a mystery which the human mind cannot fully grasp, but it makes sense since God is able to step back from time and perceive every Eucharist as being offered simultaneously as it were with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. This view is the only way to make sense of Christ’s words at the Last Supper.

(Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."


According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. Well Christ doesn’t say that He is speaking figuratively, so my opponent must believe this verse is telling us to hate our family.


As a matter of fact, the reasoning I have given does account for this verse, and is the best way to do so. If every Christian went through the Bible and took each verse to mean what he wanted it to mean, then we would never know the truth of the Bible. Rather, as I stated earlier, we must look for a ‘compelling other reason’ before we interpret a verse other than as it is stated. The fact that Christ said ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ elsewhere in the gospels tells us that he was speaking figuratively here.


Contention 2: John 6


If we are to take the verses in question 100% literally then the Catholic Church encourages the consumption of flesh and blood. Don’t you claim that the food turns into actual blood and flesh? If this is true then this is cannibalism.


Sure, I suppose that you can call it cannibalism under the appearances of bread and wine.


Why is this exempt from the rule? Where are you getting this information from and from where does it say in scripture that if something that is considered sinful happens miraculously that it makes it ok? My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side.



To the contrary, there are other Biblical examples of this. For instance Exodus 20:4 says ““You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Then a few chapters later God commands in Exodus 25:18 “And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.” These ‘graven images’ were ok since they were being used directly for God. Just so, the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine is ok to drink since it not only is used for God but IS God.

Just because some followers turned away does not change the sense in which Jesus was speaking. Just because people misunderstood what Jesus was communicating does not change what Jesus has actually stated.



It is impossible that Jesus Christ the Son of God could make such a simple yet serious mistake. John says not only ‘some’ of his disciples left him, but ‘MANY’ of his disciples left him. How could Christ, who calls himself the way, the TRUTH, and the life, allow such a huge misunderstanding which cost so many people their relationship with Him when He could have fixed it with the sentence “I was speaking figuratively.” No, Christ must have been speaking literally for this passage to make sense.



Contention 3: 1 Corinthians:11



Since my opponent will not address this point, I will briefly restate my argument. Paul says that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are guilty of the ‘body and blood of the Lord’. These are words he would not use if it were merely a symbol.




Now, for my opponent’s case…



Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit



P1: No, I was saying that nowhere is the transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is it described. My opponent has misunderstood the claim I was making.



Christ didn’t explain a lot of things in full while on earth, at least not that was recorded. For example, he left it up to the apostles to decide if gentiles needed to be circumcised or not. It is enough for this debate that Christ said ‘this is my body’ and expounded on this in John 6.



P2: Well how do we know that he didn’t sprout branches… My opponent does not take this verse literally for the same reasons that I have not taken the Lord’s Supper literally. There is no indication of the process occurring in scripture, just like there is no process that describes Jesus becoming a vine. Also, because we can see that Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well.



I agree that if the Last Supper Statement were standing on its own, then it would be likely that it were figurative just like “I am the true vine” which stands on its own. However, when we see that Christ prefigured the Last Supper in John 6, telling us that it is genuine flesh and blood we are to eat, and that Paul believes that this is Christ’s real body and blood years later, we must realize that there is more to the Last Supper statement than Christ’s vine parable.



P3: If you were to take this particular verse literally then Christ is saying that he speaks of the spirit, not of the flesh. So Christ is speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively? My opponent’s logic does not follow suit in this example.



Christ calls the Holy Spirit elsewhere in Scripture, the Spirit of Truth. So, if his words concerning the Eucharist are full of the Spirit, then they are full of truth. This is statement fits well with the doubts presented by Jesus’ listeners a few verses back. There is no logical fallacy in this; he is speaking literally about speaking literally.



P4: Well it also would not be strange to call it wine because it really is wine. After He has finished His wine, Christ calls it wine once again. This is another indication that He is referring to the crucifixion and not to the dinner.

When one takes John 6 and Paul into account, however, we see that Christ meant it when he said ‘this is the cup of my blood’. If the wine really is His blood, then it fits the verse since it is the very blood “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.


This debate will ultimately boil down to whether or not Christ was speaking literally during the Last Supper and such. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. Therefore I say that I should win this debate.


I did not agree that Christ was speaking figuratively, but that the verse obviously contains reference to his death the next day in addition to stating that the bread and wine are His body and blood. My opponent is correct to say that this debate will boil down to whether Christ was speaking figuratively, but not merely at the Last Supper, but at least half a dozen times in John 6 in addition to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians. My opponent has not given substantial biblical context for his belief that Christ was speaking figuratively, so I urge for a vote for Pro.


I look forward to my opponent’s next round.

SkepticsAskHere

Con


I thank my opponent for the last round, and I will start by attacking his case and then defending my own.




Contention 1: The Last Spper



Looking back, I realize that I did not explain my point well at all. According to Catholic teaching, every time the Eucharist is offered, through a miracle of God who transcends time, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary is also being offered. Just like the Trinity, this is a mystery which the human mind cannot fully grasp, but it makes sense since God is able to step back from time and perceive every Eucharist as being offered simultaneously as it were with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. This view is the only way to make sense of Christ’s words at the Last Supper.



My opponent has gone on to tell us about the teachings of Catholicism which don’t seem to be found anywhere in the Bible. He then says that we can’t understand the Trinity, and that we can never understand the Eucharist. Well I say why would you believe something that is not found in scripture and you don’t even understand? I believe and understand the nature of the Trinity, but I also believe in gravity because it can be explained and demonstrated. However, the process of this miracle is not found in the Bible or in the scientific spectrum. There are more than one ways to make sense of Christ word’s at the Last Supper.



(Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."



According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. Well Christ doesn’t say that He is speaking figuratively, so my opponent must believe this verse is telling us to hate our family.



The fact that Christ said ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ elsewhere in the gospels tells us that he was speaking figuratively here.


The fact that the Old Testament says not to consume flesh tells us that he was speaking figuratively here.



Contention 2: John 6


Sure, I suppose that you can call it cannibalism under the appearances of bread and wine.


My opponent has agreed to the claim that consumption of the Eucharist is cannibalism.



To the contrary, there are other Biblical examples of this. …These ‘graven images’ were ok since they were being used directly for God. Just so, the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine is ok to drink since it not only is used for God but IS God.



My opponent uses an example that does not pertain to the original question. He has admitted that if the wine and bread is turned into flesh and blood then it is cannibalism. However, he gives us no Biblical evidence why cannibalism would be acceptable. My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side.




It is impossible that Jesus Christ the Son of God could make such a simple yet serious mistake.


Who says it’s a mistake? It is my opponent’s opinion that Jesus could have never said something in a way that would cause people to be misled. If you look at the life of Jesus, He constantly speaks in parables so that the Pharisees would not understand Him.




Contention 3: 1 Corinthians:11


His third verse that my opponent quotes is in reference to the Last Supper, so we should examine the verses concerning the Last Supper.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit


P1:Christ didn’t explain a lot of things in full while on earth.


My opponent has agreed that the actual process of transubstantiation is not Biblically described.




P2: I agree that if the Last Supper Statement were standing on its own, then it would be likely that it were figurative just like “I am the true vine”


My opponent admits that Jesus us speaking figuratively in this case. The whole point my contention was making was that Jesus does speak in a figurative sense. Then my opponent goes on to talk about an entirely different qualification about Christ speaking literally or figuratively. He has changed his terms for acceptance of evidence for figurative literature. We can see that because we Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well.




P3: For the third point I questioned my opponent on his interpretation of a verse, because if we follow his interpretation, then Christ was speaking literally about speaking literally. I thought this was rather peculiar and my opponent did not respond to my original question.




P4: When one takes John 6 and Paul into account, however, we see that Christ meant it when he said ‘this is the cup of my blood’. If the wine really is His blood, then it fits the verse since it is the very blood “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.


Yes, however what was poured out to forgive sins, the wine or Jesus’ blood on the day of His crucifixion. Also, See my attack on your Third Contention for a reason why we shouldn’t debate this verse. Jesus refers to the contents as wine, then as His blood, then as wine again. This is a major indicator that the contents of the cup were in fact wine.



This debate will ultimately boil down to whether or not Christ was speaking literally during the Last Supper and such. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. Therefore I say that I should win this debate.



My opponent has made several statements in this debate, which he has later retracted. He has also made statements that were illogical (such as saying that Jesus was referring specifically to the crucifixion and then saying the the wine was His literal blood). My opponent has admitted to many of claims throughout the course of this debate.



I look forward to my opponent’s next round.



Debate Round No. 4
christisking

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this enjoyable and interesting debate, and I hope this final round will be equally good.



Before moving to the case, I will briefly address a new paradigm through which my opponent has framed many of his last round’s arguments. He has argued that unless something is found in sacred Scripture we cannot believe it. However, this is a major disagreement between Catholics and Protestants and should have been brought up earlier in the debate if he intended it to be a deciding factor. One reason Catholics do not accept this teaching is that the Bible itself never teaches it (thus the argument contradicts itself). Instead we have passages like John 20:30-31 which seem to suggest that there was more to what Christ taught than is in the Bible.



Contention 1: The Last Supper



I say why would you believe something that is not found in scripture and you don’t even understand? I believe and understand the nature of the Trinity, but I also believe in gravity because it can be explained and demonstrated.



Firstly, the fact that the bread and wine is really Christ’s body and blood is found in Scripture, especially in John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. The full explanation of transubstantiation is not in Scripture because the authors believed it to be a complication which would detract from their message and which they knew the Church could teach orally just as well. Just as my opponent understands the Trinity, so do I understand the Eucharist. My point was that it is outside of our normal human experience so it seems strange especially to non-Catholics, just like the teaching of the Trinity doesn’t make sense to non-Christians.



According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not.



My opponent is putting words in my mouth. My past argument has always been that we can indeed take Christ’s words figuratively if there is a good reason to do so. In the Last Supper case there is no good reason to take Christ’s words figuratively in light of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11.



The fact that the Old Testament says not to consume flesh tells us that he was speaking figuratively here.



As I have shown (and will show under Contention 2), this Old Testament teaching would not apply to consuming Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.



Contention 2: John 6



My opponent’s arguments under this contention have been that it is impossible that Christ could have given us his flesh and blood to eat without breaking Jewish law. If I can prove that it was possible that Christ was teaching that the disciples must eat his flesh and blood, then there will be no compelling reason left to believe that the verses like, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” were meant to be figurative.



My opponent has agreed to the claim that consumption of the Eucharist is cannibalism.



Sure. But this does not prove any of my opponent’s points since it is a unique cannibalism which would not have fallen under the restrictions intended by the authors of Jewish Law (especially God).



My opponent uses an example that does not pertain to the original question… My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side.



Actually my example of the statues does pertain to this argument, because it shows that exceptions were made to Jewish law in special circumstances, and the Eucharist is a very unique and special circumstance. Thus, it is quite possible that Christ really wanted them to eat his flesh and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. I showed earlier that every Christian belief does not need to be spelled out word for word in the Bible as long as it does not contradict the Bible.



Who says it’s a mistake? It is my opponent’s opinion that Jesus could have never said something in a way that would cause people to be misled. If you look at the life of Jesus, He constantly speaks in parables so that the Pharisees would not understand Him.



Every verse of the Bible is inspired and was put in its place for a reason. The fact that John emphasizes that many disciples left Christ at this point shows that something significant happened to turn them off. A simple misunderstanding of a parable is not significant, but the teaching that Christ’s flesh and blood is edible is very stunning. Also, Christ spoke in parables, not solely to confuse people, but because human minds understand heavenly things best when they are closely associated with earthly things. The only good explanation of why his disciples left him was that they refused to accept a teaching as dramatic as eating Christ’s flesh and blood.



Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11



This verse is more than a reference to the Last Supper. Paul says, “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” He is specifically emphasizing that the Eucharistic bread and wine are really flesh and blood.




Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit



P1: My opponent has agreed that the actual process of transubstantiation is not Biblically described.



Yes, but transubstantiation is the only way to explain John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11



P2: He has changed his terms for acceptance of evidence for figurative literature. We can see that because we Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well.



All along I have held the same position that we should take Christ’s words literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively. My opponent’s argument here does not stand unless he can first refute my contentions 2 and 3 which argue that there is stronger Biblical evidence for Christ having spoken literally at the Last Supper.



P3: For the third point I questioned my opponent on his interpretation of a verse, because if we follow his interpretation, then Christ was speaking literally about speaking literally.



My opponent must have made a mistake, because in the previous round he said ‘speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively’ which was the question I tried to answer. Yes, Christ is saying literally that he meant what he said in the verse in question.



P4: Yes, however what was poured out to forgive sins, the wine or Jesus’ blood on the day of His crucifixion… Jesus refers to the contents as wine, then as His blood, then as wine again.



The wine is Christ’s blood (not a duplicate, but his genuine blood), so it is the very blood poured out on the cross. Christ refers to the contents as wine (since it was wine before transubstantiation), then as his blood (after the change). The final reference to wine was not referring to the cup of blood in his hands, but to actual wine he would be drinking in the future.



I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact.



I have agreed that there was a reference to the crucifixion, but the verse also says that the bread is flesh and wine is blood. I believe that I have won this round because I have given Biblical arguments showing that Christ was not speaking figuratively at the Last Supper while my opponent’s few biblical arguments do not contradict Catholic teaching as my opponent claims.



My opponent has made several statements in this debate, which he has later retracted.



I have never changed or retracted a statement in this debate as I hope I have made perfectly clear. The only confusion has been misinterpretations of my arguments by my opponent.



My opponent has admitted to many of claims throughout the course of this debate.



Yes, I have agreed to the claims which are consistent with Catholic teaching and disputed the ones which are not.



I look forward to my opponent’s final round.

SkepticsAskHere

Con

He has argued that unless something is found in sacred Scripture we cannot believe it. However, this is a major disagreement between Catholics and Protestants and should have been brought up earlier in the debate if he intended it to be a deciding factor.

My opponent has brought this up in the last round which I remind the audience is abuse. I will say this though, if it is not in the Bible, there is no reason to believe it. I’m not taking about science or mathematics, but in the realm of theology. The Catholic Church is guilty of adding non-Biblical beliefs to their theology. Some of it contradicts scripture (Eucharist) and some doesn’t (purgatory). The fact is that there is no indication as to why we should believe in purgatory because it is not found in the perfect Word of God, while humans are flawed and will be mistaken in their theology that is non-Biblical.

Contention 1: The Last Supper

My opponent has said in the previous round that we can’t really understand the Eucharist like the Trinity. Now, he has changed his mind to say that only Non-Christians can’t comprehend these things. My opponent is altering his arguments to fit his need.

My opponent is putting words in my mouth.

Look at round two audience, because my opponent says that Christ doesn’t say He is speaing figuratively, so there’s no way that he is.

Sure. But this does not prove any of my opponent’s points since it is a unique cannibalism which would not have fallen under the restrictions intended by the authors of Jewish Law (especially God).

There is no verse in scripture that tells us cannibalism in this sense is acceptable. My opponent’s argument’s are non-Biblical. Since the Bible was the standard of fact to which this debate has been held, I should win.

Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11

He is specifically emphasizing that the Eucharistic bread and wine are really flesh and blood.

This point is in reference to Jesus’s words. That’s all it is. Paul never describes a process where regular bread and wine transform into bodily fluids and flesh. The teaching is still non-Biblical. Paul is using the same metaphor that Christ uses.

Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit

P1:Yes, but transubstantiation is the only way to explain John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11

Saying that it is the only way to explain those verses is illogical because you cannot now all things. It is the Law of Identity that tells us this. My opponent is being illogical therefore he should lose. I have also offered a counter interpretation and my opponent has not shown why this interpretation is invalid. He has also agreed that the process of food becoming flesh and blood is never described in the Bible. Therefore this is a non-Biblical teaching.

P2: My opponent’s argument here does not stand unless he can first refute my contentions 2 and 3 which argue that there is stronger Biblical evidence for Christ having spoken literally at the Last Supper.


I have asked my opponent for what how he would determine if someone was speaking figuratively or not. He has changed his criteria halfway through the debate, leaving me unable to respond. We can see that because Christ speaks figuratively in other situations, He could have been speaking literally in this situation as well.

P3: My opponent must have made a mistake, because in the previous round he said ‘speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively’ which was the question I tried to answer. Yes, Christ is saying literally that he meant what he said in the verse in question.

My opponent doesn’t seem to understand my argument what so ever.

P4: The final reference to wine was not referring to the cup of blood in his hands, but to actual wine he would be drinking in the future.

No, He was referencing His cup, if Catholics interpreted the entire verse as they do about the transubstantiation, then the bread would become flesh and then bread again. This is not the teaching as Catholics understand it.

I have agreed that there was a reference to the crucifixion, but the verse also says that the bread is flesh and wine is blood.

This is a common arguments from Catholics in the sense that they give several examples where there needs to be sacrifice. In the Bible, Jesus is the only sacrifice needed for salvation and calling upon an additional sacrifice of wine and bread (as Catholics understand it) is a heresy.

I believe that I have won this round because I have given Biblical arguments showing that Christ was not speaking figuratively at the Last Supper while my opponent’s few biblical arguments do not contradict Catholic teaching as my opponent claims.

Like what? My opponent has shown no Biblical evidence to the process of transubstantiation, had said that the wine was in reference to the crucifixion, and has made several logical fallacies. There is absolutely no reason for my opponent to win this debate. If you read through this debate, you will see that I have add better arguments, my opponent has altered his arguments to fit his situation, and my opponent has abandoned our standard of truth to form non-Biblical arguments.

I thank my opponent for this debate!

Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by christisking 3 years ago
christisking
I'm having trouble pinning down where it talks about meat sacrificed to idols and I'm not sure which verse you used to say that is speaking about 'uniting spiritually' to prostitutes. Could you post which verses you are using so I don't misunderstand your argument. Also, how does your argument prove that Paul was reffering othe church when he said 'your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit'?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
The issue in the Corinthian Church was that they were bringing the sexual cultic practices of the Temple of Aphrodite into the Church. We see this when he talks about joining oneself spiritually to prostitutes in the discussion of meat sacrificed to Idols.
Posted by christisking 3 years ago
christisking
As I've said in our other debate (http://www.debate.org...) the teaching on the Eucharist does not contradict this Old Testament Law when in context. There is no reason God would apply this law, which was intended to refer to the blood of sacrificed animals, to the miraculous blood Christ in the Eucharist.

You've taken the Corinthians verse out of context my friend. It comes from a passage where Christ is speaking about proper use of one's physical body in reference to sexual imorality. "18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies." There is no reason to think that Paul would suddenly start using the word 'body' to refer to the Church without designating that he had done so. Of course the you is plural since Paul knows he is writing this letter to more than one person.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
The teaching of Christ that "his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink" is in contradiction with the teaching of Christ in the Old Testament that we don't eat human flesh or human blood.

As far as the "temple of the Holy Spirit..." this passage in Corinthians is not referring to individual human bodies. The phrase "you (all) are a temple of the Holy Spirit" is a plural "you" and refers to the Church. Paul compares the Church to a body frequently so when he says "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?" the word "Body" reefers to the Church. The fact is, Christ's teaching about plucking eyes out is in the context of "It is better for your body to be destroyed than for your soul" and he does not clarify that then or later that he is speaking parabolically.
Posted by christisking 3 years ago
christisking
We also see instances where Christ does explain confusing parables to his followers. The only times he allows some confusion is when he knows that everything will be made clear later (especially concerning the resurection). This teaching on the Eucharist is never 'made clear later'.

You have slightly misunderstood my method. To phrase a little differently, when there are two ways to take Christ's words, we should compare both ways to his other teachings to see if either of them are in contradiction with the rest of his message. If one is in contradiction, then we believe the other. If both are equally consistent, then we should take the most litteral and straightforward meaning. We shouldn't pluck out our eyes randomly, because that would be doing harm to our body which is a 'temple of the Holy Spirit'. There is no contradiction to Christ teaching that 'his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink'.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I don't think that you can blanket say that everyone who heard what Christ said necessarily understood it better than we do. The disciples didn't understand the vast majority of what Christ said. When he said "I am going to go to Jerusalem, get beaten, killed, buried, and the raise again." They still didn't understand it when it happened... they still didn't get it.

There are a lot of things that Christ said that he meant figuratively, that he doesn't explain later that he meant figuratively. It is called Parabolic language. You are a man, your testes produce hormones that make you inclined to lust. By the criteria that you are setting for what we should take literal and what we should take figuratively (Literal = Possible to be literal, no disclaimer before or after that it is literal) you should castrate yourself to avoid sin. Probably should get rid of your eyes too... hands I would bet too. When Christ says "it is better to pluck out your eye..." he never says, prior or after, that he is speaking figuratively. It WOULD be possible to pluck out your eye... so you better get at it.

I don't have a problem with the method you are proposing... I have a problem that you, and the Catholic Church at large does not apply it evenly.
Posted by christisking 3 years ago
christisking
And why is that? Keep in mind that John did not record everything that happened durring Christ's life, but only the most important messages. These messages, however, John would not have left half explained. In John 6 he clearly tells us that everyone, the people who heard everything Christ said and would have understood his meaning far better than Christians 2,000 years later, understood Christ to be teaching that He would give them his litteral body and blood to consume. Nowhere, however, does he then tell us that Christ actually meant this figuratively. John's intention is clearly to teach that Christ litterally intended to give us his body and blood to consume.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Either that, or people misunderstood him and he felt no need to explain himself. An argument from silence is weak at best.
Posted by christisking 3 years ago
christisking
I'm still a little skeptical about your explanation of John 6:55, but I suppose it makes enough sense. However, I assume you will also agree that my interpretation of the verse, in and of itself, is legitimate. This means we need to see if the author gave us anything else which would suggest what Christ meant. When we look a few verses latter and find that Christ's listeners and apostles interpreted him to mean this literally we would then want to look and see if Christ ever gives an alternate explanation either publically or privately. We find that he never does. Judging by this there seems to be no reason to assume that Christ intended his words to be figurative and the author (John) seems to be trying to make the same point.
Posted by christisking 3 years ago
christisking
A) The question here is which would give more comfort and be more helpful to the Church. We are unable to measure this. However, I believe that it is quite possible that having the real Christ pressent in space and time for Catholics to come to and recieve is more helpful than a mere memorial. I can't measure whether this is true or not, but it is possible. If it is possible, than it gives us an explanation of why God would institute the Eucharist. This shows that need not be 'uninteligible' why God would have instituted Eucharist.
B) What was the purpose of the sacrifice though? Life centers around the decision of a man to either love himself, or love God. By this I mean that a person can either consider himself more important than God, or God more than himself. This is the decision which ultimately determines whether a person goes to hell or heaven; to serve God for all eternity or be his own unhappy master where he cannot see God. Sacrifices were intended to give men a chance to give up something of thier own and give it to God. This would help them to become more concerned with honoring God than with pleasing themselves. Christ made the ultimate sacrifice of his own perfect life to save us from sin. If this is the essence of sacrifice, then it is only the person offering the sacrifice who need refrain from consuming the blood. There is no reason Christians cannot recieve the blood of Christ which he himself offered.
C) My point was that he did not recieve any additional graces from eating the Eucharist. Different people recieve different amounts of grace (even zero grace under some circumstances), so Christ would not have recieved any graces since he didn't need any.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
christiskingSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as RA, though I felt it was closer I would have liked to see a more clear distinction and this debate really needed tags. 3:2
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
christiskingSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof. His application of what is figurative and what is literal is uneven and he doesn't set any legitimate reasons why.