The Instigator
wush
Pro (for)
Winning
84 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Losing
59 Points

God Failed in his Duty as a Protector

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,442 times Debate No: 13248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (85)
Votes (28)

 

wush

Pro

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate
CLARIFICATIONS
I am referring to the god of the bible..
This debate will be held on the assumption that the Bible is accurate.
This is solely about God's duty to protect Jesus and not about his duty to protect mankind.
This debate will be about Jess's life on earth and not about what happened to Jesus after his resurrection.

PRO ARGUMENTS

1)God allowed his sinless prot�g� to die a tortured death for a crime he did not commit. Jesus was crucified and God did not do a single thing to intervene despite having the power to do so. This would be negligence by human standards.

Once again I thank my opponent for accepting this debate
Mirza

Con

Thank you very much.

My opponent argues that God forsook Jesus (peace be upon him) by letting him die on the cross without saving him. However, did God's promise about protecting Jesus come true, or did it not, as my opponent implied? I will, by the will of God, ultimately prove that God fulfilled His promise and never let Jesus die on the cross.

As a matter of fact, I will use the Bible itself to prove this. I will prove that the lies about God not protecting Jesus, even though He promised to, are indeed horrible, deceitful lies that have no good basis in the Bible.

-- Arguments --

God promising to save Jesus:

[Psalm 91:3] "Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence."

There are many similar passages. God ultimately promised to save Jesus from the wrath of his enemies, and I will prove that the promise came true.

o Jesus came back in human form

In the Bible, there is not one single verse that speaks of a ad person being resurrected in any other shape than as a ghost, or a spirit. When Jesus was allegedly crucified, he was most definitely a ghost. However, what happened once he returned to his people?

[Luke 24:36-30] "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (37)But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (38)And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? (39)Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (40)And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."

What do we see here? Jesus talked to his disciples and asked what they were troubled with. He made it clear that if he were, in fact, crucified, he would be spirit - but he was not spirit! He told his disciples to touch him, to see his hands and feet. A spirit does not have hands and feet, so how could Jesus have tasted death? What happened was that people got deceived and believed that Jesus was crucified, but he was not. he never got crucified. He himself made it clear that he is not a spirit, but flesh and bones. Moreover, may I ask if a dead man eats? Would Jesus ever eat as a spirit? No. Let us see what the next passages say.

[Luke 24:41-43] "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? (42)And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (43)And he took it, and did eat before them.

Jesus asked for meat, and he ate it. He would never have done that if he got crucified.

Now, we must also ask whether or not the alleged witnesses were, in fact, witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus. As I have made clear, Jesus came back in human form, making it clear that he never got crucified, and I will elaborate on other points in the next rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
wush

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My opponent states that according to the Bible, Jesus was never crucified. He backs this up by providing a few quotes from the Bible that can be inferred to mean that Jesus could not have been crucified yet have been resurrected in human form. Now I will show you Bible references that directly state the crucifixion of Jesus as a fact.

Here is the Bible passage depicting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 27:35-39

"And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him there; And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

It is clear from this passage that Jesus was crucified if one is to believe the Bible which is one of the terms of this debate. My opponent's Bible quotes were all indirect while my reference explicitly states that Jesus was crucified.

"As I have made clear, Jesus came back in human form, making it clear that he never got crucified, and I will elaborate on other points in the next rounds."
>In the first round I stated that this debate will be held on the assumption that the Bible is accurate. Seeing that I provided a Bible reference stating that Jesus was crucified; in this debate it is a fact that Jesus was indeed crucified.
So all points raised by my opponent about Jesus not being crucified are null and void. Therefore my arguments about God allowing Jesus to be crucified despite having the power to intervene remain true.
Mirza

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

However, my opponent did not address my responses and I do not want to spend time with rebuttals if he is not willing to refute my arguments again.

o Jesus came back in human form
o Jesus eating
o Reliability of witnesses
o Disciples being shocked; Jesus asking why they are surprised

I will refute the arguments of my opponent once he addressees my own, otherwise it will be a debate where I bring evidence and he does nothing to refute it.
Debate Round No. 2
wush

Pro

I thank my opponent for this excellent debate

"o Jesus came back in human form
o Jesus eating
o Reliability of witnesses
o Disciples being shocked; Jesus asking why they are surprised"
> all these facts from the bible show reasons that might infer that Jesus was not crucified, but under no circumstances do they state that Jesus was never crucified.

Referring back to the arguments of my opponent in round 1

"In the Bible, there is not one single verse that speaks of a ad person being resurrected in any other shape than as a ghost, or a spirit. When Jesus was allegedly crucified, he was most definitely a ghost. However, what happened once he returned to his people?"
> My opponent may have proved that Jesus was resurrected in a form other than that of a spirit but this goes a long way from proving that Jesus was never crucified. It is quite well established that Jesus was no ordinary human being and he often did not follow the conventions of ordinary humans. While it is possible to say that Jesus was crucified without denying any quotes from the Bible, it is impossible to do so if you are claiming that Jesus was not crucified. Anyone who claims Jesus was never crucified must deny almost a whole page of the bible. To argue that Jesus was crucified, one need not deny anything in the Bible, one only needs to see a few quotes from a different perspective.

Because this is my last round i must make an attempt to refute any arguments my opponent may bring up next round.

God is omnipotent.
Luke 1:37 "For with God nothing shall be impossible."
If God was a good protector, he never would have made a promise to kill his prot�g� in order for God to forgive the rest of mankind. God could simply have forgiven mankind without having to resort to allowing his own prot�g� to die a tortured death. It was God that made the sacrifice of Jesus necessary. It was God who chose not to forgive us and it was God who decreed that Jesus must be killed. Jesus never had to suffer at all for anything because God had the power to stop Jesus's suffering.

==conclusion==
God failed in his duty to protect Jesus Christ as he allowed Jesus to be crucified despite having the power to intervene. In fact God could have stopped any suffering that Jesus had to endure.Jesus was indeed crucified and this is proved by the Bible quote i posted in my round 2 argument
Good luck to my opponent
Mirza

Con

I thank my opponent.

"all these facts from the bible show reasons that might infer that Jesus was not crucified, but under no circumstances do they state that Jesus was never crucified."

This makes absolutely no sense. If Jesus was not crucified, then he was never crucified. Furthermore, the facts deal with a lot more than what my opponent seems to think. Moving on, my opponent said, "My opponent may have proved that Jesus was resurrected in a form other than that of a spirit but this goes a long way from proving that Jesus was never crucified." This is not true. There is a lot more than that. The fact that Jesus did not arise as a spirit and desired food tells us that he was not crucified. I will, however, get deeper into the facts soon.

-- Content --

• 1. Matthew 27:35-39
• 2. Passages proving alleged crucifixion wrong

-- Elaboration --

• 1. Matthew 27:35-39

I agree that this passage says that Jesus was crucified. However, this does in no way make it obvious that the crucifixion took place. We must analyze why this was said, who said it, and so forth. I will prove that Matthew did, in fact, not always speak in first person, which is a very important point.

[Matthew 9:9] "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. 'Follow me,' he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."

Now, what do we see here? Matthew is talking about himself in third person. It is as if Mirza said to you that he has never debated with you, although he is writing a response to your debate right now. As you can see, I would probably never write that for real. I ask, why did Matthew write it that way? Why did he say, "... he saw a man named Matthew"? Would God inspire Matthew to ever do such a thing? He would not. This is a perfect explanation of why we cannot say that every verse of the Bible is a fact. This passage is clearly an alteration. Matthew was referred to as another person, yet there is no reason for that. Therefore, we have to question different verses and find out why they are not valid, while others are.

• 2. Passages proving alleged crucifixion wrong

[Matthew 12:40] "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus will be at a hidden place for three days and three nights. What does this refer to? If Jesus was supposed to be on the cross publicly, why was he at a hidden place instead?

[Luke 24:4-5] "While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. (5)In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, 'Why do you look for the living among the dead?'"

Why did those people look for a dead Jesus, when he was alive? Two men came to testify that Jesus was alive, not dead. That is why they asked the women looked for a living person among the dead ones. The men did not talk about a resurrected person, but a living person

[Matthew 27:64] "... This last deception will be worse than the first."

If read in context, we can see that the Jews actually doubted the crucifixion of Jesus, as they clearly knew that they committed a mistake by not assuring that Jesus died.

[John 20:17] "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch him. Why? Because he did not want to be harmed. Moreover, Jesus said that he has not yet returned to the Father, in an idiomatic way, which also means "I have not yet died" or "I am not dead yet." If he was not dead, how could he have been crucified? This was at a point where people believed he was dead!

Luke 24:20-24] "'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. (20)The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; (21)but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. (22)In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning (23)but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. (24)Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.'"

As we can read here, Jesus could not be found in the tomb. However, according to these people, the angels said that Jesus was alive. Notice the word "alive." Jesus was not "resurrected" but alive. If he was resurrected, there is no doubt that angels, who are entirely pure, would ever hesitate to say that. What they ultimately did was to say that Jesus was alive, meaning that he was not dead nor resurrected. No matter which disciple said what, he can not be more right than the angels who are pure and sinless.

[John 19:34] "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

Had Jesus died on the cross instead of escaping death, his blood would not be able to flow freely at all. Without the heart pumping the blood, it eventually clots. When it clots, it hardly gushes out. Only gravity can help with that, but impossibly as much as what happened with Jesus as we see in the verse above. Even with gravity, the amount of blood that would come would be minimal. It would never turn into a flow of blood and water.

I have lots of other arguments that invalidate the alleged crucifixion, but since my opponent cannot reply, I will not post more. Also, it is kind of disappointing that there was no refutation of the point that I made in earlier rounds. We could have gone deeper into the arguments. As for now, I will say that if my opponent wishes, he may challenge me to another debate on this topic and we will debate further. I have more arguments, but there is no need to post more when there will be no refutations.

All in all, I let you readers judge. How could Jesus have been crucified when many passages say the contrary? How could witnesses be any more reliable than angels who said that he was alive? How can we know the authenticity level of the alleged crucifixion, when Mark - who was the first to record the crucifixion - was not even an eye witness? Where are the authentic prophecies of the crucifixion? My opponent does not make good arguments with a verse saying something. Even the disciples had different views, and also different records. Therefore, we cannot say that just because one passage in the NT says something then it is a fact. No, we cannot do that truthfully.

I thank my opponent and I hope that the debate has been interesting to follow.

-- References --

The Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com...

Further reading:
http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
85 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I would have argued that Jesus made the choice to suffer what he did himself, therefore it was not a matter of God not protecting him (which is not a biblical premise actually) but a matter of God allowing him to make the choice himself.
Posted by opinionated_girl 6 years ago
opinionated_girl
The whole reason Jesus was suppose to come to Earth was to die for our sins, if God wouldn't have allowed that to happen, the purpose would not exist anymore. God did not fail because he did what was planned all along. Jesus agreed to do so. He could've brought down thousands of angels and have them carry him off the cross, but he didn't. He had asked God that if it were possible to let the cup pass, to do so, but it wasn't made to work that way so Jesus went through with it.
Posted by bludaisy96 6 years ago
bludaisy96
i completely aggree that god has faileed
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Then challenge me to a debate and we will see whether or not you are right.
Posted by shawnman111 6 years ago
shawnman111
The only problem with this argument is that there is NO way anyone can come to an agreement if one believes one thing and yet another side believes otherwise. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That was the plan that God set out for him. That is why Jesus was never saved by God. Jesus knew his plan all along. Throughout the bible he told of his future. He told Peter he would deny his knowledge of Jesus three times before the Rooster crowed. He told his disciples that one of them would betray him. He told proficies his own death because he knew his fathers plan. He came in human form but was not human. Thus being able to turn water into wine and raising Lazarus from the dead. He came to earth as a human as God came as a dove. God does not intervene with our lives because when Jesus came to earth, he established the "New Testament". Which ultimately is the new church. When he died, he took the need to sacrifice with him because our sins are ultimately forgiven because of that. He took the need for God to be personal with us anymore. We have prayer and God answers our prayers with a yes, a no or a wait. That is why there is war and death on the earth. These are all man made. God does not interfere with our life, he waits and will choose the ones who lived their lives for him. We use God not interfering in our lives as an excuse to our problems. My uncle was hit by a drunk driver and could never walk straight again. He doesn't go to church because of this and in all actuality, was it Gods fault that a drunk man hit him? No. God didn't hand that man a bottle of beer and say "drink up". It was the mans fault... Jesus was sent to Earth with a purpose and that was to die for the sins of the world. If God were to come down and intervene on the crucifixion, it might as well be as if a man creates the perfect plan to rob a bank and then in the middle of it, right when he has the chance to escape, he turns himself in. It doesn't make sense for God to save Jesus from the cros
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
"rather than comming up with a conspiracy on how Jesus didn't do the thing he came here to do, you ought to have shown why he had to do it and why it wasn't God's duty at all to protect him from death . . ." I never ever said that God did not promise to protect Jesus.
Posted by wush 6 years ago
wush
i can't vote myself so creating multiple accounts is out of the question
i can't say anything to prove that i don't know the people who voted for but i hope you will trust me on that one
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 6 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
Mirza your entire premise was extremely weak. . . rather than comming up with a conspiracy on how Jesus didn't do the thing he came here to do, you ought to have shown why he had to do it and why it wasn't God's duty at all to protect him from death . . .

also you stated that there is no other AD example where someone comes back as anything but a spirit. . . obviously untrue in he case of Lazarus.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Rephrase that please.

Our debate was about the Bible, no truth or falsehood beyond that.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
You two do realize that you said fact implying that it indeed happened without proof?
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LoopsEye 3 years ago
LoopsEye
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
wushMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: right now i haven't read the debate but its under consideration. i will thoroughly read the debate and than award any point to deserving candidate.
Vote Placed by hilton16 3 years ago
hilton16
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
wushMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by narcissus 6 years ago
narcissus
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 6 years ago
mrsmooth27
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Sawawah 6 years ago
Sawawah
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
wushMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70