The Instigator
Trevarno
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

God didn't really sacrifice his son. (short debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 28971
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Trevarno

Pro

I only want this to be a short debate. I am really only looking for an acceptable answer to this question.

The Bible tells us that God sacrificed his only son so that we could go to heaven, but the bible also tells us that he raised his son from the dead again. if god didn't really lose his son, then how is it a sacrifice?
philochristos

Con

To be a sacrifice, you don't have to give something up for good. For example, when people fast, they are sacrificing meals. The fact that they eat later doesn't mean going without food wasn't a sacrifice.

Likewise, just because Jesus was raised from the dead doesn't mean his death wasn't a sacrifice. Dying on the cross required a lot of suffering. It was a sacrifice because Jesus didn't have to do it, but he did it anyway to save people.
Debate Round No. 1
Trevarno

Pro

Okay, I'm pretty satisfied with that if I'm honest.
However, your comment has taken me off to a slightly different stance.
If everyone before Jesus could get into heaven, Like Abraham did, Doesn't that make Jesus a little superfluous?

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

Con

No. Just as the atonement covered the sins even of people who did not yet exist (and therefore had not yet sinned), so also did the atonement cover those who already lived and sinned in the past. According to Revelation 13:8, the lamb (i.e. Jesus) was "slain from the foundation of the world." Although Jesus was literally slain in the middle of history, that slaying applied to the whole spectrum of time, which is how I interpret Revelation 13:8.
Debate Round No. 2
Trevarno

Pro

Trevarno forfeited this round.
philochristos

Con

And I thought I'd get one more question.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AnthraSight 4 years ago
AnthraSight
TrevarnophilochristosTied
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: Con simply gave good reasons while Pro just asked questions.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
TrevarnophilochristosTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave a convincing argument that the biblical death of Jesus was a sacrifice, even if only temporary, because he was dead for a spell and being crucified is a painful process. Pro conceded. Good conduct and sources from both sides. Reasonable spelling & grammar all around. Con clearly wins.