The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If Jesus of the Bible died, he came to die for the sins of his father or his sins if he is God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 85017
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




I'm going to be arguing that if Jesus of the Bible died, he didn't die for the sins of humanity rather he died for the sins of his father or his own sins if he is God.

First round is acceptance.

Second round is presentation of arguments

Third round is rebuttals and concluding points.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank the con for taking up the challenge.

The topic may look strange or nonsensical to many people. I am very sure it is going to make a lot of sense when I am done presenting my points. One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is the believe that Jesus came to die for their sins. In this debate, we are not arguing about whether Jesus died or not. I have carefully used the word "If" in the topic of this debate to show that I would only be agreeing to disagree that Jesus died or that he is God. The topic centers on "If Jesus actually died for a particular sin, whose sin? God's or man's?".

I'll be proving now that if the Christians claim that Jesus died for the sins is true, then it is God's or for himself not for mankind.
II Samuel 24:15-16 after 70,000 people are killed, and God puts an end to the command and repents for this great disaster.

II Samuel 24:15-16
15 "So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning
until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of
the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy
Jerusalem;the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and
said to the angel who was afflicting the people,Enough!
Withdraw your hand. The angel of the LORD was then at the
threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite."

So as we read here after the 70,000 people were killed, the God of the bible repents and puts an end to the calamity.Who knew that God has regrets?.

In Zephaniah 2:12-15 we find God stating;

12 "You too, O Cushites,will be slain by my sword.

13 He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy
Assyria,leaving Nineveh utterly desolate and dry as the desert.

14 Flocks and herds will lie down there, creatures of every
kind. The desert owl and the screech owl will roost on her
columns. Their calls will echo through the windows, rubble will
be in the doorways, the beams of cedar will be exposed.

15 This is the carefree city that lived in safety. She said to
herself, I am, and there is none besides me. What a ruin she
has become, a lair for wild beasts! All who pass by her scoff
and shake their fists."

These show a lot of murderous anger and hatred coming from the end of God.The trinitarian Christian's argument goes that God came as Jesus; he was sinless and died on the cross, and was compensated by being brought back to life and in addition getting all of mankind's sins wiped away. Technically, Jesus shouldn't have been compensated for anything.

In 2 Samuel 12:14-31, we read of how God killed David's baby because of a sin committed by David (according to the Bible) whereas David was the sinner not the child.

Another person killed by God according to the Bible was Uzzah for attempting to stop the Ark of covenant from falling. We read in 2Samuel 6-7;

6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled.

7 The Lord"s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.

God also looked the firstborns of the Egyptians when Pharaoh didn't allow the children of Israel go. Why leave the sinner and take on others? Even the firstborns of beasts were not spared. This is in contained in the book of Exodus chapter 11.

Now,I go a little further to point out once again, that since Jesus is God according to the trinitarian Christians,many atrocities have been carried out under his command.Be reminded also that God repents for these atrocities.However, as nice as this 'repentance' may appear that comes from God's end each time an atrocity occurs, it does not really bring back these people from the dead or grant them any form of compensation.

The 6thcommandment of 'Do Not Murder" is clear and its
consequences are elaborated in Genesis 9:6;"Whoever sheds
the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed".

Simple definition of murder by Merriam Webster,

"the crime of deliberately killing a person"

where the sin for murder is compensated through executing the
murderer.This is the implication of capital punishment, where
a man who kills must be killed. Repentance on its own is not
prescribed as a way of compensating for the sin of murder. In
other words, if I were to murder someone and I were to be
judged by the laws of the bible, me apologizing to the family
of the victim and/or repenting, wouldn't cut it; I would need
to undergo execution.

In the case of God(Jesus), where he supposedly comes as man, it would be fair to say that in the end Jesus didn't die for the sins of mankind, but rather for his own personal commands of murder in the Old Testament.So we can conclude that justice was served, by the death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, it can't be possible that the Son died for the sins of man but if anything, he died for the sins ofThe Father.

The reader should bear in mind that the I do not belief Jesus to be God neither do I believe he died not to talk od dying for the sins of humanity.I only agreed to disagree to portray the flaws in the preposterous teachings of christiandom.Christians put their faith in Jesus Christ, because they believe he died for their sins, where in this section I have pointed point out that if anyone died for anyone's sins, its more or less for his own.

In conclusion, for anyone who believes Jesus of the Bible is God, God came to die for his sins. And anyone who believes Jesus is not God but just the son of God, then He came to die for the sins of his father BY BIBLICAL STANDARD IN LIGHT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.


I would like to begin with a quote by C.S. Lewis on his explanation of how a person should view Jesus Christ:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I"m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don"t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic " on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg " or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
R13; C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

To summarize, we have only three options on how we can view Jesus Christ: he is a liar, he is a lunatic, or he is the Lord. In this debate, I would like to present 3 points as to how I as the con will approach the question.

Point 1: Who is God?

To begin, one of the most important questions a person will ever ask is, "Who is God?" As the question of this debate is specifically directed to the God of the Bible, I will do my best to describe who he is. First, there is only ONE God as affirmed the Bible. There are three persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but they are all ONE God. As the Trinity is not the topic of the debate, I will not go further into it. Below two verses from the Old and New Testaments, respectively, that talk about the oneness of God:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Next, is the most important thing to understand and will result with a fallacious argument if dismissed. God CANNOT sin because he IS NOT sin. God by his very nature is a PERFECT being. If we look back in Genesis, we see the Fall of Man. When God created this universe, he created it PERFECTLY. There was NO sin when he created it. As the creator of the universe, God is not bound to the laws of the universe like we are. He transcends it because he created it (to clarify, suffering and all that goes under it is NOT a part of creation as God originally made it). All that we know to be reality in this universe is because he made it to be so. Calling God sinful is simply NOT true. Below are verses in the Bible that further describe the God's nature.

Psalm 92:15
To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

Psalm 25:8
Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way.

Point 2: Why Jesus came?

The next point to consider is why did Jesus come and does the Bible talk about it? The answer to the latter question is yes and the Bible is extremely explicit as to why Jesus came. Below are verses from the Gospels that talk about Jesus' time on Earth:

(Mark 2:17) When Jesus heard it, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

(Luke 9:56) "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men"s lives but to save them." And they went to another village.
For those who are not familiar with the Scriptures, there are scores of prophecies (over 300!) in the Old Testament that describe Jesus centuries before he was even born. Obviously, I cannot include all of them, but here is an example (it is listed as the prophecy and the account):

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?

Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli,[a] lemasabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

That's so cool right? The description is so spot on even though it is separated by hundreds of years! If I may bring your attention to the first verse in the Psalms, you might remember Jesus saying this during his Crucifixion. This is actually one of seven things that Jesus said while on the Cross. When he said this, he was quoting the Psalm, something that the followers who were present during his Crucifixion would have been very familiar with. This is not the only example of a prophecy describing Christ. There are hundreds more that are ALL fulfilled when Jesus came. I strongly encourage you to look them up yourself.

Point 3: The significance of the Cross

So you might be reading all this and wondering, "so what? Jesus died on a Cross? How does that save me from my sins?" Well, to answer that question, we need to go into the Old Testament where offerings were a mandatory practice for Jews. In an offering , an individual will pick a HEALTHY animal from their livestock (a lamb, ram, or a bull for example) without defect or blemish and they would have to slaughter it as a sacrifice to God. This doesn't mean that God hates animals, an offering serves a much higher purpose. See, this sin problem that humanity has is exactly like debt and it had to be paid back in increments. The word "sin" literally means separation from God and a price had to be paid to deal with the debt. But the price was not money, the price was blood. When a person sinned, only innocent blood could have been used to reconcile man with God, therefore explaining the use of a HEALTHY animal. This seems like a good system right, except the only problem is that sin is constant and the debt keeps stacking up.

I'm going to deviate again to tell you a familiar story about Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac. I believe the story to be 100% true, but the story is also allegorical for Jesus Christ coming to save humanity? Don't see it? Let me explain.

After Abraham prepared the altar and was about to sacrifice his son, an angel of God told him to stop because God had seen his faith. It is described that God provided a ram and it was used as the sacrifice instead of Isaac. The allegory in the story is that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac (who represents mankind), but God intervenes and stops him. Instead of sacrificing Isaac, God provides a ram (Jesus Christ) to be sacrificed in the place of Isaac so that the sin debt is taken care of.
Do you see it now? There's another point that I want to add. Everyone has heard Jesus Christ being called the "Lamb of God"? This is because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, the PERFECT sacrifice that was necessary to restore the relationship between God and man. If it was not for his sacrifice, there would be no hope for us ever being able to live in communion with God.

To summarize my argument, I listed three points: the nature of God, why Jesus came, and the significance of the Cross. I divided my argument into these points so that I could answer different parts of the question. By attempting to describe the nature of God, I hope to have accomplished explaining that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to sin and so that Jesus dying for the sins of himself or the Father is out of the question. My second point, as to why Jesus came, is meant to show what the Bible says on the matter and how it shows his death to be significant. Finally, I used my last point to explain how Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and what was truly accomplished when he died on the Cross.

Before I close, I want to say how thankful I am for this opportunity! God bless!
Debate Round No. 2


As much as I would like to refute all points raised by the Con, I am not going to deviate from the topic. If Jesus died for sins, whose sin?. Instead of trying to prove or disprove whether Jesus is God or the Trinity is true, I'm going to stay on the topic as the topic of this debate does not call for proving the Godship of Jesus or concept of trinity. I'm going to assume the con wants to consume more words hence the deviation.

In the book of Psalm chapter 106, we read in verse 37-40;

37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

If God was angry at some people because they shed the blood of the innocent, sacrificed their children, it makes sense that God would do exactly the same thing. Killing innocent Jesus, sacrificing his supposed son. I would like to ask the Con, "If you happen to be alive during the supposed arrest of Jesus, if it is in your capacity to save Jesus, would you save him or not?

Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus claimed to have come to die for mankind. If one is not send to humanity, he cannot die for humanity. must know that the Christians' belief that Jesus came to die for the sins of humanity is scripturally legless.It has no place in the bible.If someone came to die for the sins of humanity,He must have been sent to the whole of mankind,let us see those Jesus was sent to.
In the book of Matthew chapter 15 verse 22,We read
"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil"

The reader should bear in mind that we are trying to figure out if Jesus was sent to a particular group of people or to the whole of humanity using his words as a case study.
In verse 23 of the same chapter,we read,
"But he answered her not a word..."
It may interest the reader to know why Jesus didn't answer her,she meets a similar but more harsh reaction from Jesus' disciples.The continuation of verse 23 reads,

"...And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us."
There are three things to note here.
i) The woman was a Canaanite not an Israelite
ii) Jesus didn't answer her a word
iii) The disciples of Jesus asked him to send her away

In verse 24 of the same chapter,Jesus said,
Here Jesus claimed to have been sent to only the Israelites.We may disregard Matthew 15:24 as being true calling it a slip of tongue but Matthew 10:5-6 proves that Jesus was sent to the Israelites and not to mankind.we read,
"5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, GO NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES, AND INTO ANY CITY OF THE SAMARITANS ENTER YE NOT

Here we see Jesus asking his disciples not to preach to the gentiles nor go into any city of the samaritans but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.we may then ask,"WHY ISRAEL?".Did Jesus considered the gentiles unworthy of salvation? Was he a racist? Or was he just sent to the people of Israel? I leave the reader to answer these questions.

The bible says in Deuteronomy 24:16,
"The father shall not be put to death for the children,neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin "
We can also read in Exekiel 18:20,
"The soul that sinneth shall die.The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

These verses are refuting the idea that anyone shall die for the sins commited by another,we read further in Ezekiel chapter 18,verse 21 says
"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed,and keep all my statutes,and do that which is lawful and right,he shall surely live,he shall not die."
Verse 22 says,
"All his transgressions that he hath committed,they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live"
A christian reading this should ponder as these verses portray the loving nature of God not a supposed creator that holds all mankind responsible for the sins commited by two people and would not forgive the people till he kills his supposed only begotten son.Verse 23 of Ezekiel chapter 20 says,
"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways,and live?"
The reader should not hesitate to ask anyone preaching that Jesus must die for us to be saved to answer this question the bible said God asked in Ezekiel 18:23.God wants sincere repentance not a bloody sacrifice.
Jesus whom the christians claim came to die for their sins taught his disciples to pray this way,
"Our father,who hath in heaven
hallowed be thy name,thy kingdom come
thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven
give us,this day our daily bread
One may ask,why is Jesus whose mission was to come on earth to die for our sins enjoining his disciples to ask God for forgiveness of their sins?.Was Jesus aware not of his mission?.

Jesus said in Luke 5:32;

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus claimed to have died for the sins of mankind rather he emphasized on the need to repent. One may wonder why a powerful God would not forgive humans except innocent blood is shed albeit these humans still need to ask for forgiveness though Jesus died for their sins.

The Con wrote,

"When a person sinned, only innocent blood could have been used to reconcile man with God, therefore explaining the use of a HEALTHY animal."

I wonder where the Con is taking his own doctrine from. I have quoted verses above to show that not sacrifice but repentance.

Isaiah 1:11-17 says,

"11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. "

Why then does the Con think God cannot forgive our sins without shedding of blood, isn't that limiting God?

If the claim that Jesus died for sins is true, He died not for the sins of humanity rather he died for his sins or the sins of his father.

I don't believe God can sin, my argument is more or less a Satire. As I have explained in the second round, Jesus died for his sins of his father's BY BIBLICAL STANDARDS IN LIGHT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE COUPLED WITH THE DEFINITION OF MURDER AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

Thank you!


Rebuttal Point 1

For the reader, I would like to point out that my opponent is actually cherry picking verses in the Bible and using them out of context. When someone focuses on the WORDS that have been said and not the MEANING, this is dangerous. It is common knowledge that the Bible was not written in English, therefore it is necessary to understand what the authors were trying to say when they were writing. Let's take my opponent's use of 2 Samuel 24: 15-16 in the first round as seen below:

II Samuel 24:15-16

15 "So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning
until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of
the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy
Jerusalem; the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and
said to the angel who was afflicting the people, Enough!
Withdraw your hand. The angel of the LORD was then at the
threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite."

The pro's argument is that God felt sorry for what he did and called back the Angel that he sent to kill 70,000 men. This link below provides an analysis and commentary of what ACTUALLY happened:
(The explanation for verses 15-16 can be found in B, #1-4, but I would recommend a reading of the full commentary)

When one reads this commentary, it is discovered that the deaths of these 70,000 men was not the fault of God, but the fault of King David who sinned against God. In result of the sin, David was given a choice regarding his judgment. Of three options, David chose a plague that would last 3 days in Israel and this resulted in the death of 70,000 men. When God asked the Angel to "withdraw" his hand it is because the time had expired. The deaths of these men WAS David's fault ALONE, NOT God's. Another point I would like to make is that it does NOT please God when someone dies. Death is the price of sin, but God doesn't get a kick out of it. In fact, he HATES it and it breaks his heart. Anyways, now that this is cleared up, I would like to advise my opponent to be more careful on the next time that he quotes Scripture without actually understanding the context, background, and implication. In other words, it is unwise to provide the TEXT without knowing the CONTEXT as it can result in a fallacious argument. This can be used for the other verses that my opponent has provided, but each case is separate and it would take too long to cover all of them.

Rebuttal Point 2

In the closing of his argument in the 2nd round, my opponent has said, "I don't believe God can sin, my argument is more or less a Satire." If he truly believes this, I can actually use his words to prove my case using two points. The first point will come from the first half of the excerpt that I have just listed above. The second comes from end of the question of this debate, "...Jesus...if he is God." From these two phrases, I have resulted with these two points, respectively: God cannot sin, Jesus is God.

- If God cannot sin, then NOTHING he does, thinks, says, etc is sinful
- If Jesus is God, then NOTHING he does, thinks, says, etc is sinful
- If NOTHING that God/Jesus does, thinks, says, etc is sinful, then Jesus' death on the cross COULD NOT have been for his own sins or for the sins of the Father

To phrase this is an easier way, if my opponent believes that God cannot sin, his ENTIRE case is fallacious. This would mean that my opponent has NO question, NO argument, and NO debate.


To my opponent: Thank you for making this a lively and thought-provoking discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed it and am thankful to have been your opponent! Hopefully, my arguments were easy to follow and straightforward. I apologize if anything that I have said may have come across as offensive and I hope you know that this was not at all my intention. I also want you to know that I am keeping you in my prayers and hope that you will be able to know Jesus just as well as I do! God bless!

To the reader: It is my hope that you would have something to take back with you, if anything. Thanks for sticking around to hear what I have to say! If this has sparked your interest in any way, I highly encourage you to keep digging because God is worth it! God bless you all!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by reeltalk 1 year ago

I appreciate your answer, but you are thinking way too much into the definitions and diction. Trust me, it is not that complicated and it is not meant to be either.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts.
"Faith," in a religious context, does not refer to an abstract sense of hope or confidence but to a particular sort of belief - a belief in something not adequately supported by evidence. By definition, this is irrational (i.e., faith entails belief in something without sufficient evidence to justify the belief, and believing without sufficient evidence is irrational). But just because faith is irrational does not mean that those who are afflicted by it are somehow unintelligent or mentally ill. In part, this is because there are degrees of faith and most of it does not rise to delusional intensity. While strong and pervasive faith may indeed be delusional, the faith of most believers may be better understood as the suspension of critical thinking.
We value reason because we know it works. Most religious believers agree with this and are perfectly willing to apply reason to most areas of their life. All we are asking for is a consistent application across the board.
A person need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life. Belief in religion is not necessary.
Posted by reeltalk 1 year ago
@ missmedic

Thank you for those links, they were quite interesting. But after reading them, i am still going to reiterate what i have said. Intellectual honesty and critical thinking can be elements of faith. Faith is and should not be blind. If i believe something to be true, there should be a reason for it whether it be logic, evidence, experience, etc or all of it together.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
You need to understand what intellectual honesty is, and how critical thinking works.
Posted by reeltalk 1 year ago
@ missmedic

Can faith not embrace critical thinking and intellectual honesty? I am getting the message that you think that these things on opposite sides of the spectrum. Can they not feed off each other?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
We need to embrace critical thinking and intellectual honesty, not faith, belief, and dogma.
Posted by reeltalk 1 year ago

You bring up an excellent point. So the question is how to we get out of it?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Just think about the idea that we were "born into sin". What greater defenseless, innate bondage can you have?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 1 year ago
I might just take this one.
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 1 year ago
That still doesn't make any sense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.