Is Jesus Christ a valid mediator between a Christian and G-d?
Debate Rounds (5)
For this debate, we are to use the Bible to support our position on whether he is a valid mediator.
I will start with Matthew 11:27: "My Father has given all things to me. The Father is the only one who knows the Son. And the only ones who know the Father are the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to make him known."
Being the Bible is inerrant, according to literalist Christians, all claims Jesus made must be true.
The first claim is that his Father, generally perceived to be G-d, has given all things to Jesus. Such a statement implies that Jesus didn't have all things at one point, and that G-d, for some unknown reason, decided to allow Jesus to be the mediator between Him and all of humankind. This claim contradicts much of the Bible.
Mark 13:32 "But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
A basic logical argument follows:
(A) Jesus has been given all things from G-d.
(B) Only G-d truly knows the day and the hour of Jesus's return.
Either A or B must be false. If Jesus has been given all things from G-d, then he must also have given the time and hour of his return. If Jesus hasn't been given all things from G-d, then only G-d COULD know the day and hour of Jesus's return. Either way the Bible has an error.
2nd claim: "The Father is the only one who knows the Son."
Let's analyze this claim, under the pretenses of Christian beliefs. Most Christians will say that in order to know G-d, one must have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Christians will claim that they talk to and know Jesus. Yet, what does Jesus truly say on the matter?
(A) G-d is the only one that knows Jesus.
(B) Susan knows Jesus.
(Conc) Susan is G-d.
Obviously, this is blasphemy. No Christian would likely claim to be G-d. So, if the conclusion is not something that is true, that means either A or B is false.
If a Christian makes the claim that G-d is the only person that can know Jesus, then they're admitting that they can't know Jesus, and since Jesus is necessary to know G-d, you have an impossibility. If they hold to the idea of knowing Jesus, then they're calling Jesus a liar. Obviously, more people but G-d can know Jesus. Again, either way, there's a problem.
Here's another example:
"Bob is the only one who knows Jay. And the only ones who know Bob are Jay and those to whom Jay chooses to make him known."
Now, this is blasphemy to some people I imagine, so my apologies if it offends anyone. But this is the logic of the argument made in Matthew 11:27. But suppose you're Matt. And Matt's been talking to Bob for years. Whenever Matt's had a problem, he's known that he could talk to Bob and he'd feel better. Yet, Jay comes along and says that the only way to really know Bob is to talk to Jay.
Well, Matt's going to call "bull," on that. He's always been able to directly talk to Bob and he isn't going to stop doing that just because someone told him he couldn't. This is essentially what the Jews think of Jesus. He might have some real cool ideas, but that isn't going to stop them from praying directly to G-d, rather then praying to Jesus.
For my first round, I'd like to conclude that the premise of you only being able to know someone by talking to someone else, is ridiculous. What type of G-d, really makes it so he's only available to one person? A person, who only G-d can know?
Why would he not make it so He's available to be worshipped and loved by those that believe in Him?
Secondly, Jesus and God are available to anyone that asks. It doesn't matter who you pray to, as long as you open yourself up to the idea of the religion and have faith. They are not, like you said, only accessible through one another. You only need open yourself up and believe.
Your premise is interesting, but it doesn't really answer the Biblical question. The Bible clearly states in the aforementioned Matthew verse that only G-d knows Jesus. Now, you can say that part is wrong if you like... and naturally that is basically the only cause of action you have to take if you are to believe in Jesus being a valid mediator. But in doing so, you show that not all of the Bible is correct. And if one part of the New Testament isn't correct, why should I believe in others?
My question wasn't based on the idea of Jesus actually walking on the earth, doing many miracles, being born of a virgin, or any of that. I clearly don't believe in that and I will illustrate briefly why, but that is not the premise of this debate.
#1: Only two of the four gospels specifically reference the virgin birth, and in both of those it seems to be forced. It's not a part of the story past the first couple chapters in the respective Gospels. The feeling that I get while I read them, is that they were added later. Some of the first Christians, the Ebionites rejected the idea of the virgin birth.
According to the Gospel of John, the Jews threaten to stone an adultress. Her partner in the adultery is missing, but the New Testament makes one believe that the Jews of that time period regularly stoned people. On the contrary, one Rabbi at the time of Jesus, makes the claim that any court that kills more then one man in 70 years is a bloody court. There are many restrictions that make it very difficult to support the idea of killing a man for making a mitzvot. For instance, if one is found completely guilty by the Sahderin (which is what is meant, when I referenced court earlier), then they are to be acquitted. The logic is that if no good can be found in the person, then death would not be sufficient atonement for them in the afterlife.
What I'm getting to is if the virgin birth was indeed true, then why did the people surrounding Joseph and Mary not urge her stoning. She was not married to Joseph and she was found magically with child. Even if Joseph was told the 'truth' about the virgin birth, none of the other people were. So, if the Jews were really that blood thirsty, why was Mary not threatened with death? The answer is obvious. The virgin birth was a story added later, to match the pagan stories of the day. Being a Christian early on was hard as many were persecuted. So, what easier way to gain more followers then to mix and match pieces of other religions, to get them to believe?
Easter and Christmas are both pagan holidays. Look to the story of Krishna and other Meditteranean gods. They have an uncanny amount of similarity with the story of Jesus. Christianity didn't destroy paganism. It accepted it head on, without hesitation.
Also, in terms of Jesus walking on the earth--there isn't a single contemporary historical source that supports that argument. Even the Gospel writers themselves, who many believe were literally Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not. They never claim anywhere in the Gospel to be written by those four apostles. None of them knew Jesus personally. They are not eyewitness accounts to Jesus. They're written down, decades later after they have been passed in an oral tradition.
What is an oral tradition? Have you ever told a story to a friend, only to have him tell it over again to someone else? Sooner or later the stories been told to ten or twenty different people. What happened? The story changes. Now, take the Gospel stories which had oral tradition going on for decades, and the same things occurred. The story changes. Sometimes in small ways. Sometimes in big ways, but the consistency is not there and the Gospel stories by themselves are not reliable historical sources to the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
It's also important for me to note that while I do not believe Jesus is a valid mediator--no mediator is valid. Psalms 145:18 says "G-d is near to all who call unto Him," which shows there is no need for any mediator. Anyone can reach G-d at any point in their life. Even those that had no desire for G-d in any way, can still call upon Him. And while I don't believe Jesus allows you to know G-d, G-d is our redeeemer, and yours, whether you accept the Torah as truth or not.
The Ten Commandments, which I'm sure your familiar with, has this mitzvot: "You shall have no other gods before me." This shows that it is against Torah, to have any other mediator as the source of your salvation.
Back to the main argument:
"A prophet like me will the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your own kinsmen; to him you shall listen.
This is exactly what you requested of the LORD, your God, at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let us not again hear the voice of the LORD, our God, nor see this great fire any more, lest we die.' And the LORD said to me, 'This was well said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.' "If you say to yourselves, 'How can we recognize an oracle which the LORD has spoken?', know that, even though a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the LORD did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him."
What does Jesus proclaim? That some of his apostles will not die before they see the kingdom? Yet, what happened with Jesus? He died, and all of the apostles that supposedly knew him have long died as well. It is, exactly as the Torah predicted. If someone predicted or says false things as Jesus did when he did not hold to the Mitzvot, then such prophet will die.
Again, I'd like to reiterate I don't find anything necessarily troubling with Christian belief. But Jesus is not a mediator to G-d, as there is no mediator to G-d. The righteousness of all nations will be redeemed by G-d.
asiansarentnerdy forfeited this round.
nugzin2040 forfeited this round.
asiansarentnerdy forfeited this round.
nugzin2040 forfeited this round.
asiansarentnerdy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.