The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

Jesus Sinned!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 15 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,320 times Debate No: 18646
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (15)

 

kohai

Pro

It has been said numerous times that Jesus lived a sinless life; however, that is far from the truth. Jesus did sin, and I believe that I can prove it.

Burden of Proof

For me to win, I need to show just one instance in which Jesus sinned, for my opponent to win, he needs to show that Jesus did not sin in the instance that I brought up.

Definitions

Sin: Breaking any of the 613 commandments as defined in the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), and also the Oral Law (Talmud).

Round 1 acceptance only
daley

Con

I accept my opponents' challenge with one exception - his definition of sin. Sin is transgression of any law that is binding at the time on the person. Some laws in the Torah were not binding on Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Thank you, daley, for accepting this debate. Did Jesus sin? the implications if the answer is, "yes" can result in Christianity being destroyed as a believe system.

It has been stated copious times that Jesus lived a sinless live. This is far from reality. During this debate, I will list a number of sins that Jesus “Christ” the “god-man” committed!

In the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 13 the Bible warns us about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in God. The description is a member of the Jewish people who would tell true prophecies and would be able to perform miracles. God will give them this ability in order to test us. In Biblical passages, God repeatedly commands us to kill this (or these) false prophet(s), lest the evil spread and destroy Israel!

This prophet reappears in the book of Daniel who is described as a king who would wage war against the Jews[i], would change the Laws, including the calendar and holidays.[ii] Elsewhere, this prophet is a king who would disregard the God of his ancestors, and exalt himself as a god and giving honor to this new “god-head.”[iii]

It is a fact that Jesus fulfilled all these descriptions and prophecies. He became a “king” (over the Christian church); changed the Law, done away with Biblical holidays; disregarded the one infinite God of the Bible to form a “trinity” that included Jesus! He committed terrible sins, and openly challenged Sanhedrin, an authority given by God himself!

Like the prophecies above, Jesus pretended to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned and broke that same law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. However, he rebelled against the law just like the prophecies said!

The New Testament records numerous sins, including, but not limited to:

  1. Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]
  2. He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).
  3. He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).
  4. 4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]
  5. Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45).

Various sources from that time period (much more reliable than the New Testament) records other sins, including:

  1. He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).
  2. He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).
  3. He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh—which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

Jesus was obviously a rebel and thought he could change the law. However, the same message of this demi-God has put 1.5 billion people worshiping this false prophet and sinner. Jesus claimed to be God, and here are some of the issues that this brings:

  1. "G-d is not a man, who can lie, nor the son of man, who relents... He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen perverseness in Israel" (Numbers 23:19).
  2. Speaking prophetically of the Christian church, Moses declared, "For their 'rock' is not like our Rock... Where is their god, in whom they trusted?" (Deut. 32:31, 37).
  3. "'See now that I, only I, am He, and there is no god with Me. I kill, and I bring to life; I wound, and I heal, and there is none who can rescue from My Hand...' Sing songs of joy, gentiles, with His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants, and will take vengeance on His enemies, and will forgive His land and His people" (Deut. 32:39, 43).
  4. "I, only I am Hashem (the L-rd), and besides Me there is no savior" (Isaiah 43:11).
  5. "I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god... Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any" (Isaiah 44:6).
  6. "Israel is saved in Hashem with an eternal salvation... Assemble yourselves and come, come near together, you gentiles who have escaped [the judgment]. (They have no knowledge, those who carry wooden sculptures and who pray to a god that does not save.) Announce and bring near, even take counsel together: Who declared this from ancient times, and announced it from then? Is it not I, Hashem? And there are no other gods beside Me, nor any righteous and saving god other than Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else. By Myself I swore, a righteous word went out of my mouth and it will not be withdrawn, that to Me every knee will bow and every tongue will swear" (Isaiah 45:17, 20-23).



[i] Referred to as, “the holy ones.”

[ii] Daniel 7:8, 20-25.

[iii] Daniel 11:36-39

Adapted from: http://www.noahide.com...

daley

Con

In my previous debate with Kohai (Jesus is Messiah http://www.debate.org...), Kohai said in round 4 regarding Isaiah 9:6 that Jesus could not be the one who fulfilled this prophecy for he was not a king. Here are his exact words:

"This is obviously talking about a king, thus the phrase, "the authority is upon his shoulder." It is obvious Jesus was and is never a king."

Now he argues in this debate that Jesus was a "king," saying,

"It is a fact that Jesus fulfilled all these descriptions and prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church)"

Before I go any further, let me ask my opponent on a serious note, have you changed your mind regarding weather Jesus was a king? Or are you willing to defend contradictory positions just to win a debate? I don't want to impute bad motives to my opponent, so I'll just have to let him clear up this apparent discrepancy between his positions taken in these two debates regarding Jesus' kingship. If he now admits Jesus became a king, then he can't maintain in the Messiah debate that Jesus can't fulfill Isaiah 9:6 because he never was a king. I therefore invite redears to vote Pro in the debate "Jesus is Messiah." http://www.debate.org... Now, on to his arguments for this debate.

1.Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19), but he did not sin. In the Old Testament, God promised that the covenant (the law itself) would be replaced by a new covenant or set of laws. (Jeremiah 3:16; 31:31-34) Hosea 2:11 foretells the removal of the Jewish holydays. Amos 8:4-10 tells us when the entire sabbath and the new moon would cease to be valid celebrations before God, namely, when the sun goes down at noon covering the land in darkness, and the people mourn. This was fulfilled on the day Jesus died, when the sun went dark for hours and the people mourned just as prophesied. (Matt 27:45-46; Luke 23:27, 43) This means that God had always purposed to bring an end to various laws of the Old Testament. Removing a law is not the same thing as breaking the law. Jesus, as God, had the right to remove the dietary laws of the Torah for he himself was Yahweh in the flesh. Notice also that in Mark 7 Jesus is not actually seen eating anything recognized as unclean under the law of Moses, hence, was not breaking the law. Neither were his disciples. Jesus was refuting the "traditions" of men about washing the hands before a meal, which is not a requirement written by Moses and the other prophets. When though, Jesus goes on to declare all foods clean, he isn't breaking the law, but changing the constitution. My question to Con is, doesn't he (as God) have that right? Even in the Old Testament the very laws on diet have already been changed by Yahweh. When he made man in Genesis 1 and 2 only a vegetarian diet was authorized, but he changed this law in Noah's day to allow man to eat meat. (Gen 1:29-30; 2:16; 9:3)

2.Jesus never repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents. The key to understanding Matthew 10:34-36 comes in verse 37. Jesus is saying that we have to love him more than our relatives, which makes sense if we are going put God first and not our sinful relatives. Most people in the world are unbelievers, and when few of them become Christians, these ones end up in division against their relatives because the way of live they live for Christ is completely opposite the way of life of the family. They are criticised by their relatives for their new faith, and at times are called of God to even condemn the unreighteousness of their kin. (1 Pet 4:1-4; Titus 1:9) Telling your parents when they are wrong, even reproving them to show them God's view on matters is not dishonoring them. It would be a real dishonor to see them sinning and not correct them. Loving Jesus more and taking his side over that of relatives casues much division.

Jesus never dishonored his mother. At Matthew 12:46-50 Jesus was showing the man that spiritual family is even more important that fleshly relations. Jesus didn't deny Mary was his physical mother, but showed doing God's will is the important thing. Jesus was full grown man and the Messiah as well as God himself; he had no obligation to stop his activity to go out and greet her.

Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. For example, at Genesis 29:30, 31, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. If Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is unbelievable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. Secular works also contain the same sort of hyperbolic language. Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary offers this example from Poimandes 4:6:

"If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself."

suppose that this teaches literal hatred of the physical body? It does not -- it emphasizes the need to give preference to the whole self before the body alone. Literal hate of the body would have us cutting it with razors or hitting it with blunt objects -- an extreme practiced in some Eastern faiths, but not among the Greeks.

Another example comes from a war song in the Poetae Lyrici Graeci (see James Denney, "The Word 'Hate' in Lk. 14:26," Expository Times 21, 41-42): it is said that in battle, men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta" -- is teaching literal hate of one's own life? No! It's emphasizing the need to make one's life secondary for Sparta's sake. One more from Epictetus 3.3.5: "The good is preferable to every intimate relation." This is just a more abstract version of Luke 14:26! Pro is using one word out of one verse to tell us what Jesus taught while ignoring the many many passages where he preached love for one's family and neighbors. In general, the odd passages should be interpreted in light of the mass amounts of clearer ones. Critics often attack citations in the Bible that use exclusive or hyperbolic language. (i.e., "all", "none", "utterly") Such language may be legitimately construed as rhetorical, whether in modern times ("Everyone likes chocolate ice cream.") or ancient times ("Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.") So "hate" not need be in the absolute sense at Luke 14:26. This kind of talk was common in the Ancient Near East.

3.He violated the traditions the Pharisees of his day added to the Sabbath by picking grain, but there is no law in the Torah which forbids picking grain on this day and I challenge Pro to find it. Jesus broke the man-made rules of the Pharisees, not the laws of God.

4. Pro says "he again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm," now please show us where in the Old Testament the law forbid healing on the sabbath! Jesus also gave examples from the Old Testament about David eating the bread that was only for the priests to show the law wasn't supposed to be a burden, and made allowance for emergencies. God was reasonable, not cruel and unbeding. Special circumstances permitted exceptions. Exodus 35:3 forbids the lighting of fires on the sabbath, but Yahweh allowed the priests to light fires for the sabbath burnt offering. (Num 28:9-10; Matthew 12:9-13) Such exceptions are legal, and don't constitute sin, Jesus healing was of this sort and what's more, is nowhere forbidden in the Torah on the sabbath. Nehemiah 10:30-32 and Numbers 15:32-36 don't mention healing as forbidden on the sabbath.

5. As for defying and disobeying the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, and repudiating their authority, the Torah teaches defiance to any man who is teaching or living conntrary to the word of God, which is exactly what those rabbis were doing. Yahweh had the right to reprove them even with stern words, and since Jesus is Yahweh, he has that right according to the Torah. I'm out of space and will answer the rest of Pro's argument next round.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Thank you for this opportunity I have to debate with you. Thank you for your quick response. Sorry for the delay, and if I do not get to respond to every last argument.

"Before I go any further, let me ask my opponent on a serious note, have you changed your mind regarding weather Jesus was a king? Or are you willing to defend contradictory positions just to win a debate? I don't want to impute bad motives to my opponent, so I'll just have to let him clear up this apparent discrepancy between his positions taken in these two debates regarding Jesus' kingship. If he now admits Jesus became a king, then he can't maintain in the Messiah debate that Jesus can't fulfill Isaiah 9:6 because he never was a king. I therefore invite redears to vote Pro in the debate "Jesus is Messiah." http://www.debate.org...... Now, on to his arguments for this debate."

No. Jesus was no King. When I refer to "King" as messiah, I refer to the fact that it will be an earthly king with an earthly kingdom. What I used here is a figure of speech.

Jeremiah 3:16; 31:31-34 does NOT foretell a removal of the old covenant, but rather a renewal of it. We can particularly do this debate later, but just to point out, the Jews NEVER understood it as such as the old covenant and old laws are completely gone. Notice the phrase "Eternal" in referring to God's law.

2. Disrespect for Parents

The word hate is used as literal.

3. Harvesting on Sabbath

Deuteronomy 5:21 states that on the sabbath, "in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest." Jews were prohibited from harvesting crops or preparing a meal on the Sabbath; observant Jews still are. Exodus 35:2 states: ...but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Numbers 15:32-36 described a man who was executed because he gathered wood on Saturday -- perhaps to keep his family from freezing from the cold.

The Oral law constitutes what "Work" is. One of those things is "Harvesting" which Jesus did.

I will respond to the rest later.



daley

Con

COn quotes from Sanhedrin, and Shabbos (I think he means Shabbat) part of the Mishna which dates to 200 C.E., and claims these are more reliable than the New Testament. How can that be when these documents were written long after all the eyewitnesses to Jesus were dead, and the New Testament was written while they were still alive? How can a non-contemporary account be more credible than a contemporary one? Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew, putting Matthew's gospel much closer to the time of the events than the Talmud which Con boasts as more reliable. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel is dated to the year 135 C.E., contains portions of John 18. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. This puts the author in the same generation of people who would have seen Jesus. Luke got his information from the witnesses. (Luke 1:1-4) But what's interesting is the claim in Sanhedrin 43a that Jesus practised magic. This actually supports the gospels as being very reliable, for it is recorded therein that Jesus' enemies could not deny that he did great miracles, so they resorted to saying he did it by the power of demons. (John 11:45-47; Matt 12:13-26; 9:32-34) This shows that Jesus is no myth borrowed from pagan religions, but was a real historical person who performed miracles; so much so, that not even his enemies could deny it. Instead of deny his existence, which the enemies of Christianity would have done in those early centuries were it true, they instead tried to explain his miracles as the work of demons. So Con's later sources are merely supporting the earlier NT accounts of Jesus' miracles. Such miracles whoed he had God's backing and was who he cliamed to be.

But contrary to Con's assertions, the Talmud isn't very reliable at all. For one thing, the oral teaching which was circulating in Jesus' time and was eventually incorporated into the Talmud was an apostasy from the Torah which Jews were supposed to follow. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Torah. Shmuel Safrai in The Literature of the Sages Part One (p.164), points out that in chapters 4 and 5 of the Talmud's Gittin Tractate, the Talmud nullifies the Biblical teaching concerning money-lending: "Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world. The prozbul is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money." This contradicts Deuteronomy 15:1-2. The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or rather, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Note what the Talmud teaches: "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full." (Baba Kamma 37b) This contradicts Exodus 12:46. No wonder Jesus condemned it. Since my opponent believes these writings to be so much more "reliable" than then Bible, I suppose he believes that Jesus is in hell being boiled in hot excrement, as is recorded in the Talmud at Gittin 57a.

Here is what Con is calling more reliable than the New Testament:
Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.
Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.
Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.
Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

I could go on, but really, one can see the difference between the myths and weird traditions of the Talmud and the historical record of the Gospels. The New Testment writers always spoke in harmony with the prior teachings of Moses and other prophets which came before them. The anti-Christian hate speech of the Mishna is very unreliable and not supported by contemporary evidence dating to Jesus' time. These were simply vile accusations evemies of Christianity conjured up over a hundred years after Jesus died. Just to show how unhistorical this is, Gittin 57b claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. (Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews).

Con agrues against Jesus' claim to be God on the basis of Numbers 23:19, but this isn't saying God can't become a man, for the Old Testament has him becoming man many times as I've shown. It's saying he is not a sinful man so that he could lie. Jesus never lied, hence, no conflict here. Con claims Deuteronomy 32:31, 37 is talking about the Christian church, but the context shows it was talking about Israel's enemies in times of war not having a real god (a Rock) who could fight for them the way Yahweh did for his people and give them victory. (vss 28-29) Verse 38 mentions that their gods used to receive their drink offerings and sacrifices; that can't be describing Christians cause the Church doesn't have such things, teaching that all such things found fulfillment in Christ and since are abolished. (Col 2:14-16) The rest of the Scriptures Con produces basically argue that there is only one God and none like him, and I agree, this is the Christian understanding. Jesus was the one speaking in those verses, and indeed there is no other God like him. The Father and Holy Spirit are not "other gods" like him, for they are included in the one God. Since this debate isn't over Con's lack of understanding the Trinity, I won't go into it unless need be.

Jeremiah 3:16 and 31:31-34 never use the word "renew" in relation to the old covenant. God doesn't say he's going to fix, or renew, the old covenant. He says he's going to make a "new" covenant, and says it will be "not according to" the former covenant he made with their forefathers. So it will be different. Con never bothered to reply to all the verses I gave him which clearly spell out the end of various aspects of the old covenant even though he had more than half the word space left. Hosea 2:11 "I will also cause all her mirth to CEASE, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." He didn't reply to Amos 8:4-10 which gives the exact time the sabbath and new moon would be gone, so I think these arguments stand unrfuted. Con gave no Scripture to prove from the Hebrew text that the old covenant was "eternal" as he claims, so this is unproven.

Con claims Jesus meant "hate" literally but gives no evidence for this or reason we should think he did. I gave two why we shouldn't; first, this was a common hyperbolic way of speaking in the ANE, and I gave examples to prove this, and second, Jesus predominantly taught love, so we can interpret this verse in the context of his wider teaching.

Jesus is never recorded as picking up sticks like the man in Numbers 15, and Deuteronomy 5:21 gives the law against covetousness, nothing about sabbath or earing as Con cliams. Plucking a few ears of corn to eat isn't what the Bible calls "earing" anyway, and Jesus justified himself in Matthew 12. I suggest Con read it.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

I must forfeit this round. Been very busy.
daley

Con

Since my opponent has forfeited, my arguments still have gone unrefuted. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

Thank you for a fun debate. Sorry I ran out of time. I'd love to continue.

The arguments from the Talmud are taken way out of context, which is a different debate itself.
daley

Con

I really was looking forward to Pro's response but he ran out of time. Since he has given no new arguments or countered mine, I have nothing left to respond to. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
darris321

point taken, I appreciate the correction. My apologies to my opponent and to the readers.
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
I'm a little bit put off that the contender brings up previous debates.
Previous debates are irrelevant.
Just because you debate for a side doesn't mean you agree 100% with that side.

If someone was debating whether Jesus was king, all they have to do is show he was king. The opposing side would only have to show that Jesus was not king- they would not have to BELIEVE that Jesus was not king.
Belief is irrelevant in logical discussion.
However, even if he did believe Jesus was not king, that has no bearing in the current debate, and it is not for the contender to judge the instigator for changing ideas- even if it is to win debates. Some people debate for the sake of debate.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Thanks, RA.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
"Scientific, genetic tests have sown that the Jewish people are not even related to the Israelites/Palestinians but rather that they originate from Khazaria near Mongolia."

Really, DP8184? What's your source?
Posted by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
This is a good debate, I hope a clear winner shows in the final round.
Posted by DP8184 5 years ago
DP8184
This debate is flawed from the start because Kohai, whose name is Japanese, I believe, for 'most experienced' first assumes that the person known as 'Jesus Christ' was a Jew. The term 'Jew' did not even come into existence until the 17th century AD. Scientific, genetic tests have sown that the Jewish people are not even related to the Israelites/Palestinians but rather that they originate from Khazaria near Mongolia. Christ warned us of the 'false (original word as Hebrews, not Jews) of the SYNAGOGUE of Satan. The only religion that uses the terms 'synagogue' and 'rabbi' is Judaism, therefore Christ was condemning Judaism altogether. Judaism claims Christ committed all sorts of sins because Christ abhorred the Jews and their religion, which is atheistic in nature, concerning itself almost exclusively with economic and tribal matters. I stand with Thomas Jefferson regarding Christ, that he came to save the world from the ravages of tribalistic religions such as Judaism.

It is laughable to quote Jewish works such as the Babylonian Talmud regarding Christs nature because such works are clearly biased against Him, as Christ abhorred the Jews, and the Jews abhorred Christ, and most still do. It would be wiser to quote Greek, Egyptian, or Roman accounts of the man. Lastly, notice that all Bible-based accusations are only in regards to Olde Testament law, which had already been redefined and perverted by the Scribes and Pharisees, who held enough influence to punish 'sinners' with fines or even death, as with Our Lord.

On another note, I find it fascinating that a liberal homosexual just happens to know so much about Judaism, but of course, all the big supporters of 'gay rights' just happen to be Jewish. But hey, I dont hate anybody, I just hate erroneous philosophies and theories and their effects on society. Peace IN :)
Posted by kjw47 5 years ago
kjw47
because one is condemned by his own sin, he trys to falsly reason that Gods son sinned--How sick is that. And in the end where does that reasoning get one???
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
Hey, if I don't agree to his definition of sin I can't accept the proposition in its entirety; go figure!
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Accepting the challenge with an exception? I don't think that's acceptable.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
It is a fair definition of "son." remember, Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the law and thus abolished most of it afterwards. Hence, we need to put him in the sense of Jewish law.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
kohaidaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: You can't accept a debate and then change what is being debated. If you want to debate something else, start a new debate, or get the Instigator to change the resolution before the debate starts. It is trolling to accept a debate and then change the subject.
Vote Placed by smileydodge 5 years ago
smileydodge
kohaidaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Jesus never sinned. It says so in the Bible and that is God's True Word.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
kohaidaleyTied
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: FF, really strong arguments from con
Vote Placed by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
kohaidaleyTied
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 Forfeited.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
kohaidaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: forfit
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
kohaidaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con held the day for arguments... but refering to another debate as support for this (or to get people to change their votes in the other) is abhorrent behavior and absolutely unbecoming of a Christian debater. Shame on you.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
kohaidaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
kohaidaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with con more and his argument was more convincing.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
kohaidaleyTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Had to give it to Con because of the forfeits. His arguments were not refuted.
Vote Placed by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
kohaidaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Been very busy/Ran out of time was the fact that he could not win!