The Instigator
MettaWorldPeace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

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...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 66502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

MettaWorldPeace

Con

Was Jesus the Son of God? Pro argues along these lines--Jesus claimed to be such divine spirit, the Son of God. If one accepts this fact and considers Jesus a good person, he must indeed be the Son of God. Otherwise one must consider him to be a liar or a lunatic. I will argue the con, which does not exclude the possibility Jesus of Nazareth could be a heavenly figure and not literally be the Son of God--while still maintaining he is a good person and not a liar nor lunatic. I hope to be creative with my argument and ask my opponent to consider the same approach.
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for creating what should be an interesting debate.

Both of us agree that Jesus was a good person, so we won't be debating that issue. What we will be debating is a two-fold question:

1. Did Jesus claim to be "the Son of God"?

2. If he did make that claim, but wasn't really the Son of God, does that mean he told a lie or was crazy?

I would assert the answer to both questions is YES. My opponent claims the answer is NO.

EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIM:

John 10:36 records Jesus saying He is the Son of God:

"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

So that takes care of question number 1. Now on to question 2.

Since Jesus claimed to be "the Son of God", that leaves us with only three possibilities:

1. He was the Son of God (which means I win the debate).

2. He wasn't the Son of God, and knew that he wasn't. This would make what he said a lie (which means I win the debate).

3. He wasn't the Son of God, but thought he was. This would mean he was crazy (which means that I win the debate).

There is no fourth option. Any way you look at it, I have already won this debate.

I look forward to reading my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
MettaWorldPeace

Con

Thank you for having this debate. The approach I will attempt is one not towards dissuasion, but merely to show this argument does not constitute a proof. First I will show Jesus to be a good person, irregardless of his statements of Godhood. To do so I will ask you to consider three things he has said and the ways in which he lived up to those statements. First, he asks us to love thy neighbor. He lives up to this time when on several occasions he was kind to strangers, for instance taking in a feeding hungry people. He tells us to not judge lest ye be judged and we can find his actions meet his words when he helps prostitutes who are in danger. He said love thy enemy and was so courageous that he even forgave the Romans who executed him. This shows without a doubt he was a good person. For the second part what I argue will be twofold. First, if he was not the Son of God he would not be perfect. Thus he could lie about one thing and not another. Maybe he found claiming to be the Son of God as not as important as all those other things he did. The second is maybe he did see himself as the Son of God, not because he is special, but because we are all Sons and Daughters of God, perfect just as He created each one of us. He often refers to God as his Father, but God is the Father of us all. Jesus also refers to Himself as Lord and Master. Now, this is harder to explain, but could be due to being seen as the "Host of Man," the man sent by God to usher in a new Christian era. Thus he would not be the Son of God in the sense that he was more Godly than any one of us, but only in the sense that the purpose that sort of God sent him for was to play that role as leader of a new order on Earth.
dsjpk5

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for taking the time to offer his thoughts.

As I stated in my opening round, we both agree Jesus was a good person, so I won't spend any time defending that part of the issue.

REBUTTALS

Last round, my opponent said:

"For the second part what I argue will be twofold. First, if he was
not the Son of God he would not be perfect. Thus he could lie about one thing and not another. Maybe he found claiming to be the Son of God as not as important as all those other things he did."

MY RESPONSE:

As I pointed out earlier, if Jesus lied, I win the debate. But don't
take my words for it. Read Pro's first round argument again. He
clearly states he will be arguing against the idea that Jesus was a
liar. So, if Jesus lied, I win.

Con went on to say:

"The second is maybe he did see himself as the Son of God, not because
he is special, but because we are all Sons and Daughters of God,
perfect just as He created each one of us. He often refers to God as
his Father, but God is the Father of us all. Jesus also refers to
Himself as Lord and Master. "

MY RESPONSE:

As you can see from last round, I quoted Jesus saying He was THE son of God, not A son of God. So He wasn't comparing Himself to all of us, but rather singling Himself out as THE one and only Son of God.

Then Con said:

"Now, this is harder to explain, but could
be due to being seen as the "Host of Man," the man sent by God to usher
in a new Christian era. Thus he would not be the Son of God in the
sense that he was more Godly than any one of us, but only in the sense
that the purpose that sort of God sent him for was to play that role as
leader of a new order on Earth."

MY RESPONSE:

Con offers no evidence to support his claim, and as such, his claim should be rejected as baseless.
Debate Round No. 2
MettaWorldPeace

Con

Here is a quote from Wikipedia, "And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain-" attributed to the Apostle Paul.

The part of this that shows is the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. If things happened just as they are said to have in the Bible, then one cannot argue against it, one cannot argue against Jesus, and on cannot argue against Christianity. However, if Jesus is a man--one can argue against him if he was wrong.

Now, it is not likely he lied about something so important as his own Godhood and still be considered honest. But, we well know (in at least less dramatic examples) one can lie and not be a liar--such as telling your girlfriend who has put on some weight that she is not fat. In the case of Jesus, he might have had some reason us less developed humans wouldn't understand.

Matthew 5:16 "Le your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...
This quote is directed towards followers of Christ during the Sermon on the Mount. It hints that he is the Father of them all and they are all equal Sons and Daughters of the Lord.

But, here is a way one could lie about the resurrection, with a possible purpose in mind that is greater than oneself. He knew his spirit would rise from the dead because his followers would live his example, which he thought was good and expressed God. Thus he is the Son of God sheparding in all of His other followers.
dsjpk5

Pro

Con said:

"Here is a quote from Wikipedia, "And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain-" attributed to the Apostle Paul.

The part of this that shows is the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. If things happened just as they are said to have in the Bible, then one cannot argue against it, one cannot argue against Jesus, and on cannot argue against Christianity. However, if Jesus is a man--one can argue against him if he was wrong."

MY RESPONSE:

Unless of course He was BOTH God AND man. .. then you still shouldn't argue against Him because He's never wrong ... even though He's a man.

MY OPPONENT ADMITS HIS CLAIM IS UNLIKELY:

"Now, it is not likely he lied about something so important as his own Godhood and still be considered honest. But, we well know (in at least less dramatic examples) one can lie and not be a liar--such as telling your girlfriend who has put on some weight that she is not fat. In the case of Jesus, he might have had some reason us less developed humans wouldn't understand."

MY RESPONSE:

If it's not likely Jesus lied, then the opposite IS true. It would be likely He told the truth about being the Son of God. And if that's the case, then I win the debate.

Con continues:

"Matthew 5:16 "Le your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com......
This quote is directed towards followers of Christ during the Sermon on the Mount. It hints that he is the Father of them all and they are all equal Sons and Daughters of the Lord."

MY RESPONSE:

So here Con claims Jesus is saying we are all equal Sons of God, but earlier we read about Jesus claiming to be THE Son of God. So if that's the case, then Jesus lied. And if He lied about being the Son of God, then I win the debate.

MY OPPONENT ADMITS JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD:

"But, here is a way one could lie about the resurrection, with a possible purpose in mind that is greater than oneself. He knew his spirit would rise from the dead because his followers would live his example, which he thought was good and expressed God. Thus he is the Son of God sheparding in all of His other followers."

MY RESPONSE:

Notice the last sentence of the quote above, "Thus he is the Son of God..." I accept my opponent's concession and thank him for an interesting discussion. I have won the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
MettaWorldPeace

Con

I would like to start this round by simply stating there is a fourth possibility--Jesus was a fool, in that he legitimately thought he was the Son of God and had good reason to think so, but was wrong. So this is a fourth option, that he was merely wrong and in such a way no one could fault his reasoning,

However, this is not what I am attempting to show, in as many words. He genuinely believed he was THE Son of God, I think. But, I think he was mistaken not in the sense he isn't, but in the sense we all are.

There is also good reason for him to think in this way. He is said to have done a great many good things in a world that had a lot of bad things in it. He also had many followers who saw him in a manner that would naturally lead him to believe he was a higher being.

This is not to say he was an egomaniac. But rather, he believed in God, believed in such a grand purpose, and believed this purpose was given to him by God--it was just natural for him to think such a thing.

Now, this is the turning point of the argument--if Jesus was not inerrant and the Bible is not inerrant, either one of them could be wrong. Maybe the authors of the Bible put words in Jesus's mouth--or maybe Jesus didn't truly understand who he was.

I would also like to point out the impact believing these different Christian pillars to be infallible has. For if they are infallible we cannot question them, we can only interpret them, which does a disservice to both us and them. We can and should question the Bible, otherwise we are following blindly or corrupting its meaning with our own.

My argument is this, Jesus is not the Son of God any more than any of us are the Sons and Daughters of God. What sets him apart from everyone else is he was the first of his kind, which would make him the Light among Men.
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank Con for an interesting debate.

Con began his last round describing what he claimed was a fourth option (besides the three I described in round one), but then said he wasn't claiming it really happened. So that would imply that what really happened was one of the other three scenarios... which means I win.

Then Con went on to say:

"However, this is not what I am attempting to show, in as many words. He genuinely believed he was THE Son of God, I think. But, I think he was mistaken not in the sense he isn't, but in the sense we all are."

MY RESPONSE:

THIS IS A CONCESSION from Con. He just said Jesus is the Son of God. He went on to inexplicably say there can be more than one THE Son of God, but that's irrelevant. The resolution of the debate clearly states that I would be arguing for calling Jesus the Son of God, and Con would be arguing against that.

Con then also inexplicably claimed that maybe we can't trust what the Bible says Jesus did, but if you remember, Con has referenced the Bible several times when trying to establish Jesus being a good man. So, since he wanted us to accept it earlier in the debate, it's too late to say it's not trustworthy now.

Again, in his final paragraph, Con says Jesus was the Son of God. That's a concession.

So I have won the debate.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
Lol, thank you for an interesting debate, it seems we have added evidence to the notion Jesus was in fact a being as great as he claimed, the Son of God
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I would like to thank my opponent for what was a fun debate. I have to give him credit for trying to debate something that no one has ever heard of!
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
Again there is no concession, please vote for who had the most convincing arguments
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong but I think it has to do with sources regarding Jesus. As for this debate all sources are considered relevant according to their accuracy (keeping in mind proof must be given for the Bible's inerrancy if that will be claimed).
Posted by ScarletAtheist 2 years ago
ScarletAtheist
That is, of course, in a contemporary historical sense, as there are several works pertaining to Jesus after his supposed life.
Posted by ScarletAtheist 2 years ago
ScarletAtheist
Or people wrote that he was the son of a god. The Bible is the only source for any information about Jesus, and about Jesus being a god.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
So he lied.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
I never said he was a son, I have also not said he is infallible--but that is all I will add until I post my next argument
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
You can't be the Son and a son.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 2 years ago
MettaWorldPeace
I would like to point out I have not conceded the debate, however your note to the discussion is relevant and will be considered in the next round. If he is the Son of God, but we are all the Sons and Daughters of God, then he would be none special and thus the Light among Men for being the first to show the way.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
MettaWorldPeacedsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate topic- Pro was successful in showing that Jesus is more likely the Son of God than not. Thus, arguments go to Pro (even without the concession by Con).
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
MettaWorldPeacedsjpk5Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON said Jesus is the son of god in his last round, by saying he is the son of God just like any one of us. This essentially concedes the debate, haha. Further, PRO cites actual biblical evidence to support his case. Therefore, PRO wins the debate.