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

Jesus contradicted the old testament, his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 58243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

First we have well established information that stoning was commanded by God. We even have Jesus himself seemingly stating that it was in fact God who ordained it.

'Matthew 15
Then some Pharisees and
of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!"

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."'

'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)'


But later, we have Jesus saying not to necessarily stone someone who the Law of Moses says should be stoned.

John 8:6"76 This they said fto test him, gthat they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, h"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

it could be argued, that Jesus only clarifying the teaching.... that it is the Law to stone people, but only those who are without sin must cast the first stone. The problem, though, is that this is stretching what is actually occurring in the texts. the texts clearly say the woman should be put to death. both the old testament and Jesus himself at one point seemed to say that was the rule, the Law. But Jesus is not going along with that, any more.

it could be argued that it would no longer be necessary to put someone to death, after Jesus was put to death himself, by virtue of his work being applied to those sinners put to death. but Jesus was not yet crucified when he said those things. so shouldn't the Law of Moses been applicable?

Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not to detract from it. but here, we see what seems to be him detracting from it.


Hello, this is my first debate so if u could help me find the ropes on conduct that would be good but ill just dive in.

in your reference to the pharisees bringing up the law im not sure you point, if it is that jesus isnt keeping or forcing the 'traditions' which could be unwritten or written law, therefore he is against the law then i must disagree. That is MANS law not Gods law but hopefully you have some text to support the claim.

God had one rule in the beginning which was don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.
Adam (AKA : man) added onto the rule telling Eve to also not to touch it. When Eve broke mans law and touched it God did not discipline her. he didnt strike her down because she had not broken his law. The punishment came when he and her ate of the tree.

i believe the same applies here.

with jesus's answer he quotes Gods law of 'Honor your mother and father' and you left out some key elements of that he's showing the pharisees hypocrisy because they want what could be used to honor your mother and father to be 'devoted to God' whatever that actually means for all we know they could have been using it for personal gain like in the bible where mary pours the ointment on jesus feet and Judas (a tax collector) condemns her for not selling and giving the money to the poor even though he had plans on taking a cut of it. in the same instance jesus tells judas to stop.
The text is John 12:3-7

In the same chapter jesus calls on an old testament profit describing what the pharisees are doing
""These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.""

and there are the Man's rules i spoke of again.


Now onto moses. The reason it has differed from moses to jesus is because jesus is there for people like that prostitute.
Ill explain that in a moment. you point out that the text and actions clearly show she should be stoned and you are correct she should have been stoned but why? Because she broke God's law and we can all agree on that no problem, but jesus being God offers forgiveness to her. that can be proven because the only one there without sin was jesus and he didnt throw the stone.
God being love sent his son jesus, and he didnt send him to condemn the world but to save it, that is why he didnt throw the stone and why back in moses before jesus had come to save and forgive us they stoned them. It was not just the crucifixion.

If i missed anything let me know or if i was hard to follow help me out a bit.
Debate Round No. 1


"That is MANS law not Gods law but hopefully you have some text to support the claim."

i don't see how you say it was man's law. and i don't know why you ask for me to support this. i already showed, that in the OTestament, it was God himself who ordered deaths, and showed one example in particular. also, i showed that it was Jesus himself who acknowledged that it was God himself who commanded it.

perhaps Jesus's main message when dealing with "honor your father and mother' point was to highlight their own inconsistencies, and false motivations etc. but, he did acknowledge that it was God who said that stuff. perhaps it wasn't his main point, but it was a point. and for our purposes in this conversation, the substamces matters tremendously in examining his consistencies.

con does provide a decent final argument, in that God through Jesus chose to forgive the prostitute. this could be seen as permissible, i guess, if Jesus is God or thereabouts. but, he didn't give them clear indication that the law of the OT shouldn't be followed anymore as a general rule. looking at the passages where he notes it was God's command, and where it was God who commanded it explicitly... we might think that the rule is, that they should continue to stone people, but there is only one 'catch all' if God specifically pardons the person. this would be akin to laws that find guilt in our society, and a president or governor who can act as pardoner.

con may have squeaked this one out by a hair. as a christian, i feel obligated to give con's argument the benefit of the doubt. (the last argument, not the first stuff)


Oh ok sorry i misunderstood for some reason, my appologize.
So to clarify your saying Jesus said they should be put to death for dishonoring their mother and father like when God said to put to death the man in exodus.
then you also point to the prostitute and say that she should be stoned but jesus didnt because some unown reason.

ok well jesus is making a point to the pharisee that he is being hypocritical of the disciples. Jesus understands the law also as Pro pointed out he said "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' and same with the prostitute he clearly knew the law that she should be stoned and didnt say she shouldnt be either, but he was making a point to all of them that God is the Judge not them. In the example with moses, God made his decision, i can not say i know why decided that but i have to assume God is Just like the bible says
Debate Round No. 2


i do kind of like taking the approach that the only reason the law wasn't enforced, was because God specifically forgave that person. God through Jesus forgave that person. when he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone, he was implying that no one there was without sin, except Jesus. Jesus challenges them to not stone her unless they were without sin, as then they would be in the same position as Jesus. but no one could contend they were without sin. that left only Jesus to decide, and he decided to forgive, and admonish her to go and sin no more.


umm i think thats you agreeing with me so thank you im glad i got to debate with you. much fun. good job
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
This is an interesting argument that implies that Jesus is not the incarnation of Jehovah assuming that Jehovah is not a mind that changes. I'll stay tuned.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
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: I thought both made horrible arguments, but at one point, Pro conceded an argument to Con. My vote is based on that alone.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a generally better job of explaining why it was not a violation, while Pro did a ... not as good? a job of showing how its a violation. A couple of larger points: 1) The difference between the lower law and higher law. 2) That Jesus does not condone what the adulteress woman does, he forgives here. The law is violated, but what Jesus is saying is that the punishment for sin is not death in all cases ... precisely because he exists. He is atonement.