The Instigator
Iacov
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheCalvinist
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Jesus is not without sin

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheCalvinist
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 95417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Iacov

Pro

In the book of Mathew Jesus goes into the temple and finds merchants selling religious materials such as lambs for sacrifice or doves. He becomes angry and begins to destroy the merchants' stands and chase them out of the temple with a whip. This is very clearly not just a sin but the deadly sin of wrath.
TheCalvinist

Con

You are confusing sinful anger with righteous anger.

As a matter of fact, this was a messianic prophecy being fulfilled.

Psalm 69:9 "For zeal for your house will consume me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me." [E

In the New Testament we find that Jesus’ emotion were described as “zeal” for God’s house...

John 2:17 "His disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for Your house will consume me.”"

Where in the Bible does it say that zeal for God, righteous anger, or even that wrath is a sin? It does not say that anywhere.

Interestingly, the Bible does have a great lot to say about righteous anger.

For example, the Bible says to be angry... Ephesians 4:26 "Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,"

Jesus displayed righteous anger, yet did not sin,

1. Jesus' anger had the correct motivation. There was no selfish motive involved. The only motive involved was the love for His Father and His Father's house.

2. Jesus' anger had the correct focus. Jesus' anger was aimed towards sinful behavior.

3. Mark 3:5 says that His anger was with grief over the Pharisees’ lack of faith. In reality, Jesus’ anger stemmed from love them and It had nothing to do with unrighteous hatred or ill will.

4. Even in His wrath, He was not out of control. The Pharisees' did not like when Jesus' cleansed the temple (Luke 19:47), but Jesus' had done nothing sinful.

5. He dealt with each situation properly, and He handled anger with proper timing.

6. Jesus’ anger lead towards Godly action

Wrath of man is not the same as the wrath of God.





Debate Round No. 1
Iacov

Pro

Is Jesus not described multiple as both man and God in one body? So why does if it was wrath or not only apply to one side of him? I agree his anger was directed at sinful behavior but one sin does not justify another. Regardless of his motivations for his actions Jesus threatened the merchants physically and destroyed their property.
TheCalvinist

Con

"Is Jesus not described multiple as both man and God in one body?"

Yes, He is.

"So why does if it was wrath or not only apply to one side of him?"

It does not.

I did not argue that what made the act sinless was that the wrath comes from the "God" side of Him.

You misunderstood why I wrote "wrath of man is not the same as the wrath of God"...

I put that in there because you said that wrath is a sin.

My point was...

1. the Bible says God is sinless
2. The Bible says God has wrath.
3. Therefore wrath is not a sin.

I was not focused on the wrath aspect of what Jesus did but on the righteous anger aspect.

If you would like me to focus on wrath, I will.

"I agree his anger was directed at sinful behavior but one sin does not justify another."

A) I demonstrated clearly that none of what Jesus did was sinful.
B) Do you want to claim that I am trying to justify a sin? If so,...
C) You will have to prove from the Biblical text that what Jesus did was not righteous anger.

Regardless of His motivations for His actions

No, not regardless of His motivations. The motivation behind anger is what shows wether something is righteous or unrighteouss anger. Unlike other sins, anger can be identified by motives. For example, lying is still a sin regardless of wether someone's motives are good or bad. Why? This is because lying in of itself is a sin. Anger, on the other hand is NOT in of itself a sin.

Jesus threatened the merchants physically and destroyed their property.

He did not sin by doing this. He did the exact opposite...

“Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? [Isaiah 56:7-8] But you have made it a den of robbers [Jeremiah 7:11].”

2. If a man has weapons that he uses to murder, is it a sin to destroy those weapons?
2. How much more if he was using those weapons in the house of God?

Anger in of itself is not a sin, nor is flipping tables.
Debate Round No. 2
Iacov

Pro

Wrath is officially described by the Catholic Church as "Wrath, when used of man, is the exhibition of an enraged sinful nature and is therefore always inexcusable (Genesis 4:5,6; 49:7; Proverbs 19:19; Job 5:2; Luke 4:28; 2 Corinthians 12:10; Galatians 5:20; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8). It is for this reason that man is forbidden to allow anger to display itself in his life. He is not to "give place unto wrath" (Romans 12:19 margin), nor must he allow "the sun to go down upon his wrath" (Ephesians 4:26). He must not be angry with his brother (Matthew 5:22), but seek agreement with him lest the judgment that will necessarily fall upon the wrathful be meted out to him (Matthew 5:25,26). Particularly is the manifestation of an angry spirit prohibited in the training and bringing up of a family (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:19). Anger, at all times, is prohibited (Numbers 18:5; Psalms 37:8; Romans 12:19; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:26; James 1:19,20)." As Jesus is both man and God this definition must also apply to him.
TheCalvinist

Con

Wrath is officially described by the Catholic Church as...

Not a good source. The Catholic Church is incredibly blasphemous and doesn't even adhere to the Biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone).

"Wrath, when used of man, is the exhibition of an enraged sinful nature and is therefore always inexcusable (Genesis 4:5,6; 49:7; Proverbs 19:19; Job 5:2; Luke 4:28; 2 Corinthians 12:10; Galatians 5:20; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8)."

This is not true. Why don't you read the scriptural proof texts that the Catholic Church provided? Since you were not respectful enough to the persons who may be reading this debate nor towards myself, I will point out the isogesis and lack of Biblical exegesis for you.

Genesis 4:5-6
"
but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?"

Where in these verses does it say that wrath in of itself is a sin?

Genesis 49:7
“Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel."

Where in this verse does it say that wrath or anger in of itself is a sin?...

Here we see multiple things:
1. "THEIR anger, for IT is fierce;"
2. This verse does not say ALL anger is fierce
3. This verse is applying FIERCE to THEIR, not ALL
4. "And THEIR WRATH, for it is CRUEL."
5. This verse does not say ALL wrath is cruel
6. The CRUEL is being applied specifically to THEIR WRATH

Proverbs 19:19
"
A man of great anger will bear the penalty, For if you rescue him, you will only have to do it again."

We've already established the difference between unrighteous and righteous anger. This verse is talking about unrighteous anger.

Job 5:2
“For anger slays the foolish man, And jealousy kills the simple."

We've already established the difference between unrighteous and righteous anger. This verse is talking about unrighteous anger.

Nevertheless, if you were to take that this was not specifically being applied to unrighteous anger but to all anger, you will have to explain why the verse then goes on to explain that it slays the foolish man. Why was that added in? Is Jesus a foolish man? Do foolish men practice unrighteous anger or righteous anger?

Luke 4:28
"And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things;"

Where in this verse does it say that wrath or anger in of itself is a sin?

Do you see what I meant? The Catholic Church takes verses out of context and even claims random verses support their point.

2 Corinthians 12:10
"
Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong."

Where in this verse does it say that wrath or anger in of itself is a sin? Once again, a random verse that has nothing to do with the point they are trying to argue.

Galatians 5:20
"Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,"

Wrath - This also is plural in the Greek (θυμοιL8; thumoi), meaning passions, "bursts of anger;" Read 2 Corinthians 12:20

Once again, where in this verse does it say that wrath or anger in of itself is a sin?

Ephesians 4:31
"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice."

Textual Criticism of Wrath: Or indignation, as θυμος seems here to signify; that is, anger mingled with contempt or disgust; the next expression in the original, οργη, rather signifying wrath, or lasting displeasure;

Once again, where in this verse does it say that wrath or anger in of itself is a sin?

Colossians 3:8
"But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth."

Once again, where in this verse does it say that wrath or anger in of itself is a sin? Same interpretation should be implied here. Wrath can be bad if you do not have the correct motives. You would have to read the Bible as a whole and go through all of the reasons that make anger bad.

Nevertheless, Jesus Christ is God... Jesus did not sin.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tonyrobinson// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better thought out and logical arguments. Pro exhibited some knowledge but depended upon his own limited understanding to make his arguments

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both sides. Generalizing about how thought out and logical one side's points were is not sufficient, nor is pointing to unknown deficits from the other side.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by extian 8 months ago
extian
IacovTheCalvinist
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Pro did not clearly define the word "sin." As a result, Con was able to enforce a strictly biblical interpretation of the word, pointing out that the episode of Jesus driving out the merchants did not qualify as a sin. If Pro had defined "sin" more broadly than the biblical definition, or if Pro had chosen a different aspect of Jesus to consider a "sin", he might have been more successful. However, Con did a good job of using the Bible to defeat Pro's arguments, employing clear reasoning and proper spelling and grammar.