The Instigator
Composer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,573 times Debate No: 31952
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

Composer

Pro

Your Profile I checked you make the claim of being a xtian?

This is easily also proven spurious should you -

1. I wish to Start a Debate where I can examine some of your fundamental claims such as your claim you are a genuine jebus' believer, compared against the Story book bible version of your choice?

2. Story book biblical jebus was an ' eternal Jew ' so are you a wanna-be an eternal Jew or remain a Johnny Come Lately pretend & fraudulent believer?

I will use whatever Story book bible version you prefer once you have identified it?
Pennington

Con

The Biblical text that we will use is the King James Version.


My opponent is left with the BOP of proving the resolution to be true. The resolution is:


'Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!'


I am Christian and simply follow Biblical principles. I will defend that I am Christian and follow Christian doctrine. I will also rebuttal the claim that Jesus is a 'eternal Jew.'


I await my opponents opening argument.

Debate Round No. 1
Composer

Pro

Con claims - " I am Christian and simply follow Biblical principles. I will defend that I am Christian and follow Christian doctrine. I will also rebuttal the claim that Jesus is a 'eternal Jew.' "

Con: I am Christian and simply follow Biblical principles.

Pro: I earlier asked Con to provide his preferred Story book version, but he failed to even do that; so at this stage any old common or garden bible Story book version should suffice for his claims!

In accordance with Con's claim that he believes his as yet unnamed Story book version, Pro requires legitimate proofs (according to e.g. 1 Thess. 5:21, 2 Tim. 4:5 & 1 Pet. 3:15) that Con, by claiming to be a genuine believer & has ' followed the basic biblical principles ' as any genuine believer is commanded to do has in fact done so? -

i.e. Proofs from Con req'd e.g. -


1. That Con no longer sins?


2. That Con has ' sold everything he had and given the proceeds to the poor? '.

2a) I would be pleased to receive therefore legitimate copies of written and independently witnessed signatures in a Statutory Declaration confirming you have strictly obeyed Matt. 19:21? (List of assets, property, Bank statements etc all reading zero? and your only assets are some cloths and some food and a Statement that you are absolutely ' content ' with that?


3. IF you & your imaginary friend are what they claim to be & fulfill the promises made in bible Story book land, then I want a paraplegic friend of mine to be immediately cured physically and restored to full physical health.

3a) Further details are NOT required as Con's 'all knowing Story book god ' obviously already has and knows all his details. (allegedly?)


4. A further legal statement also signed by Con (Real Name & details) & also legitimate unbiased/non-religious believing witnesses Or also by those also claiming to be a genuine believer (or such as your soon to be ex-pastor), that your fundamental desire is not for personal divine Story book offered coercive bribes/rewards for e.g. eternal life or immortality; but rather it is a noble willingness on your part to do as Atheists have done on the various Battle-fields throughout history, by them selflessly sacrificing themselves and literally ' laying down their literal physical life; for both believers & non-believers with absolutely NO expectations of divine rewards? (Said documents would make me subject to Legal action should I ever divulge your personal details openly, which I would never do without your written consent & authority!).

Over to you & your imaginary friend!



Con: " I will defend that I am Christian and follow Christian doctrine. "

Pro: By all means I have challenged you to legitimately and unambiguously do so and I have given you every opportunity of doing so by legitimately fulfilling the above!


Con: I will also rebuttal the claim that Jesus is a 'eternal Jew.'

Pro: My evidence will primarily be contained according to your answer to the following: " Do you Con, deny that the Story book biblical jesus was born a Jew?


Over to you Con & your imaginary friend!





Pennington

Con

I would like to thank Pro for challenging me in this debate. I really think he has a tough hill to climb but never the less we should give him a hand for trying. I will offer a full argument here for my case and go over some of Pros case.

BOOK VERSION

In round one, the first statement I made was the version of the Bible that I wish to debate about. It appears my opponent skipped right over it but that doesn't mean that we can use just any ole' Bible. I chose the King James Bible and that is the one we will use.

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

My opponent has given me the task of showing that I have lived up to the scriptures supplied by him. (1 Thess. 5:21, 2 Tim. 4:5 & 1 Pet. 3:15) Before we actually look and see if I have lived up to them, we should see what they are saying you must do.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

King James Version (KJV)

"21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

This verse and the accompanying verses to it, mean, that all Christian should carefully examine every proposed belief. Christianity does not want people to disregard their reason. Christianity more than any other religion, wants its followers to inquire freely and to understand the reason for your faith. You can compare to another proposed by my opponent in 1 Peter 3:15.

1 Peter 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

"15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

This contains a general direction for Christians at all times. In our hearts we are to uplift God as a Holy being. We are to uplift God and preach the scriptures without fear of mockery or persecution. And when we do praise Him and preach, we should do it with gentleness and kindness.

2 Timothy 4:5

King James Version (KJV)

"5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

Be against error and against sin, and faithful in the performance of our duties. Preach the gospel and stay strong in the faith. Because of afflictions do not waver in your faith.

APPLIANCE OF VERSES BY CON

By just accepting this debate shows that I defend Christianity and my faith. Therefore I do hold fast that which I think as good. I contend that by my overwhelming desire to discuss my faith and God, then I do sanctify Him in my heart. That I am here and ready to answer Pro about my faith and do it with meekness and with fear, fear that I give God's message correctly. I am enduring the insults by Pro towards myself and my faith and still work to prove my faith through ministry. All have sinned as the Bible says and so do I and therefore I do not have to be sinless. I do not need to sell all I have to be a Christian and follow it principles. I do have to give tithe's of 10%.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED

1. That Con no longer sins?

My opponent has never given us any reason to think that a Christian is no longer sinful. If people were without sin then there would be no need for Jesus Christ. Christians are blameless and are forgiven of theirs sins because they believe. This doesn't conclude that Christians no longer commit sins like anyone else.

Romans 3:23

King James Version (KJV)

"3 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

2. That Con has ' sold everything he had and given the proceeds to the poor?

First we must look at the whole chapter in Matthew 19. When we look we will see a young man asking Jesus what work should he do and Jesus answered him first by saying, "He should listen to the commandments," then the young told him he does and asked Jesus what else should he do and He said, "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

No one can be perfect much less someone following all the commandments of God. This passage is simply saying that you should submit to God and those that have wealth or treasure for themselves have a more difficult time submitting to God. This what Jesus is saying here, do not build up treasure for yourselves but for God.

Matthew 19

King James Version (KJV)

"22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Therefore this statement supplied by Pro was Jesus telling the young man that his love for his wealth and treasure was greater then his love for God. This is not requirement by Christians and in fact the requirements for Christians is to give 10% by tithes and therefore leaving Pros contention imploded.

Leviticus 27:30

King James Version (KJV)

"30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord."

Matthew 23:23

King James Version (KJV)

"23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

3. IF you & your imaginary friend are what they claim to be & fulfill the promises made in bible Story book land, then I want a paraplegic friend of mine to be immediately cured physically and restored to full physical health.

That is between you, your friend and God. Fallacy. Lunacy.

4. A further legal statement also signed by Con (Real Name & details) & also legitimate unbiased/non-religious believing witnesses Or also by those also claiming to be a genuine believer (or such as your soon to be ex-pastor), that your fundamental desire is not for personal divine Story book offered coercive bribes/rewards for e.g. eternal life or immortality; but rather it is a noble willingness on your part to do as Atheists have done on the various Battle-fields throughout history, by them selflessly sacrificing themselves and literally ' laying down their literal physical life; for both believers & non-believers with absolutely NO expectations of divine rewards? (Said documents would make me subject to Legal action should I ever divulge your personal details openly, which I would never do without your written consent & authority!).

My opponent should show that only atheist have layed down their lives for others, selflessly. This is a ridiculous section and obvious phantom argument. I have no idea of Pros honesty or intigritity. Therefore before any documents would get sent to Pro, then Pro should offer his own documents to Con, showing his authority and intigritity. He should also show all legal documents in his name, any arrest, his work record, and any other personnel information deemed relevant.

5. " Do you Con, deny that the Story book biblical jesus was born a Jew?

Since Jesus(The Word) was around before Judaism and the Jewish people then no He was not priginally a Jew but on earth he was born in the Jewish community. Jesus Christ started the religion know as Christianity and therefore could not be a member of Judaism making him not a Jew by rights. To be a Jew you must be a part of the religion of Judaism.





Back to Pro!

Debate Round No. 2
Composer

Pro


Re: Sin, Con wrote:
" . . . . and so do I and therefore I do not have to be sinless. ".


Composer(Pro) responds: IF Pennington(Con) even had a credible knowledge of the content of Cons alleged preferred KJV Story book, Con wouldn't make such a proven inept & fallacious remark -


Oops!

This is what the KJV states in this regard unambiguously FATAL to Cons claim -


Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. (1 John 3:6) KJV Story book


Further more, Cons own preferred KJV Story book goes on to negatively identify Con further -

He (e.g. Con) that committeth sin (See Cons admission above " so do I ") is of the devil; . . . . (1 John 3:8) KJV Story book

So according to Cons own chosen propaganda, it unambiguously refutes Cons claim & exposes Con as -

i)
A person that DOES NOT ABIDE in jebus &

ii)
Cons admitted ' malignant sinning ' also exposes Con as a ' jebus' rejected fraud ', that ' hath not seen jebus ' NOR legitimately ' known him ' as opposed to Cons dishonest & proven fallacious ' claim ' that he(Con) has!

&

iii)
As a supposed believer of ' the KJV bible Story book ' devil ', ' Con is also exposed as one of the devil's agents!



Con then wrote: " I do not need to sell all I have
to be a Christian and follow it principles. "


Oops!

Again Cons own Story book propaganda refutes Cons claim -
      • Sell that ye have, and give alms; . . . . (Luke 12:33) KJV Story book
      • . . . . whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) KJV Story book
Strong's Concordance:

forsaketh = renounce:

= give up (Wordweb)


Bottom line: Con's arguments and credibility have entirely failed especially even according to Cons own preferred KJV Story book version!


Obviously also now that Con has been unambiguously exposed by his own chosen KJV Story book, exposing Con as a jebus' fraud & reject & agent of Cons devil; again my poor paraplegic friend can't count on Con either getting his proven imaginary friend to help!
 

Over to Con!




Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your enlightening round 3, it moved me. I wish to offer the same consideration.

Pro still maintains that I can not sin. He does this by posting scratches of verses into what he wants them to mean. That is very inappropriate. I still maintain I do not have to be sinless but because I am saved and have Jesus Christ, my sins are washed away. This does not make me sinless in anyway. I do agree with the verses my opponent posted and their true meaning.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him."(1 John 3:6) KJV

"What's employed here means to remain, to continue, to abide. It is used of persons remaining or dwelling in a place, in the sense of abiding there permanently, or lodging there, and this is the common meaning of the word, Matthew 10:11; Matthew 26:38; Mark 6:10; Luke 1:56, "et saepe." It does not of itself necessarily mean that he will always do this but it refers to the adherence to the Saviour as a continuous state of mind, meaning that there is a life of continued faith in him.(Which I have) It is of a person thus attached to the Saviour that the apostle makes the important declaration in the passage before us, that he does not sin. Not a few have maintained that it teaches the "doctrine of perfection," or that Christians may live entirely without sin; and some have held that the apostle meant to teach that this is always the characteristic of the true Christian."[1]

1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

1 Thessalonians 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

(1) If it teaches that doctrine at all, it teaches that all Christians are perfect;

(2) This interpretation is not necessary to a fair exposition of the passage.

(3) He who is born again does not sin habitually, or is not habitually a sinner.

(4) That he who is born again does not do wrong deliberately and by design.

(5) He who is born again will not sin finally, or will not fall away.

I will now also provide scriptures that show all will sin until there death.

2 Corinthians 12:21, "And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinneed already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed."

Why would we need to repent if we were not able or can not sin?

Acts 8:22, "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."

Daniel 9:20, "And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God."

What need for confession if we no longer sin?

i) I still am a person that DOES ABIDE in Jesus



ii)
My admitted 'sinning' also has been exposed as a condition of the flesh. I am still under the original sin. I still must confess my sins and seek repentance.



iii)
As a believer of ' the KJV Bible ' Con is also exposed as a Christian.

My opponent continues on to still insist I must give all I have or I am not Christian. I do not have to do that for the reason of, I do not hold any belongs above God. These verses by Pro all refers to people giving anything away that stands between you and God. You can not put anything before God. These also pertain to people giving to the poor.

"Be not like the foolish man already mentioned, who laid up the produce of his fields, without permitting the poor to partake of God's bounty: turn the fruits of your fields (which are beyond what you need for your own support) into money, and give it in alms; and the treasure thus laid out, shall be as laid up for yourselves and families in heaven. This purse shall not grow old, and this treasure shill not decay."[2] So, too, a disciple of Christ should count the cost. It is well to understand that every obstacle to the service of Christ must be given up.

APPLIANCE BY CON

I as a Christian do not always live up to my faith and that is the truth. I do always hold fast what I believe. I will always defend my faith. Nothing will ever stop me from believing in my God. I apply the entire Bible in my thoughts and life daily.

CONCLUSION:

Bottom line: Pros arguments and credibility have entirely failed. He dropped most of his argument already. Obviously also now that Pro has been unambiguously exposed by his own lunacy & fraud again his poor paraplegic friend can't count on Pro getting help for him!

Over to Pro!

SOURCES:


[1] http://www.godvine.com...

[2] http://bible.cc...

Debate Round No. 3
Composer

Pro

Con wrote: Pro still maintains that I can not sin. He does this by posting scratches of verses into what he wants them to mean.

Composer(Pro) responds: It is NOT ' I ' that maintains that!

It is YOUR own chosen Story book that confirms and vindicates what I correctly stated -



Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. (1 John 3:6) KJV Story book

Lets reaffirm what this clearly and unambiguously states that is fatal to Cons arguments -

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:

&

whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.


Further more, Cons own preferred KJV Story book goes on to negatively identify Con further -

He (e.g. Con) that committeth sin (See Cons admission above " so do I ") is of the devil; . . . . (1 John 3:8) KJV Story book

That is as clear & unambiguously fatal to Cons claims and it all comes from Cons own preferred Story book!


Con can continue to huff, puff & deny his own Story book, but that only belies the very Story book Con wanted us to believe that he believes & obeys?

Con offers now instead a barrage of other claims & personal insults & attacks all in a vain effort to contradict those passages I presented that unambiguously refute him!

Con wrote: Bottom line: Pros arguments and credibility have entirely failed. He dropped most of his argument already.

Composer(Pro) responds: I have in fact taken each of my propositions in turn commencing with my having now proven Con is a jebus reject and is not a genuine believer.

Con now turns his venom upon Pro and Con commences a barrage of personal insults in lieu of a shred of credibility for his (now defeated) cause!

Con wrote: Obviously also now that Pro has been unambiguously exposed by his own lunacy & fraud?

I Pro conversely maintain that it is hardly ' lunacy ' on my part, that I quote Cons own Story book testimony, that continually only legitimately decimates Cons various other claims also e.g. -

Con wrote: " I do not need to sell all I have to be a Christian and follow it principles. "

Oops!





        • Sell that ye have, and give alms; . . . . (Luke 12:33) KJV Story book







        • . . . . whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:33) KJV Story book





Re: Story book jebus is an eternal Jew! -

Con wrote: 5. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . He was not priginally a Jew but on earth he was born in the Jewish community. Jesus Christ started the religion know as Christianity and therefore could not be a member of Judaism making him not a Jew by rights. To be a Jew you must be a part of the religion of Judaism.

Oops!

Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies Brown University


Was Jesus Jewish and, if he was, how would that have influenced his experiences as a young man growing up in Galilee?

Was Jesus a Jew? Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He went on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem where he was under the authority of priests.... He lived, was born, lived, died, taught as a Jew. This is obvious to any casual reader of the gospel text. What's striking is not so much that he was a Jew but that the gospels make no pretense that he wasn't. The gospels have no sense yet that Jesus was anything other than a Jew. The gospels don't even have a sense that he came to found a new religion, an idea completely foreign to all the gospel text, and completely foreign to Paul. That is an idea which comes about only later. So, to say that he was a Jew is saying a truism, is simply stating an idea that is so obvious on the face of it, one wonders it even needs to be said. But, of course, it does need to be said because we all know what happens later in the story, where it turns out that Christianity becomes something other than Judaism and as a result, Jesus in retrospect is seen not as a Jew, but as something else, as a founder of Christianity. But, of course, he was a Jew. (Emphasis by Composer(Pro) Source: http://www.pbs.org...)

&

William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University

[W]hat we've learned from the gospel stories is not that Jesus was not Jewish. Quite the opposite. . . . . (Source: http://www.pbs.org...)


I Composer(Pro) have therefore soundly and unambiguously vindicated ALL of my Debate arguments whilst Con is left a proven rejected Jewish jebus fraud, a malignant sinner, agent of his devil and a selfish & disobedient luster out for witholding personal possessions & property etc. & lusting also for promises of Story book rewards from his now proven imaginary friend!

I would request that Con refrain from further personal insults towards Pro however I understand Cons frustration at being unambiguously exposed as a jebus reject, devils agent and all round pretend believer!

Over to Con!
Pennington

Con

Again, Thank You Pro!

Let's sum this debate up so far.

(1. Pro says I must be without any sin.)

I have addressed the meaning here already but I will say it again. We can look at the words used in this verse: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:6) KJV

Abideth means- 1 : to wait for : await, 2 : to endure without yielding : withstand, b : to bear patiently : tolerate , 3 : to accept without objection.[1]

So, while a Christian abides with Christ we are sinless because He has washed our sins away. If do not abide in Christ then are sins are not washed away. This doesn't mean that Christians do not commit acts of sin, it means they are already forgiven for them, therefore blameless. When a Christian ask for forgiveness of sin, it is not because the sin hasn't already been forgiven. It is because we must humble ourselves before God and know that we are sinful. This verse never suggest 'to be perfect.'

(I do not have to be sinless, instead blameless)

(2. Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33)

"Sell that ye have"

This has been determined to refer to the rich, they give all they have. This is a example by Jesus showing that the rich has a harder time finding God then the poor. My opponent offers us his interpretation and I offered Biblical commentaries.

"whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple."

Pro must show that Con has things that forsake God. He must show that I hold any pocession higher than God. If he can not then this argument fails. Even if I did, I am not a apostle(who this is referred to) and I am only required to path tithes, 10%.

(I do not have to give all my possession because I am not a prophet or apostle. I do not hold anything I have higher than God.)

(Story book jebus is an eternal Jew! )

My opponent succeeded in showing that Jesus was born a Jew. Correct. He has not shown that after His death and resurrection that He remained a Jew. Since Jesus is still alive today and started Christianity and left Judaism, He can not be Jewish today. Jesus was not born in Jerusalem which is just a city. The name of Gods people is Israel, not Jews. Therefore Jesus is a eternal Israelite, not a Jew. Jew is for Jerusalem and Judaism, Christ is neither.

(Jesus is not a eternal Jew.)

CONCLUSION:

My opponent as Pro has all the BOP. His case is extremely weak. The only topic he has hope in is Jesus being a eternal Jew but unfortunately that has nothing to do with me. Pro needs to provide actual sources that we can go research on and put more input in his argument. His resolution has been negated!

Over to Pro!

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Composer

Pro

Con writes: Let's sum this debate up so far.

(1. Pro says I must be without any sin.)


Composer(Pro) responds: I have already legitimately corrected Con that it his OWN choice of the KJV bible states and commands Con must ' cease his sinful lifestyle,' in order to genuinely ' abide ' in Story book jebus!

Con responds with his objections to this: I have addressed the meaning here already but I will say it again. We can look at the words used in this verse: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:6) KJV

Abideth means- 1 : to wait for : await, 2 : to endure without yielding : withstand, b : to bear patiently : tolerate , 3 : to accept without objection.[1]


Composer(Pro) responds: Using Cons choice of definition & choice of KJV Story book we further read that to ABIDE = 3. : to accept without objection.


The immediate context in 1 John 3:6, is unambiguously stated as - ' Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: '.

Hence & again using Cons own resources, the meaning Con won't accept but should is clearly - ' accept without objection ' i.e. jebus' statement that a genuine believer in him shall ' sinneth not! '.


Again Cons chosen Story book further reiterates the context and stipulation to any genuine believer to ' cease their sins! '

Proof: i.e. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:6) KJV


Fatally for Con, he is exposed also as one that ' Does NOT accept his own definition given = ' 3. without objection ' but conversely Con does nothing BUT strongly OBJECT to his own evidence and makes every excuse for Cons failure to comply and cease his sins!


Con writes: So, while a Christian abides with Christ we are sinless because He has washed our sins away.

Composer(Pro) responds: Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 also refute your other introduced quote!


Con wrote: If do not abide in Christ then are sins are not washed away.


Composer(Pro) responds: Both Cons grammar & spelling here are particularly shocking and even worse more so, Cons various claims remain spurious in light of e.g. 1 John 3:6, 3. : i.e. to accept jebus' commands ' without objection, ' & also fatal to Con are e.g. Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20.

Con writes: This doesn't mean that Christians do not commit acts of sin,

Composer(Pro) responds: Fatal to Cons fabricated excuses; 1 John 3:6 is unambiguously clear that ANY genuine believer who (abideth = accepts the commandment stated in 1 John 3:6) & doesn't object; but Con strongly objects so much so Con denies the evidence and runs for other quotes to contradict the quotes that have been unambiguously shown to have decimated Cons claims!

Con writes: . . . . it means they are already forgiven for them, therefore blameless. When a Christian ask for forgiveness of sin, it is not because the sin hasn't already been forgiven. It is because we must humble ourselves before God and know that we are sinful. This verse never suggest 'to be perfect.'

Composer(Pro) responds: Indeed 1 John 3:6 doesn't claim a genuine believer must be ' perfect ' but what it does do, is show that a genuine believer ' MUST NO LONGER SIN! '.

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:6) KJV

It then reaffirms that those who do (as Con admitted he still does) is a deceiver who has -

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:6) KJV

Con objects again & claims: (I do not have to be sinless, instead blameless)

Composer(Pro) responds: Cons own Story book quote states "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:6) KJV

There is NO reference to ' blameless ' but rather unambiguously any genuine believer must " sinneth not! ".

Con rejects this and objects to it and then dances around introducing other quotes, thereby Con obviously believes contradict e.g. 1 John 3:6?


Con writes: (2. Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33)

"Sell that ye have"

This has been determined to refer to the rich, they give all they have. This is a example by Jesus showing that the rich has a harder time finding God then the poor. My opponent offers us his interpretation and I offered Biblical commentaries.

Composer(Pro) responds: Again Cons spelling is atrocious, but regardless Con needs to read the truthful context and not the one (jebus states ' of little faith ') Con has fabricated for himself, in order to keep his carnal possessions -   . . . . O  ye  of little faith?  29  And seek not  ye  what  ye  shall eat, or what  ye  shall drink, neither be  ye  of doubtful mind. {neither...: or, live not in careful suspense}  30  For all these things do the nations of the world seek after . . . . (Luke 12:28, 29) KJV Story book

Story book jebus then clarifies Peters immediate question ' To whom does this commandment apply, to the rich as Con proposes or to ANY obedient servant? -

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?  42  And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom [his] lord shall make ruler over his household, to give [them their] portion of meat in due season?  43  Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. (Luke 12:41 - 43) KJV Story book

Hence ANY true & genuine servant will have obeyed and parted with and sold their earthly possessions (apart from a few clothes & a few days food) and this certainly doesn't apply strictly to the rich, as Con suggests!

"whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple."

Con wrote: Pro must show that Con has things that forsake God. He must show that I hold any pocession higher than God. If he can not then this argument fails. Even if I did, I am not a apostle(who this is referred to) and I am only required to path tithes, 10%.

Composer(Pro) responds: Again Cons spelling & meaning is atrociously convoluted & fallacious!

Does Con actually believe this command is to ' forsake their god? ' or cf. to ' Sell their god? '.

I have no further response to Cons outbursts here which is clearly self-contradictory & frankly irrational!


Con wrote: (I do not have to give all my possession because I am not a prophet or apostle. I do not hold anything I have higher than God.)

Composer(Pro)responds: The reference is NOT exclusively to the rich as Con would have us believe but Cons own Story book states -

  So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) KJV Story book

Proof it applied to everyone wishing to become a disciple! -

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, . . . . . . . . . . . . So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:25, - 33) KJV Story book

Hence the command to sell all possessions & give the proceeds to the poor applied & was given to the multitudes that followed & NOT as Con suggests applying exclusively to a few apostles or to the Rich, but rather as we have seen applied to ALL & EVERY wanna-be a disciple of jebus!

- - - - - - - -

Con writes: (Jesus is not a eternal Jew! )

My opponent succeeded in showing that Jesus was born a Jew. Correct.

He has not shown that after His death and resurrection that He remained a Jew. . . . .


Composer(Pro) responds: Besides your atrocious spelling &/Or grammar again (a eternal Jew?) -

Here ya go Con!

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8) KJV Story book


CONCLUSION:

1. Con is a confirmed jebus reject, fraud & agent of his devil & an agent of Cons Satan, also trying to deceive us by Con having been masquerading as an angel of light! (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14) KJV Story book
 
2. jebus IS an eternal Jew!

Pennington

Con

I wish to thank Pro for this debate, it has been interesting.


Pro seems to think he has some how corrected me but this correction is illegitimate. Pro never offers one link or source to show that my understanding is flawed. We are left with just Pros interpretation which is not a regular or viewed legitimate.


I offered the definition of 'Abideth', this definition shows by the first and second meaning that Christians are to wait. We are to wait for perfection by the return of Jesus Christ.


Pro is correct that a Christian must cease in a sinful lifestyle. Pro has never shown that I actually live a sinful lifestyle, this is critical for Pros case. To commit a sin is not the same as actually living a sinful lifestyle. To live a sinful lifestyle you must incorporate sin into all facets of your life. Everyone makes errors in their life, because someone makes a error doesn't mean that error defines them. If someone kills someone by accident, are they a murderer? If someone tells a lie, are they considered a liar their whole life? Same-so a Christian does commit errors that result in sin but that doesn't mean that they live a sinful lifestyle. Pro fails.


I furthermore accept that I must accept all Biblical doctrine without objection. I have never objected to any Biblical doctrine. My opponent has not shown that I do reject Biblical doctrine or that I object any Biblical doctrine. Pro fails.


To conclude this part, my opponent used 1 John alot to make his point, well lets look further at what 1 John says about sin.


1 John 1:8-10


King James Version (KJV)


"8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."


So we see that if we do deny that we are sinful then also reject the scripture. Therefore my past rounds on this topic agrees with this passage. A Christian is still sinful but instead blameless of that sin in the eyes of God. Pro fails.


Pro gives us the verses in Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 to support his case. He did not post them for us to read so I will.


Deuteronomy 24:16


King James Version (KJV)


"16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."


I agree and this has no substance in this debate and if it does, Pro never tells us why as we see in the next one also.


Ezekiel 18:20


King James Version (KJV)


"20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."


These two verses is saying that each person is accountable for their won actions and decisions. We are not held accountable for our fathers or ancestors. Those that sin will receive their reward and those that are righteous shall also receive their reward. This also is O.T. doctrine which is before Jesus Christ. To find salvation and forgiveness of sin changes once Jesus Christ sacrifices himself and therefore any point my opponent tries to make here is mute. He never tells us his point BTW. Pro fails.


We can see that Christians are Christians because they trust in God and believe His Word. Because of this belief they are rendered blameless in the sight of God, they are without sin to God. That doesn't mean we are sinless unto men or upon the earth.


Pro furthermore contradicts himself by saying, "Indeed 1 John 3:6 doesn't claim a genuine believer must be ' perfect ' but what it does do, is show that a genuine believer ' MUST NO LONGER SIN!" If someone no longer sinned then that would mean they are perfect. Pro fails.


Pro also says there is no reference to blameless in the scriptures but I disagree.


Philippians 2:15


King James Version (KJV)


"15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world."


Luke 1:6


King James Version (KJV)


"6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."


We can see here that the very argument I am making is verified in two different books. This on top of the fact that 1 John also say we are all sinful. Why would we be blameless if we did not do something that could be considered blameful? Pro fails.


Pro talks about me dancing around to other verses, well, yes I do. This topic is about Biblical doctrine and do I live it and believe it. This is not reduced to one passage or book but the entire Biblical doctrine.


My opponent is very disingenuous in his Biblical references. He then rejects the scriptures I posted before and after the passage that he supplied that, He, suggest we must give all we have. Clearly Jesus is talking to a rich man who wanted to know how to receive salvation and Jesus tells him to give all he has, why? Because this man cherished his belongings more than God. Jesus then explains that anyone who holds their belongings higher than God then they should get rid of them and put God as their highest treasure. This does apply to all rich & poor but if one is poor, what does he have to give or to cherish? Nothing but God. Pro never offers a source or reference to his understanding. Pro just uses his own interpretation and view. Pro fails.


Onward to Jesus being a eternal Jew. Jesus is the Word of God as shown here:


John 1


King James Version (KJV)


John 1:14, "14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."


So, Jesus is the Word of God. When was the Word created?


John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."


So, the Word was with God in the Beginning, therefore saying that Jesus was around since the beginning. Where Jews around in the beginning? No, they were not. If Jesus was around in the beginning and Jews weren't, means that Jesus can not be a eternal Jew. Jews are not eternal as Jesus is. Jesus was born in the Jewish culture and He was a Jew on earth. Jesus came and offered another way for the Jews, which was Christianity. To be a Jew you either must be from Jerusalem or from the religion Judaism. Jesus was not from Jerusalem and He started a new religion called Christianity therefore ceasing Himself being in Judaism. My opponent never shows us that our earthly heretiage moves on into the afterlife. Nor does he show that Jesus was a Jew since the beginning of time. Jesus was before the Jews and therefore He is the same then and today. Pro fails.


CONCLUSION:


Pro never gives us any real references to his resolution. He never offers any sourced interpretation that conflicts with mine. He simply gives us unaware, uneducated, and UnBiblical interpretations that are irrelevant. He could never show that I am not living as a Christian. He could not show that I have possessions that I hold higher than God. He could not show that Jesus was a Jew before the creation of the earth or that He remained a Jew after death. Pro failed to show much of anything other than he as little knowledge in Biblical matters.


VOTING:


Argument: Pros argument failed miserably. I rebutted all his claims with more than satisfactory means.


Spelling/Grammar: I did miss-spell and used bad grammar.


Sources: I was the only one who used sources that applied to the debate. Pro only sourced that Jesus was born on earth as a Jew.


Conduct: Pro had terrible conduct. I was not fantastic myself but far more respectful than Pro. Pro used insults throughout the debate and never once showed respect for his competitor.


Thank You! Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
composer, allow me to message you for the debate tournament you are partcipating in. Your draw is against dogknox, you and him will need to decide a topic and then tell me. But i need you to change your settings so that I can message you.
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
You would be doing the same thing you excuse them of doing.
Posted by atheismo 3 years ago
atheismo
its ashame i cant vote obviously all christians voted for pennington because they already agreed with him in the first place!
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Composer, no, i didn't drop the "genuine". Do you know what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is?
Posted by Composer 3 years ago
Composer
An efficient drone nevertheless!

You remain a proven disingenuous believer & Story book jebus an eternal Jew!

Much much much much much much better luck at another Topic loser!

BS & deception is definitely more your forte' but sadly for those like you, those like moi legitimately expose you!

Your vindicated mentor, [s]50[/s] nearly 51 year successful Cult busting personal successful literal Saviour, moi!
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
Your just a drone. Mechanical.
Posted by Composer 3 years ago
Composer
Which only proves my point, thank you, for YOU don't claim to be ' The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever!

You also prove my other argument that you aren't a genuine believer ' for you failed miserably to do as your Story book friend commands any genuine believer must do -

Sell that ye have, and give alms; . . . . (Luke 12:33) KJV Story book

. . . . whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) KJV Story book

In contrast to those commands all we heard were BS excuses from Con the disbeliever!
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
I can become a professional athlete but that don't mean I always was or will always be.
Posted by Composer 3 years ago
Composer
bladerunner wrote: Composer, though I am not a believer, and the "eternal jew" argument was interesting, Pennington actually successfully rebutted it by pointing out the Christian claim that Jesus existed eternally prior to being enfleshed. He existed, based on that, before the Jews existed as a people. That he was born of a Jewish woman might be problematic, but you refuted yourself just now in the comments, by the biblical quote that he's the same "yesterday" and "forever". If he's the same as his pre-jewish-existence, then he can't be a Jew, any more than I would be if someone used a sci-fi gun to de-age me back to a fetus and jammed me up in a Jewish woman's business.

Composer(Pro) responds: Being BORN a Jew makes it a Jew, Con agreed!

Thus Yesterday it was a jew, Today it would be a Jew & Tomorrow it would still forever be an Jew!

IF it was any other denomination as a pre-existant trinitarian contrived Supernatural being, then unless it is a deceiver regarding its stance from the beginning of its arrival on earth via Jewish Mary, it would have been a total sham it choosing to being born a Jew, which it did choose to become!

It was born a Jew because that is obviously its fundamental belief and choice!

&

bladerunner060 writes: As regards to Pennington's being a "believer", you basically were going "no true scotsman" on him. Clearly he believes.

Pro: But he isn't a ' genuine believer ' which was my proven argument!

You are also making the mistake of dropping the ' genuine ' portion!

I proved using his own Story book that he ' is NOT a genuine believer ' but a fraud & jebus' reject in view of his failure to also meet the requirements of ANY genuine believer -

Sell that ye have, and give alms; . . . . (Luke 12:33) KJV Story book

. . . . whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) KJV Story book

In contrast to those commands all we heard were BS excuses from Con the disbeliever!
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Oh, disregard, there were a couple others, though I fail to see the points entirely, but there are at least sources. I forgot; sorry.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
Sola.Gratia
ComposerPenningtonTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Although, this was a good debate and both did fine, Pro seemed a bit more impatient when giving answers or giving questions compared to Con's answers and questions. I thin that Con also gave better arguments than Pro. I also think that Con used reliable resources. So that's why I give the points to Con. In all though, this was a very interesting debate.
Vote Placed by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
ComposerPenningtonTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows in this debate, why believers never listen when non-believers try to tell us what the Bible is saying. His version is butchery. And as for showing Con not to be a believer, not even close. Win for Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
ComposerPenningtonTied
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 provided arguments that supported he does genuinely believe. Pro would have done better to refine the resolution to one along the lines of "Con's behavior is not in keeping with docrine", which seems to be what the debate ended up being about, as opposed to "Con does not genuinely believe"; even if Con's arguments in support of his position fail, the fact that no evidence was presented which contradicts that he believed them correct before the debate would seem to support his belief. Not that I think all of Con's arguments fail, though I think some of them do. I'm neutralizing conduct, because seriously Con: you should have known exactly what this debate was going to be. I'm tempted to give S&G to Con, too, because I always find Composer's manner of writing to be jarring, but I decided against it.