The Instigator
daley
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Bible Teaches We Don't Have to Keep the Weekly Sabbath

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,585 times Debate No: 16714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (54)
Votes (3)

 

daley

Pro

My opponent in this debate must defend the position that the Bible teaches Christians are obigated to keep the weekly sabbath, and turn down my evidence to the contrary.

The Sabbath is a shadow of Christ (Col 2:16-17), and Christians don't live in the sahdows, we live in the reality. Jesus has put an end to the law of Moses with its sabbath requirement (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15), hence, Christians are not under the law. (Gal 5:18; Rom 6:14). We have freedom of choice in this matter of holydays, we can esteem everyday alike if we want (Rom 14:5). Paul even warned his brothers against being caught up in the observance of days as thought there were some law to do so. (Gal 4:10-11).

Immediately after saying that Christians were delivered from the law, what example from the law does Paul cite? "Thou shalt not covet," the tenth commandment, showing that the decalogue was included in that law from which they were freed. (Rom 7:6-7) In 2 Corinthians 3:7 he speaks of the decalogue as being gorious, then in verse 11 he says that which was glorious was done away with. To make sure he meant the decalogue he tells us that it was written in stone, and reminds us of the occasion when Moses came down the mountain with the tablets in his hands. (vss 7, 13; see Exo 34:29-35)

Hebrews 8:6-9:4 informs us that the old covenant, the decalogue, is replaced by a better covenant; that ends the sabbath day! There is no command under the New Covenant for Christians to keep the sabbath, and even those who keep it cannot prove which days is the seventh day on which they should keep it. Which day did Jesus die? Which day was he resurrected? Which day was the seventh-day sabbath? They can't prove these things, which merely indicates that the day cannot be that important, otherwise God would have furnished them with proof!

I look forwards to hearing my opponent in this matter.
izbo10

Con

Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven"

Now I admit other authors of the bible may contradict this, but he asked if the bible teaches Christians should obey the law, then Matthew is part of the bible and it should be kept. Lets a look at a couple of things. Firstly what is the law we are referring to. Well since Jesus was a Jew that would be the Torah. So he is talking about the 5 books of Moses at the very least and this is where the law comes from. This law clearly above the smallest letter so it should be kept. Now who should keep the law, well in this quote Jesus says anyone. So this refers to anyone not just a certain group of people. Another common misrepresentations Christians make here is he fulfilled the law, but firstly you don't fulfill law, you fulfill prophecy which strangely enough the line about fulfilling comes after discussing the prophets, talk about an excuse taking a line out of context.

For my opponent to say that the bible does not teach this, would do a great injustice to the author of Matthew as he was not Paul, nor did he share Paul's view about the law.
Debate Round No. 1
daley

Pro

My opponent quotes Matthew 5:17 and later on says "Another common misrepresentations Christians make here is he fulfilled the law, but firstly you don't fulfill law, you fulfill prophecy." Does Matthew 5:17 say that Jesus fulfilled only prophecy but not the law? Here was Con's own quote:

Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish THEM but to fulfill THEM." Here Jesus says he came to fulfill BOTH the law and the prophets, he fulfilled them both, which contradicts Con's claim that "you don't fulfill law." Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. When a prophecy is fulfilled it becomes a thing of the past, no longer requiring application, similarly, when Jesus fulfilled the significance of the law he moved such law out of the way, making them unnecessary. For example, by becoming the Lamb of God that takes away our sin by his death, Jesus became our Passover, fulfilling the significance of the Passover lamb. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7) Christians no longer need to obey the law requiring the Passover sacrifice because Jesus already fulfilled its significance. The law was only a shadow pointing to Christ, but now that the law has led us to Christ we are no longer under that law. (Hebrews 10:1: Galatians 3:23-25)

Matthew 5:18 "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, TILL all [all what? the law] be filfilled." Jesus is saying that the law will not pass away until it is fulfilled, Jesus said in verse 17 that he came to fulfill it, if Jesus didn't fulfill it then he failed in his mission. If he did fulfill it, then it is done away with, for it will not pass TILL it is fulfilled, and it has been.

"Now I admit other authors of the bible may contradict this, but he asked if the bible teaches Christians should obey the law, then Matthew is part of the bible and it should be kept."

The title of this debate is "the Bible teaches we don't have to keep the weekly sabbath," so even if Con could show that the Bible teaches we must keep it, he still hasn't taken down my evidence that the Bible teaches we don't have to keep it; all he has done so far is attempt to show that the Bible contradicts itself. But showing that the Bible also teaches to keep the law doesn't overturn the evidence that the Bible teaching the law has been abolished. Until Con deals with the evidence I presented him that the law of Moses is abolished, he has not won this debate and you should vote Pro.

Further, what Jesus said at Matthew 5:17-19 was before the law of Moses was abrogated at the cross, so this law was still in effect at that time and therefore people had to keep it, but Jesus is saying it would only be in effect UNTIL it is fulfilled in him! Romans 10:4 shows Christ is the end of the law, hence, it has been fulfilled.

"Lets a look at a couple of things. Firstly what is the law we are referring to. Well since Jesus was a Jew that would be the Torah."

The law of Moses given to the Israelites at Sinai. (John 1:17; Acts 13:39)

My opponent has not responded to my initial argument that the Bible teaches the law with its sabbath requirement has been removed, so this evidence still stands, and if this is true, then the Bible does teach that we don't have to keep the sabbath cause this law is not in effect. I will therefore repost my initial argument to Con and await his reply:

The Sabbath is a shadow of Christ (Col 2:16-17), and Christians don't live in the sahdows, we live in the reality. Jesus has put an end to the law of Moses with its sabbath requirement (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15), hence, Christians are not under the law. (Gal 5:18; Rom 6:14). We have freedom of choice in this matter of holydays, we can esteem everyday alike if we want (Rom 14:5). Paul even warned his brothers against being caught up in the observance of days as thought there were some law to do so. (Gal 4:10-11).

Immediately after saying that Christians were delivered from the law, what example from the law does Paul cite? "Thou shalt not covet," the tenth commandment, showing that the decalogue was included in that law from which they were freed. (Rom 7:6-7) In 2 Corinthians 3:7 he speaks of the decalogue as being gorious, then in verse 11 he says that which was glorious was done away with. To make sure he meant the decalogue he tells us that it was written in stone, and reminds us of the occasion when Moses came down the mountain with the tablets in his hands. (vss 7, 13; see Exo 34:29-35)

Hebrews 8:6-9:4 informs us that the old covenant, the decalogue, is replaced by a better covenant; that ends the sabbath day! There is no command under the New Covenant for Christians to keep the sabbath, and even those who keep it cannot prove which days is the seventh day on which they should keep it. Which day did Jesus die? Which day was he resurrected? Which day was the seventh-day sabbath? They can't prove these things, which merely indicates that the day cannot be that important, otherwise God would have furnished them with proof!

I look forwards to hearing my opponent in this matter.
izbo10

Con

Wow, just wow, he tries to claim that the part about fulfilled, notice he adds the word both. That is not there. He says Prophets then talks about fulfilling them. Key is, he doesn't say both. The law stands. He either couldn't read or he is intentionally misrepresenting the quote, it does not say both.

Now to finish this about Matthew, as right now I have only set up my argument. To finish off on Matthew, he clearly gives prerequisites for teaching other then the law needed to be upheld. The Prerequisites are this. Heaven and Earth must pass and everything is complete. This in context would seem to point to the apocalypse as New testament scholars tend to believe Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. We also see him reference the end times throughout the synoptic gospels. So last I checked the end times have not come, earth is still here, so anyone who does not teach it will be called least into heaven. Later on in Matthew Jesus talks about remembering thine commandments, which includes the one to keep the sabbath. He is clearly taking Matthew out of context if he thinks Matthew does not preach to keep the law. Here is that quote:

Matthew 19:17
So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Matthew 19:16-18

So we know Jesus taught the commandments. Now we will see this further as I get into the meat and potatoes of my argument, right now I have merely been working my Jab saving up for the real point. I am now going to demonstrate why Matthew and Mark will actually trump everything Paul says.

So, Lets take out Pauls letters right now as instructions on what Christians should do. First my opponent must ask himself is he suppose to follow Jesus or Paul? If you are part of Christianity, last I checked Jesus was the Christ hence why it is called Christianity and not Paulianity. My opponent appears to be a Paulian not a Christian. Here is why:

When we explore the historicity of Jesus and what Jesus taught, from a historical perspective Paul doesn't even come in. Paul does not make a claim to have known Jesus or have spoken to him in life, only Christ after Jesus' death. The best source we have for Jesus' life is Mark and possibly what seems to remain from a missing gospel named Q or Quelle. After that we get to Matthew and Luke. The 3 of these are what Historians refer to as the synoptic gospels, they are the earliest gospels to tell Jesus' story. They are far earlier then John which is less credible based on the time frame, and its content appear to be theologically advanced by means of intention shall we say. So out of the sources we have, lets see what mark says about the commandments:

Mark 10:19
You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,' ‘Do not murder,' ‘Do not steal,' ‘Do not bear false witness,' ‘Do not defraud,' ‘Honor your father and your mother.'"

So Jesus is talking about keeping the commandments there. After Mark and Q, which is information that appears to come from both Matthew and Luke, Matthew comes next. So out of the 2 best full sources about Jesus' life we have him preaching the commandments, which includes the commandment to keep the sabbath holy. I don't see my opponent saying that we don't have to keep the thou shall not steal, the thou shall not kill, and complaining that these commandments are out of date. I wonder why my opponent respects Paul over Jesus. Answer that one for me!
Debate Round No. 2
daley

Pro

'notice he adds the word both. That is not there. He says Prophets then talks about fulfilling them. Key is, he doesn't say both. The law stands. He either couldn't read or he is intentionally misrepresenting the quote, it does not say both."

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he didn't come to destory the law OR the prophets, the word "OR" shows he is speaking of BOTH the law and the prophets; then he says regarding them both, that he came to FULFILL. Then he says in verse 18 that nothing shall pass from the LAW till all is FULFILLED, so here Jesus links the fulfilling with the law yet again. It is clear already from verse 17 that Jesus came to fulfill BOTH the law and the prophets, so Con is simply wrong.

"To finish off on Matthew, he clearly gives prerequisites for teaching other then the law needed to be upheld. The Prerequisites are this. Heaven and Earth must pass and everything is complete."

The parallel in Luke 16:17 gives the correct understanding; "And it is EASIER for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." The point was that the law could not fail, it had to do that for which it was sent (given). Galatians 3:19 says it was "added because of transgression TILL the seed should come." So the law would not be permanent, it would only last until the Messiah. Why? "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25) So it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away for one part of the law to go unfulfilled and prove God a liar! Matthew 5:17 is using a figure of speech. Till heaven and earth pass away, not one tittle shall pass from the law, TILL all is fulfilled; compare this parallel; Till heaven and earth pass away, you will not be released from prison, TILL you've served your time! Does this mean that the prisoner will not be released from prison till heaven and earth are destroyed? No. But as long as heaven and earth endure, the only way for him to get out of jail is to serve his time, then he can get out, just as the law must be fulfilled before it can pass away.

"Later on in Matthew Jesus talks about remembering thine commandments, which includes the one to keep the sabbath."

The New Testament also lays out new commands unknown in the Torah, for example baptism and evangelism.(Matthew 28:19-20) Con cannot rightly ASSUME the word "commandments" must mean the sabbath, he must show this from the context. Also, the law of Moses only passed away at the cross, so it was still binding when Jesus was alive and hence, we could expect him to instruct people to keep it until such time as it passed away. This does not rebut my argument that the New Testament teaches the law is abolished, hence, we dont' have to keep the sabbath.

My opponent then brings up Matthew 19:16-18 where a young man wants to enter eternal life and is told to keep the commandments, but he leaves out verses 20-24 which shows that even keeping the commandments was not sufficient to gain him such life! Jesus was merely testing the man, for the Bible clearly teaches that we cannot be saved by works of the law. (Romans 3:19-28) What Con doesn't seem to get is that the Bible is teaching that God's servants had to keep the law up to a certain point, namely, the death of Jesus. At that time the law of Moses was abrogated. (Ephesians 2:15) So showing us that Jesus told people to keep the law while it was in force doesn't prove that the Bible teaches we must keep it today. Con needs to deal with the evidence I showed him that this law was aboished. Until he does, he cannot be claimed the victor in this debate.

"So, Lets take out Pauls letters right now as instructions on what Christians should do. First my opponent must ask himself is he suppose to follow Jesus or Paul? If you are part of Christianity, last I checked Jesus was the Christ hence why it is called Christianity and not Paulianity. My opponent appears to be a Paulian not a Christian. Here is why:"

Last I checked, the title of this debate began with the words THE BIBLE TEACHES...So Con can only reject what Paul says if Paul's letters are not part of the Bible; but they are. As for following Jesus, let's remember that ALL Scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothey 3:16-17), and that includes the letters of Paul. Paul himself tells us that what he preaches is indeed the word of God which he received from Jesus himself. (Galatians 1:10-12) What he writes are the Llord's commandments. (1 Corinthians 14:37) The words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are no more true and worthy of our obedience than the commands he delivered from heaven to Paul whom he personally picked for this ministry. (Acts 9) Furthermore, we do not have the exact words of Jesus in the four Gospels, but four authors who put it in their own words, hence they all say the same thing slightly differently.

"When we explore the historicity of Jesus and what Jesus taught, from a historical perspective Paul doesn't even come in. Paul does not make a claim to have known Jesus or have spoken to him in life, only Christ after Jesus' death."

The debate is on what the Bible teaches, not on if one part of the Bible is more reliable than another. Thus, even if I made my whole argument from a revelation given to John long after Jesus left the earth, its still part of the Bible and every much as valid in this debate as the words of Jesus in the four Gospels.

"The best source we have for Jesus' life is Mark and possibly what seems to remain from a missing gospel named Q or Quelle. After that we get to Matthew and Luke. The 3 of these are what Historians refer to as the synoptic gospels, they are the earliest gospels to tell Jesus' story."

Con seems to be going off topic here. Is Con rejecting divine revelation as less reliable than what the Gospel writers claim they saw and heard Jesus say and do? Even if Con could prove the letters of Paul to be forgeries, the fact is that they are included in the Bible, and they do teach that abrogation of the law. As an atheist, I don't think Con even considers any of the Bible books reliable anyways since they all talk about God. If Con wants to debate the reliability, nature and relationship of bible books to each other and to history I would gladly debate him if he'd post the argument, but this isn't the topic at hand.

"They are far earlier then John which is less credible based on the time frame, and its content appear to be theologically advanced by means of intention shall we say."

Con claims that Mark is more credible than John. When was Mark written? When did Paul write about the law? Give dates and prove it Con!

Con goes to Mark 10:19 and says:

"So Jesus is talking about keeping the commandments there."

But notice that in verse 20 the man says he already was keeping these commandments, and Jesus told him to do something else, "follow me," (verse 21), and tod him how to do so. "Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." The man refused and didn't enter the kingdom. So this man was not a Christian, he wasn't a believer, he wasn't following Jesus! If he was keeping the commandments and yet not FOLLOWING Jesus, then following Jesus doesn't equal keeping the commandments. Jesus set a higher standard. And I've already replied to this matter of Jesus telling some to keep Moses' law.

"I don't see my opponent saying that we don't have to keep the thou shall not steal, the thou shall not kill, and complaining that these commandments are out of date."

Because after Jesus died and abolished the law of Moses, the New Testament tells us under the New Covenant not to do those things. It doesn't tell us to keep the sabbath, so sabbath keeping isn't part of the New Covenant.

"I wonder why my opponent respects Paul over Jesus."

I don't, I respect equally God's word as given through Paul, Mark, and all gosple writers.
izbo10

Con

"Paul thought that followers of Jesus who tried to keep the law
were in danger of losing their salvation. Matthew thought that followers
of Jesus who did not keep the law, and do so even better than
the most religious Jews, would never attain salvation. Theologians
and interpreters over the years have tried to reconcile these two
views, which is perfectly understandable, since both of them are in
the canon. But anyone who reads the Gospel of Matthew and then
reads the letter to the Galatians would never suspect that there was
a reason, or a way, to reconcile these two statements. For Matthew, to
be great in the kingdom requires keeping the very least of the commandments;
just getting into the kingdom requires keeping them
better than the scribes and Pharisees. For Paul, getting into the
kingdom (a different way of saying being justified) is made possible
only by the death and resurrection of Jesus; for gentiles, keeping the
Jewish law (for example, circumcision) is strictly forbidden."-Bart Ehrman Professor of Religion North Carolina University from his book Jesus Interrupted.

Another christian source for this view if anyone is interested is Robert Beckford's documentary Who wrote the Bible.

This view is the view of New Testament scholars. Once again my opponent, is disrespectful to the author of Matthew. He refuses to address Matthews position, constantly reverting back to the letters of Paul. He is completely ignorant of the fact that the bible is actually a Anthology of books, put into one collection with authors having different views. To try to place Matthew in the context of Paul like my opponent is consistently doing is the worst contextual crime you can commit against the bible. You must read Matthew for what he says. If you want to know what Jesus probably taught you examine it with the other 2 synoptic gospels. What Paul taught is different. Paul was not expressing the teachings of a historical Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and to a lesser extent John were attempting to do this.

When Paul was writing he was often writing to non-Jews, who did no observe the law. His writing reflects this as Paul historically is thought of as a great salesman. He sold his audience what they wanted to hear. In comparison though Jesus, as a historical figure(if there is one), would have been a Jew himself and observed the law.

There is no way to argue that Matthew did not intend to keep the law, Jesus was a Jew. That would be what he was historically, to even attempt to have a debate, such as this, basic knowledge such as what a Jew would call the law needs to be accepted. The Jews considered the Law to be Pentateuch or Torah. Once we know that this quote makes perfect sense in context. Lets break down Matthew 5:17 piece by piece so he sees what I am talking about.

Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them
but to fulfill them.

When you read fulfill it does not I repeat does not make sense to fulfill law. Prophets who make prophecy can be fulfilled. My opponent needs to realize there were many prophets, major and minor, so the them actually refers to the prophets, as that is what it immediately follows. If my opponent disagrees here is the challenge, how exactly does one fulfill a law?

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

At this point Jesus returns to speaking about the law. Not the least stroke will disappear, how is it that my opponent thinks its fulfilled, when in fact Jesus is clearly talking about it no disappearing. He sets the prerequisites. Now if my opponent would observe, all he needs to do is look around him, earth is still here, not so sure about heaven as no one has ever observed such a place.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here is where Jesus, according to Matthew explicitly states what will happen to someone like my opponent who is trying to ignore the law. He will be called least into the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven"

In case my opponent is not aware Pharisees are a reference to a group of Jews who go back to the likes of Ezra, who was get this, an Aaronid Priest, who most likely was the Redactor that combined J,E,P,and D into the 5 books of Moses. (source of information: Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliot Friedman). They are also responsible for writing much of the 5 books of Moses as P the author who wrote about half of the Pentateuch was also one. This solidifies what Jesus was talking about in the law. It is undoubtedly the old testament law.

So unless Christianity is really the father,Paul and the holy ghost. My opponent would do himself well to listen to The Christ in christian, Jesus and less of Paul.
Debate Round No. 3
daley

Pro

"Paul thought that followers of Jesus who tried to keep the law were in danger of losing their salvation."

Con gave no Scripture for that, until he does, we can dismiss it. Paul taught that the law is not what justifies or saves us, only Christ can. (Romans 3:19-28; 10:1-13) Paul never says that if a person keeps the law he cannot be saved. He says that we have freedom to observe days or not to observe them (Romans 14:5), but faith in Christ is what saves, not the llaw.

" Matthew thought that followers of Jesus who did not keep the law, and do so even better than the most religious Jews, would never attain salvation."

Con provided no Scripture so this is just his opinion, not fact! Matthew 5:19 doesn't say that he who breaks the commandments will not be saved, rather, they will be called LEAST in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 11:11 tells us that the LEAST in the kingdom of heaven is GREATER than John the Baptist; and no doubt, John was saved. So even one who is least in the kingdom is still IN the kingdom!

"For Matthew, to be GREAT in the kingdom requires keeping the very least of the commandments"

True, to be GREAT, but not to be SAVED.

"just getting into the kingdom requires keeping them better than the scribes and Pharisees."

Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed theirs to get into the kingdom (Matthew 5:20), but he doesn't say this is to be done by keeping the law better than they do. King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed her husband. (2 Samuel 11) We have no record of the Pharisees doing anything like this, yet, David is looked upon with favor; why? His repentance and faith in the Messiah. Our righteous can only exceed that of the Pharisees by accepting Christ's grace and righteousness instead of trying to set up our own righteousness by keeping the law. (Romans 10:1-4)

Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) So John agrees that Jesus is our only way to have a relationship with God, not the law. Jesus corrected those who thought they could gain eternal life from the Scriptures. (John 5:39-40) So the Torah, the Scripture, it doesn't save anybody; it points to the one who can.

"He refuses to address Matthews position."

I did, please read my post.

"He is completely ignorant of the fact that the bible is actually a Anthology of books, put into one collection with authors having different views. To try to place Matthew in the context of Paul like my opponent is consistently doing is the worst contextual crime you can commit against the bible."

I will now ask Con what books should be included in the Bible and why? This isn't even the topic of this debate, but since he raised it I'll bite! What makes Matthew any more canonical than Paul's letters? And who decides which books should be canonical? Con is flying in the face of the early church fathers and 2000 years of Christian history when he challenges the Bible canon. I would like to see his argument for which books are to be in the canon and why. Peter, one of Jesus 12 apostles and an eyewitness of Jesus' life, told us that Paul's letters are Scripture. He says: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearnt and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES." (2 Peter 3:15-16) In fact, Luke himself who wrote both Luke and Acts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-4), the author of one of the four gospels Con holds as canonical, presents Paul as a genuine apostle of Christ in his book. So Paul's credibility is agreed upon even by the apostles.

I wonder if Con accepts the Old Testament canon? If so, I'll also prove my point from the Old Testament prophets as well, the very ones Jesus relied upon when quoting Scripture! The Torah identifies the Decalogue as the Covenant itself. (1 Kings 8:9, 21; Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 9:9) Then the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that the covenant would be removed and replaces by a new covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31-32) Paul quotes this as fulfilled in Hebrews 8. In fact, Jeremiahs speaks of the time when the covenant would be gone saying that they wouldn't even remember it. (Jeremiah 3:16) Hosea 2:11 "I will also cause all her myrth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all he solemn feasts." When? The people asked, "When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? And the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat…" and God answered, saying, "It shall come to pass in that day…that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day." (Amos 8:5-9) When was that? At the crucifixion of Jesus. "And it was about the sixth hour [12 o clock, noon on a clear day], and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour." (Luke 23:44-46)

"You must read Matthew for what he says. If you want to know what Jesus probably taught you examine it with the other 2 synoptic gospels. What Paul taught is different. Paul was not expressing the teachings of a historical Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and to a lesser extent John were attempting to do this."
This debate is not about "the historical Jesus in the flesh taught we don't have the keep the weekly sabbath," rather, "THE BIBLE teaches we don't' have to keep the weekly Sabbath." Until Con can show that either (1) Paul's letters don't' teach this, or (2) Paul's letters are not part of the Bible or at least don't belong there, he cannot be claimed the victor!

"When Paul was writing he was often writing to non-Jews, who did no observe the law. His writing reflects this as Paul historically is thought of as a great salesman. He sold his audience what they wanted to hear."

Con hasn't shown any evidence for this claim, vote Pro. He sold them what they wanted to hear? "O FOOLISH Galatians, who have bewithched you, that you should not obey the truth…?" (Galatians 3:1) Did the Galatians want to hear that? "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." (Galatians 3:11) Did they want to hear that? On Matthew 5:17 Con says:

"When you read fulfill it does not I repeat does not make sense to fulfill law."

Paul says the law was fulfilled. (Galatians 5:14, 18) It made sense to Paul and to his readers in those congregations. This is about what the Bible teaches, not what makes sense to Con. Con is an atheist, God doesn't make sense to him, yet Matthew teaches there is a God; so should we claim that the Gospels don't' teach God's existence because it makes no sense to Con?

"If my opponent disagrees here is the challenge, how exactly does one fulfill a law?"

Fine, the law required the sacrifice of animals such as the Passover lamb. (Exodus 12:21-27) Jesus fulfilled this law when he died on the cross as the Lamb of God, to which that Passover pointed. (1 Corinthians 5:7; John 1:29)

"Here is where Jesus, according to Matthew explicitly states what will happen to someone like my opponent who is trying to ignore the law. He will be called least into the kingdom of heaven."
At Matthew 11:11, is the least in the kingdom still saved, or is he lost? If he is saved, then here we have the salvation of someone not keeping the law. The Gospel of Luke agrees that the thief on the cross did not keep the law and yet was promised paradise. Faith in Christ alone got him salvation. (Luke 23:39-44)

The J, E, P, D theory ignores the fact that the same writer usually uses different styles and choice of words when treating different subjects and audiences. Also, those J, E, P and D documents were never found and are only hypothetical. We can't say for sure our Bible was taken from them if we can't prove they existed. But that's a new debate.
izbo10

Con

After reading my opponents argument, I was so tempted to forfeit, I mean seriously my opponent has just disregarded a top New Testament Scholar who went to Princeton Seminary and has authored well over 10 books on the New Testament, and is among the first scholars called when Discovery network needs information. He was also among the first Experts called when the Codex Siniacticus was about to be released online for interviews. He has also on his own whim disregarded the work of many Professors and Doctorates at Harvard University, yet another Ivy League University in on big swoop. I was like seriously this guy can do this, I must be out of my league. Then I came back to reality and said man is my opponent showing his lack of knowledge of what is historically accurate about the bible and man oh man is he misrepresenting my arguments. So I decided to stay with this(not that, that was ever in dispute)

He tells me I must disprove his points and say that Paul didn't say what he did. Too bad for my opponent that was not his actual challenge and I quote:

"My opponent in this debate must defend the position that the Bible teaches Christians are obigated to keep the weekly sabbath, and turn down my evidence to the contrary."

He asks me to show that the bible teaches otherwise. I have presented Matthews view and showed why it is his view. I have gone a step further and shown New Testament Scholarship that agrees with my position. He doesn't like it, but yet continues to not grasp Paul and Matthew were not the same authors, so what Paul Says has nothing to do with what Matthew says.

My argument is this, I agree that Paul says you don't need to keep the law, that is not in dispute. What I dispute is that the bible also doesn't teach the opposite. Matthew clearly does. This is not in dispute among New Testament scholarship. He has brought bold assertions without any reference to where he changes the context of what Matthew was saying.

I then contend that once we are clear on what Matthew said vs what Paul said, we must then explore who Christians should listen to. So for this argument it is very important to know what the historical Jesus would have said. Christians should follow Christ in any controversy between Paul and Jesus. That is my position. I have argued that in any legitimate New Testament Scholarship, we take Matthew over Paul on what a historical Jesus taught. I am sorry if my opponent showed his hand here and demonstrated he doesn't care what a historical Jesus would have said, guess my thought was right, he is a member of Paulianity not Christianity.

He misrepresents me in several instances, first of all I did not argue over what should or shouldn't be in the Canon, I don't care, Im an atheist. In this debate I am merely concerned with who a Christian should trust what appears to be the belief of a historical Jesus or Paul. Though just as a side note if pressed on what should be in the Cannon, would have loved to have had The Acts of Thecla added, would never get old arguing with my opponent or other Christians about a vat of man eating seals, with Good Ole' Yah' shooting lightning bolts to kill them.

I think his writing on the Matthew 5:17-20 quote speaks for itself the way he twists it to say what he wants. All one has to do is read what it says. The only context we need is that Jesus a potentially historical apocalyptic preacher would have been talking about end times when referring to all being accomplished.

He also completely missed the point about the Pharisees, he attacks the documentary hypothesis, you know what is considered the starting point of any serious bible study by every top college, well my opponent attacks that, when the point was this, the Pharisees are a people so associated with the Torah that any top level scholar in Old Testament Scholarship worth his licks understands at the very least that P was written by one. This is not deniable at any top level university, unless you are willing to put together one top level argument against it.

So just a piece of advice for the next round leave Paul out, you and I agree on Paul. I am arguing that the bible also teaches the other way as well, and the fact that it is a better source for what Jesus taught, you as a follower of Jesus should prefer that over what Paul taught, who last I checked was not exactly the most moral character before his conversion.

My opponent is not grasping a basic concept, he must demonstrate that based the references to the commandments and listing of commandments that match the 10 commandments, that since the Gospels added Commandments, that they weren't merely additions, I mean considering New Testament Scholarship tends to disagree I would say he is the one taking the side that needs to meet its burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
daley

Pro

Con thinks that if he can name a prominent enough scholar who agrees with him that his point is proved, yet, I can name scholars to. Many of the most eminent, devout and learned men of the church have held that the decalogue was abolished. Among these were the apostolical fathers, Luther, Calvin, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan, Doddridge, Whately, Grotius, Locke, Sherlock, Watts, Hessey, Judson, George Dana Boardman, and a host of such men.

Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, says: "The law promulgated on Horeb is now old and belongs to yourselves (Jews) alone: but this is for all universally. Now law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it." Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. 11. He was much closer to the apostles and would have known better than scholars today what they taught!

Tertullian, A. D. 200, says: "The abolition of the ancient law we fully admit." Against Marcian, Book 5. Chap. 2. The Christian church historically held my interpretation.

Luther says: "The ten commandments do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews. If a preacher wishes to force you back to Moses, ask him whether you were brought by Moses out of Egypt. If he says no, then say: 'How, then, does Moses concern me, since he speaks (in the ten words) to the people that have been brought out of Egypt.' In the New Testament Moses comes to an end and his laws lose their force." See Kitto's Cyclopedia, Article Law. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says: "In its individual, or what is usually called its 'moral' aspect, the Law bore equally the stamp of transitoriness. It seems clear enough that its formal, coercive authority as a whole, ended with the close of the Jewish dispensation." Art. Law.

Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, says: "They [Christ and the apostles] even clearly indicate that the moral law is by no means excepted when they speak of the abolition of the law in general." Art. Law.

The popular commentary of Jamison, Faussett and Brown, says: "The law (including especially the moral law wherein lay the chief difficulty in obeying) is abrogated to the believer as far as it was a compulsory, accusing code." On Col. 2:16.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The ten commandments do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews." On the Ten Commandments.

Says Dr. Dobbs, Baptist: "Nor is this 'new and dangerous teaching.' It was the doctrine of the Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century. Calvin argues in this strain in his Institutes. The eminent Baptist scholar and commentator, John Gill, says, writing on Ex. 20:1,2: 'Verse 2 shows that this body of laws was delivered out to the people of Israel, and primarily belongs to them; for of no other people can the above things be said.' On Matt. 5:17, and 2 Cor. 3:7-11, Gill is emphatic in similar reaching. Read this, on the latter passage: 'The law is that which is done away; not merely the ceremonial law, or the judicial law; but the whole ministry of Moses; and particularly the law of the decalogue.' I close by citing an incident related by Mrs. Emily C. Judson, in the Life of Adoniram Judson, by his son, Dr. Edward Judson. Mrs. Judson says that her husband once reproved her for introducing some lessons from the Old Testament into her Bible classes, 'comparing it to groping among shadows when she might just as well have the noonday sun.' Mrs. Judson in relating this incident, says: 'My impression, drawn from many a long talk, is that he considered the Old Testament as the Scriptures given to the Jews especially, and to them only. He did not like the distinction commonly drawn between the moral and the ceremonial law, and sometimes spoke with an earnestness amounting to severity, of the constant use made of the ten commandments by Christians. He thought the Old Testament very important as explanatory and corroborative of the New -- as a portion of the inspiration which came from God, etc., but binding on Christians only so far as repeated in the New Testament. He used to speak of the Mosaic law as fulfilled in Christ, and so having no further power whatever; and to say that we have no right to pick out this as moral, and therefore obligatory, and the other as ceremonial and no longer demanding obedience. Practically, we had nothing to do with the Old Testament law."' Life of Judson, pages 411,412.

Rev. George Dana Boardman, D. D., the eminent Baptist divine, in his recent book on "The Ten Commandments," says: "Although the decalogue, in its spirit, is for all lands and ages, yet, in its letter, it was evidently for the Jews. The very preamble proves the assertion: 'God spake all these words, saying: I am Jehovah, thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' Then follow the ten commandments, based on the unique fact that Jehovah was the covenant God of Israel." Pages 127-130.

John Milton says: "With regard to the doctrine of those who consider the decalogue as a code of universal morality, I am at a loss to understand how such an opinion should ever have prevailed; these commandments being evidently nothing more than a summary of the whole Mosaic law as the fourth is of the whole ceremonial law; which therefore can contain nothing applicable to the gospel worship." Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chap. 7.

Jesus said to keep the law of Moses, because at that time it was in force, so Matthew would teach that this law should be kept at that time; but since the rest of the Bible shows that the law did come to an end, the overall teaching of the Bible is that the law of Moses was only temporary!

Jesus accepts the writings of the Old Testament as Scripture, and I showed from this same Scripture where it was prophesied that the law would end. Whom should I believe, Jesus, of his own Scriptures? Jesus himself showed the law of Moses was coming to an end by enacting a new law in contradiction to Moses. The dietary laws of Leviticus 11 said that some foods were unclean and could make us unclean if we eat them, yet, Jesus taught that NOTHING we eat can make us unclean, and he DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN. (Mark 7:15-19) Also, Jesus broke the Sabbath. (John 5:18)

"he attacks the documentary hypothesis, you know what is considered the starting point of any serious bible study by every top college,"

Wellhausen said that one author consistently used the personal name of God, Jehovah, and is thus called J. Another, dubbed E, called God "Elohim." Another, P, supposedly wrote the priestly code in Leviticus, and yet another, called D, wrote Deuteronomy. This also argues that stylistic differences in the Pentateuch are evidence of multiple authors. However, K. A. Kitchen notes in his book Ancient Orient and Old Testament: "Stylistic differences are meaningless, and reflect the differences in detailed subject-matter." Similar style variations can also be found "in ancient texts whose literary unity is beyond all doubt." The argument that the use of different names and titles for God is evidence of multiple authorship is particularly weak. In just one small portion of the book of Genesis, God is called "the Most High God," "Producer of heaven and earth," "Sovereign Lord Jehovah," "God of sight," "God Almighty," "God," "the true God," and "the Judge of all the earth." (Genesis 14:18, 19; 15:2; 16:13; 17:1, 3, 18; 18:25) Did different authors write each of these Bible texts? Or what about Genesis 28:13, where the terms "Elohim" (God) and "Jehovah" are used together? Did two authors collaborate to write that one verse? The weakness of this line of reasoning becomes particularly evident when applied to a contemporary piece of writing. In one recent book about World War II, the chancellor of Germany is termed "F�hrer," "Adolf Hitler," and simply "Hitler" in the course of just a few pages. Would anyone dare claim that this is evidence of three different authors?

Thank you Con for a lively debate.
izbo10

Con

Lets say goodby to Martyr and Tertullian right of the batand their opinions. They come from a time before scripture was truly canonized. For Instance, in 140 A.D. the attempt at canon we know of was Marcion, he included Luke and letters of Paul. These people lived in a time when The Gospel of Thomas, The Acts of Thecla were still widely considered scripture. Their quotes also display that early Christians had to address these concerns. Early Christianity was broken up into many factions, just take a look at the different views of Jesus in the first several centuries groups believe he was wholly human, others believed him wholly divine, yet others believed he was wholly human yet wholly divine but the divine Jesus rose to heaven before the crucifixion, and then their were the ones who would be considered orthodox. It is clear in the 1st several centuries what was believed that Jesus taught was not one set view, but many.

It has not been until the advent of recent technology and methods that we have gotten this view. My source is a modern scholar using modern techniques and the latest discoveries to determine which of these views was taught in the Gospel of Matthew. That is my argument. The quote from Boardman, is interesting but he doesn't seem to be aware that a historical Jesus, I know I know you aren't interested in that, you just want the theological one, would have considered himself a Jew so his people would have been the people brought out of Egypt. Here we learn this from Mark where he also references the first commandment: Mark 12:29
Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Mark 12:28-30 (in Context) Mark 12 (Whole Chapter

Now as I have also quoted earlier we have Mark our best source telling us that Jesus said this gem: Mark 10:19
You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,' ‘Do not murder,' ‘Do not steal,' ‘Do not bear false witness,' ‘Do not defraud,' ‘Honor your father and your mother.'"

Then in Matthew 5:17 our second best full source, 3rd best source if you count Q, says 17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

He once again refers to himself in the sense of trying to be righteous like the Pharisees. He clearly and unambiguously gives his prerequisites for when the law will end, which is when heaven and earth have passed and all is complete. This is where Jesus taught the law would end This is where those old testament predictions would come true. When heaven and earth had disappeared, it has not.

Now to address something off topic for a moment his take on the Documentary Hypothesis, well lets see for a second here, he is doing what creationists love to do with Evolution and quote an early writer about it and ignore he modern advances. We now know that the writing styles different, the interests of the authors differ(J from Judah, E from Israel, D was a Shiloh priest and written at 2 different times, P was the Priestly source written during the first temple, he was a Aaronid Priest). He also only attributes Part of Leviticus to P, well get this we now know P wrote the first parts of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. He really needs to look up this study. It is confirmed by the fact that you can actually take stories out of the bible and cut them up into 2 parts based on these authors writing styles and find that they tell cohesive stories, even more so then the actual bible in most cases. Look at Noah's flood or Snow White Miriam. If my opponent is so wrong on this study how wrong must he be on the rest.

So in conclusion I say, If to be Christian is to be Christ like or Follow Jesus, from our best Biblical sources of what Jesus said, you should keep the commandments as he clearly recognizes them and tells people to keep them. He tells people when you do not need to do so anymore and that time has not come.

Thanks to Pro for a fun Debate.
Debate Round No. 5
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Daley, I'd be willing to debate you on the topic: "The Laws of Moses is eternally binding."
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
neither of them are MERELY prophets. my point was not that Paul is equal to Jesus, but that since Jesus got his information from God himself, his words (which came from God) are of equal authority to those of Jesus. Jesus himself is the one who gave Paul his message, and further, Jesus was the one who gave the OT prophets their message. So how could on part of the Bible be of more authority than the next when its all from the same source?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
ok so in your christianity Jesus and Paul are both merely prophets, interesting.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
Are the words Jesus spoke more important than what God said in the Old Testament?

Jesus relied on OT Scriptures as the authority, even for his own beliefs. The OT showed that a time would come when the law covenant would end. I showed this. That time was not before Jesus death.

Paul also relied on OT Scripture which clearly taught the end of the Old Covenant, see Hebrews 8.

Both Jesus and Paul relied on the same set of Scripture in the OT! So Con's argument is flawed.

Both Jesus and Paul claimed to speak from God, so how could one prophet speaking for God be more true than another? They can't; so Paul's word, Jesus word, and the OT prophet's word, are all coming from God and hence of equal authority.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Problem you have Daley is the bible wasn't written to be interpretted as a whole. Another problem is that Paul doesn't have the quotes of jesus and doesn't claim to know the historical jesus. Matthew does. Matthew has quotes of what jesus supposedly said. Paul only says what paul thinks you should do as a christian. So by that very fact you are arguing what paul thinks is more important then a historical jesus.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
"izbo10 20 hours ago
By the way, i don't know how to make this more clear, I used the best sources for what jesus said in the bible and based on the fact that christianity is about jesus, made the point that if jesus is the savior his comments on an issue far surpass paul who is not the savior. The only one cherry picking is Daley, he wanted paul to be the only one that mattered."

Enough is enough is enough! I have had it with izbo's nonsense and misrepresentation of my position.

(1) this debate begins with the wors THE BIBLE TEAHCES. Con wanted it to be about what Matthew teaches, but that wasn't the debate! Unless Paul's letters are not in the Bible, Paul can't be discounted!

(2) First of all, I didn't stick ONLY on Paul as my source; as any one reading this debate can see, I showed where the Old Testament prophets said the law would end! Con argued that I put Paul above Jesus, yet, he puts Jesus above the Old Testament Scriptures from which Jesus drew his main teachings!

(3) I explained all the passages he gave us from Matthew and showed they didn't contradict the rest of the Bible (namely the OT and Paul). Matthew only showed the law of Moses continued in force before Jesus died; the OT and Paul showed that it ended at his death. I also showed that Matthew taught the law would be fulfilled in Christ and hence would end.

(4) Con quoted scholars but there arguments were not as strong as mine. If their arguments must be believed JUST BECAUSE they are scholars, then Con should believe Christian scholars who say that God exist! Yet he is an atheist. Scholarship proves nothing!

(5) I never rejectd Matthew but interpreted him in the context of the Bible as a whole, while Con rejected most of the New Testament because it contradicts HIS INTERPRETATION of Matthew.

Since Con is losing this debate, I guess his sholars aren't that convincing to the DDO public on this matter. Are is it that we are so stupid and Con is so smart? You choose....
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10, your arrogance and rudeness is very tiresome.
Unless if your superiority is so evident that it cannot shut itself up, then be this way, a little toddler shouting and saying, "My drawing is better! MY DRAWING IS BETTER!"
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Oh look, the "expert's" loosing.
Blame it on the voters and their ignorance.
Or blame it on CON's arrogance.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
By the way, i don't know how to make this more clear, I used the best sources for what jesus said in the bible and based on the fact that christianity is about jesus, made the point that if jesus is the savior his comments on an issue far surpass paul who is not the savior. The only one cherry picking is Daley, he wanted paul to be the only one that mattered.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
I have heard craig vs erhman and if you know anything about history ehrman destroyed him.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
daleyizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is very difficult to follow as it is essentially a 8000 speech vs speech without objectives. The main reason I would give it to Pro would be that Con can not fully warrant his cherry picking of the Bible and rejecting entire gospels and as well, simply because one scholar agrees with you does not make it fact. 3:2 Pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
daleyizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: "He either couldn't read or he is intentionally misrepresenting the quote, it does not say both." - Unnecessary Ad Hominem overtones. Arguments: Paul is part of the Bible and Con's whole argument is based on throwing Paul out. Sources: Con loses sources trying to dismiss half of the New Testament. Also, his appeal to authority (Ehrman) is not only weak, but is fallacious. There are many more authorities that would agree with Pro than would agree with Con.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
daleyizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Analysis in comments.