The Instigator
khizr
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Was Jesus crucified on the cross for the sins of mankind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 61069
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

khizr

Con

I strongly believe that Jesus ( may peace be upon him) was not crucified for the sins of mankind. If you think about it rationally, it seems quite absurd, how can one man pay the price for the sins of humanity. There are millions of people around the world. Why would god punish someone else for the sins of other people. That would make god very unjust.
How can a christian who has lived as a good human being and another christian who kills people and causes oppression on earth and dies that way be the same, how can they both be saved from hell, That is unjust and absurd.

"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2 NIV)

Of course the bible has a lot of discrepancies in it, as it has undergone numerous translations and interpretations. The crucifiction of Jesus is also among those discrepancies in it.

I will present one example:

, "[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2 NIV)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:16-18 NIV)

In one statement the whole world is saved because of his crucifiction and in another statement only those who believe in him are saved.

There many such errors in the bible. Do you know that there is even a word for it.
"Apocrypha"
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Truth_seeker

Pro

There's a difference between God punishing someone for their sins and bearing the sins of the people.

Isaiah 53:4-6

"Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

The Bible essentially does not have errors. Here are some errors which do not affect doctrine (1).

The verses you gave do not support the fact there is a contradiction as the world itself can still believe in Jesus to be saved.

A french scholar went into a cave and found an ossuary with the name "Jesus" on it (2). Cornelius Tacitus wrote about how "Christus" was put to death (Annals of Imperial Rome, XV 44).

The evidence is clear, Jesus was crucified on the cross for the sins of mankind.

Sources:

1. http://theresurgence.com...

2. http://www.freeminds.org...
Debate Round No. 1
khizr

Con

Saying that the bible just has 1% error and the doctrine is not effected, is an exaggeration. Of course the bible has lot more errors and it affects the doctrine. By the way in the bible Jesus never claims divinity.
Cornelius Tacitus was a roman, like other romans he thought that Jesus was crucified. It was actually someone else in his place who was crucified.
Few years ago an old gospel was found, which is about 1500 - 2000 years old, in some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity. "gospel of barnabas".

Please do go through them.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.barnabas.net...
http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Jesus (peace be upon him) was a prophet, like the prophets who came before him,Noah , Moses, Elijah ( may peace be upon them all). It Does not befit the all merciful to take a son, There is non in the heavens and the earth, but comes to the all merciful as a servant.
Throughout the Old testament you will find that God himself says only I can forgive sins. God forgave sin throughout the old testament without Jesus, why would he suddenly need a human sacrifice. If God had wanted a human sacrifice to forgive sins, he would have done that for the people who came before Jesus too.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you are really seeking for the truth, i will advice you to read "The science the bible the quran" by Maurice Bucaille.
This book also shows how the present bible was formed, many great christian scholars also agree with him.
Maurice Bucaille was also a christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://books.google.co.in...
https://archive.org...
Truth_seeker

Pro

"Of course the bible has lot more errors and it affects the doctrine."

You presented no evidence to support this.

Jesus does claim divinity in the Gospels (John 8:56).

In response to the Gospel of Barnabas, i would first point out that experts analyze the date, the material of the manuscripts, and it's content to determine whether or not it's reliable.

The Gospel of Barnabas has several errors which i think even you would agree with:

The inscription in neo-Aramaic says: " "In the name of the Lord, this book is written by monks of the high monastery in Nineveh in the 1500th year of our Lord."" No one in Assyrian refers to a writing in the Bible as "book."

The Gospel of Barnabas contradicts the Qur'an:

1. The Gospel of Barnabas says there are 9 heavens (3:105) while the Qur'an says there are only 7. Quoting Al-Baqarah, 2:29

"He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything"

2. The Gospel of Barnabas says that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain while the Qur'an says that she did. Sura 19:23

"The birth process came to her by the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "(I am so ashamed;) I wish I were dead before this happened, and completely forgotten."

3. It says that the armies of Palestine made up 200,000 men but according to some scholars, Palestine 2,000 years ago didn't go over 200,000 people.

4. In chapter 217, it mentions 100 pounds of stone placed on Jesus. the 1st pound of the unit dates to the Ottoman empire in it's dealings with Italy and Spain.

5. There are also historical inaccuracies (1).

That being said, the Gospel of Barnabas cannot be reliable.

"Throughout the Old testament you will find that God himself says only I can forgive sins. God forgave sin throughout the old testament without Jesus, why would he suddenly need a human sacrifice. If God had wanted a human sacrifice to forgive sins, he would have done that for the people who came before Jesus too."

God progressively reveals himself to the world, thus the Torah was put into effect until the time of the Messiah would come. Galatians 3:24

"The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith."

Conclusion:

There is evidence for Jesus death and Crucifixion. I rest my case.

Sources:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
khizr

Con

Yes the bible has lots of errors

http://www.discoveringislam.org...

These are all just scientific errors in the bible, If there are so many scientific errors in the bible then in how many more aspects can the bible be wrong?
That would account for more then 1%.

http://infidels.org...

Pro says: Jesus does claim divinity in the Gospels (John 8:56).

My reply: No, it says "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."(John 8:56)
http://biblehub.com...

There is no were in the bible where Jesus directly says "I am god". why ???

I never denied that the gospel of barnabas has some errors, i said " in some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic teaching".
Like the crucification of Jesus(PBUH) for the sins off mankind

"Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip?"( John 14.9.) Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, "This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?" (John 6.60.) It is clear that even his most highly touted disciples had trouble understanding him. If his disciples had so much difficulty grasping what Jesus was all about, how much more difficulty would the entire world have, especially after he was gone?

If crucifixion of Jesus is all that is needed for salvation then why all the parables and metaphysical teachings he spoke of?

"Why do you speak to the people in parables?"( Matt 13.10.)
Truth_seeker

Pro

The resolution was "Was Jesus crucified on the cross for the sins of mankind?"

His parables was to teach spiritual truths and to teach us how to live in righteousness before atoning for our sins.

I rest my case: Jesus died for the sins of mankind.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Imalwaysthesmartone 3 years ago
Imalwaysthesmartone
The pro version is always the same. A cherry picked verse to prove a point. Lets start from the fact that the old testament was written as a whole not by verse. The verses were divided in 1448. When read in whole without verses the meaning completely changes. Using the Isaiah example if read without the cherry picking, the verse is clearly talking about Israel. Throughout the Old testament you will find that God himself says only I can forgive sins. Catholics solved this problem early on making Jesus, God. Good play, they understood the writings. But then if Jesus is God how is it a sacrifice? And if Jesus is the miracle virgin birth what does that make Jesus? The same creature that God destroyed the earth by way of a flood, Nephilim. God forgave sin throughout the old testament without Jesus, why would he suddenly need a human sacrifice. Even though the Jews made animal sacrifices several of the prophets told us the God took no joy from this. I don't deny Jesus existed or that he was crucified, The Romans were barbaric, think the Appian way. If God had wanted a future human sacrifice to forgive sin, he would have made it clear in the Old Testament not cryptic.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Jesus is the only man who could pay the price for other mens sin nature. Since he was born , not of man, but by the Holy Spirit, he was born without that sin nature.The word became flesh.For 33 years he lived sin free. When he went to the cross, he became sin, not his own sin, but ours.And those who accept him receive his righteousness. Since no man has ever lived a pure righteous life, Jesus is the only man we can accept that we may be made HIS righteousness.When he was raised from the dead he became the head of a new race of man. The reborn man. Adam was the first man to be born-again.He was born from life to death. Jesus became the FIRSTborn of many brethren.Born-again from death toife eternal. Never to die again. And we are his joint-heirs of that life.The dumbest thing any man will ever do is die in that old sin nature.Life is available to all who will believe.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
khizrTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed Con lacked understanding (or even awareness) of the schollarly research on biblical texts and that many of the sources Con cited in favor of his position (that the Bible is not a reliable source) did more against his case than for it. That being said, pro does not give any relevant proof that Our Lord Jesus Christ died for the Redemption of mankind from our sins. As the resolution is framed as a question and not a statement, both parts had shared burden of proof, therefore I am lead to consider this a tie. (I am willing to justify this further in the comments)