The Instigator
Agabus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Silly_Billy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We must obey Jesus

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 858 times Debate No: 95143
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (0)

 

Agabus

Pro

Life has no other purpose.
Silly_Billy

Con

The meaning of life is life itself and the purpose of it is to live every moment.
Debate Round No. 1
Agabus

Pro

I agree. But the problem is without Jesus we all die. So in order to fulfill the purpose u stated we need Jesus. Otherwise we live to die. And we can't have a God we won't obey.
Silly_Billy

Con

In the literal sense, there are millions upon millions of people who do live without Jesus and who manage to do so and life a full life. For example, Christianity only has a following of 31.5% [1] which by your definition means that 69.5% of the Human Race can not be having a life even though they certainly do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Agabus

Pro

Actually what I am saying is that if the purpose of life is life but in this world we all die. So u need something more than just this life to fulfill ur purpose. And u said that people who r not Christians live their life to the full. That all depends what u mean by full. They live to die. Life is short friend. Death will quench life forever unless....unless Jesus is alive... like the eyewitnesses say....
Silly_Billy

Con

Death is the great unknown and where death takes us is a question with no answer. Science fails us where death is concerned and only faith can provide us with a glimpse of what may lie ahead. I believe in a life after death but when I look at my faith, then my faith can not limit itself to a heaven or a hell with nothing to look forward to but an eternity of unchanging sameness. I belief that the soul travels from life to life and death is a pause in which the past is shed and innocence reborn.
Debate Round No. 3
Agabus

Pro

If Jesus died and rose again we know where death takes us. Interestingly secular and Christian historians generally agree that Jesus walked this earth and that many his followers had to die gruesome deaths because they were so sure that they walked and talked with him after he resurrected. We believe the eyewitnesses of Abraham Lincoln assassination and they were not tested this way. Why not believe the eyewitnesses?
Silly_Billy

Con

But do we know where death takes us? I could be wrong, but I don't think that Jesus ever shared with us where he went during his death or even what his death was like. All that we know is that he died and that he became alive again and that
in itself is not proof that we therefore need him to life again.
Debate Round No. 4
Agabus

Pro

I like the way u think. Yeah next we need to know whether the eye witnesses were accurately recorded. The debate is whether or not we need to obey Jesus, right? That's another long topic. If u want u can text me at 506 391 5973 and continue this discussion or start another debate or whatever.
Silly_Billy

Con

Reading back on it all, I do see that we have gone a bit off topic and that the topic "We must obey Jesus" is one that is worth exploring a lot further. I will not be able to do any more debating today, but I am interested in continuing this in a second topic.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: distraff// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that if Christianity is true then Jesus is required for salvation. He then argued that Jesus' miracles because eye witnesses died not denying this. Con did not directly refute this logic.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both sides to determine the outcome. In this case, the voter only assesses Pro"s arguments and dismisses Con"s based on the view that they didn"t refute Pro"s logic. That"s not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Agabus 1 year ago
Agabus
Jesus was not saying that a woman couldn't leave her husband but rather that she couldn't remarry. See 1 Corinthians 7: 10-11.
Posted by distraff 1 year ago
distraff
Actually different versions of the bible use present tense and others use future tense. This is because Hebrew doesn't have tense so "is weeping" and "was weeping" have the same word.
http://biblehub.com...

This verse is definitely not dropped in because the next verse responds to the weeping in this verse and say that the children will return from the land of the enemy:
This is what the Lord says:
16 Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,
declares the Lord.
They will return from the land of the enemy.

This verse fits in perfectly with the rest of the chapter. Ramah is so important because it is the last city the Jews were at before they were carried off so after they left Ramah they were no longer in Israel.

Its almost as if Matthew was hunting down a verse to use as being fulfilled when children are killed and he found one that talked about children being no more so he just used it without caring about its context.

Another problem is that Jesus' ideas about divorce seem suspiciously backwards, almost as if he was just some guy from a backwards era rather than an all-knowing God:
Matthew 19
4 "Haven"t you read," he [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female,"
5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
...
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So, if there is physical abuse you can't divorce? Well that doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Agabus 1 year ago
Agabus
I haven't been able to find what Dr brown says on it yet. But I found this very interesting.
https://www.accordancebible.com...
Posted by Agabus 1 year ago
Agabus
Notice Jeremiah 31 is speaking of the redemption of Israel from bandage. Verse 15 is just dropped in the middle there and it's speaking past tense; " Jeremiah 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." Silver actually you have Jeremiah speaking as if in the future of Israel reconciliation to God than he drops this verse in the past tense as if to point back and say remember. I am not very good with Internet but I will see if I can find what Dr Brown has to say.
Posted by distraff 1 year ago
distraff
Looked him up and couldn't find anything specific about that. What about you present the specific rebuttal he has?

Let me tell you what this verse really means:

Jeremiah 15
15 This is what the Lord says:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."
16 This is what the Lord says:
"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the Lord.
"They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,"
declares the Lord.
"Your children will return to their own land.

Notice how it talks about Rachel weeping. Rachel is the wife of Jacob (Israel) whose sons are the ancestors of the tribes of Israel and are named after them. She had Joseph and Benjamin. Her sister-wife Leah had six sons including Judah the father of the Jews.

The verse says that Rachel is weeping in Ramah because her children are no more. Ramah is a city in the tribe of Benjamin who is the son of Rachel so this makes perfect sense. When Israel split in two into Israel and Judah, the tribe of Benjamin actually joined Judah while the rest didn't. So why is Ramah mentioned? Well, after Babylon took Jerusalem and took the Jews (Judah and Benjamin) captive they first took their captives to the city of Ramah before moving them to Babylon.

So this verse is really about Rachel's children of the tribe of Benamin along with the other Jews being sent off to Babylon from Ramah and she is crying because they are no long there. Its actually quite beautiful. The verse later goes on to say that we should rejoice because they will return from the land of the enemy Babylon.

This has nothing to do with the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlahem. This city is in the tribe of Judah whose mother is Leah not Rachel. You would have to do some mental gymnastics to interpret it the way Matthew does instead of how its ob
Posted by Agabus 1 year ago
Agabus
Distraff you may want to look up Michael Brown Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus on utube. He answers the prophesy questions quite well. There r hundreds the Rabbis bring up while debating him it seems. However I think he answers them quite well and shows how prophesy does not reject but rather confirms Jesus as Messiah.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Bored_Debater// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: This isn't much of a debate but a conversation. The BOP is on pro to prove that people must obey Jesus though. Neither made any real argument for or against. However, points go to con. pro says that people don't live life if they don't follow Jesus, con proves that they do by showing that billions of people live without Jesus... After that it goes off topic.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does sufficiently explain arguments, there is no explanation given for source points.
************************************************************************
Posted by distraff 1 year ago
distraff
You are certainly right that Smith was a fraud and there is strong evidence that he was a fraud. But people in his inner circle went through a lot, even had falling outs with him, and never took back their claims of his miracles. My explanation is that supernatural claims happens a lot in many religions. There are also psychic, UFO, and other claims as well, and people either make stuff up, or fool themselves, or get fooled. My dad firmly believes he has had supernatural experiences connected to Mormonism but without outsider verification it means nothing because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just eye witness who are notorious for being unreliable.

Thankfully there are a lot of written record about Joseph Smith and we get to hear a lot from the other side. However in the case of Jesus there are no record from the other side about Jesus. The only detailed accounts about him are from his own followers. Not only that, but they were written 30-50 years later and we are not even sure they were written by the original apostles or were passed down.

I am very suspicious of the gospels because there are a lot of things that are off about them. For example in Matthew 2:18 Herod supposedly kills all the young boys in Bethlehem and Matthew claims this fulfilled a prophecy in Jeremiah 31:15 where Rachel is weeping because her children are no more. However when you objectively read that chapter it clearly is talking about her tribe is being taken to Babylon. It was an act of desperation to try to find something this event fulfilled to give the gospels more veracity.
Posted by Agabus 1 year ago
Agabus
Distraff there is also a difference in the Mormon situation I was reading in the links you gave me. The Mormons claimed they had the plates. If so why did they just select certain witnesses? Smeals real fishy to me. Just show people the plates right? Well in the Christian account the body was definitell gone and nobody denied it. Neither were the witnesses tried by their life. It was there followers that were tried. Plus Joseph Smith has been shown to profit himself off his religion from what I know and he actually took other men's wife's and thin c she like that. Whereas the original witnesses of Jesus left everything and lived in self denial and we're murdered. As far as I understand the original Mormon witnesses never were tried by death for their faith . It was their followers who were. Am I correct on that?
No votes have been placed for this debate.