The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

jesus contradicted himself regarding violence

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 3 votes the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 58884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

how do all of the following things reconcile? i actually have some theories but they could be better, and am curious if there's anything better.

Jesus told people not to intervene in his arrest process:
"And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

when jesus was before pilate during the arrest, he said if this were his kingdom people would be fighting for him:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

at another point, jesus said to 'turn the other cheek'.

at another point, jesus said "let he who is without a sword go and get one"
Truth_seeker

Con

These 2 passages aren't contradictory...he's saying that the father could send a legion of angels, but that he chose not to, implying he has power over the Romans...same with this one, he's saying that if his kingdom were earthly, his followers would've already fought for him...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

he didn't say to pilate that his servant 'could' be fighting for him, but that 'would' be fighting for him. that means he seems to have told the first guy not to fight for him, but later said 'if only there was someone to fight for me..."
Truth_seeker

Con

He said "IF My kingdom were of this world, THEN My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews.."

He clearly then states that his kingdom isn't of this world, therefore his servants have no reason to be fighting...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i don't think we can nessarily concude that "therefore his servants have no reason t obe fightig...". i think it'd make more sense to think that if he had backers, he would not be opposed to fighting back. though, to give him and the bble the benefit of the doubt, i could see arguing what con says as i quoted.
Truth_seeker

Con

He had backers, but he chose to suffer for us to show his love and grace to us. You can't forgive someone if you keep fighting back.

My case stands and the conclusion is that Jesus did not contradict himself.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cTruth_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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con casts adequate doubt on this cdict.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
dairygirl4u2cTruth_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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued well that a contradiction did not exist. A stronger case could've been made for the last quote, but unfortunately, pro abandoned it.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2cTruth_seekerTied
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: I think that Con adequately showed there was not a contradiction. The debate mostly focused on the one part where he told his men not to intervene, and told his captors that IF his kingdom were of this world, they'd intervene, BUT because it's not, they won't. That doesn't seem contradictory. Arguments, therefore, to Con. All other categories seemed equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.