The Instigator
jewgirl
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
stubsmagee
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

jesus

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,654 times Debate No: 18680
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (7)

 

jewgirl

Pro

Resolved Jesus is not the son of god.
My opponent will express why they think jesus is the son of god and I will destroy thier reason.
stubsmagee

Con

1. Who wrote the gospels?
a. The uniform testimony of the early church was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If those four men were not the original authors you must explain the early church saying they did.

2. Reason to lie about who wrote the gospels?
a. Craig L Blomberg, PH.D. "Probably not. Remember these were unlikely characters. Mark and Luke weren't even in the twelve disciples. Matthew was, but as a former tax collector, he would have been the most infamous character next to Judas Iscariot […] Contrast this with what happened when the fanciful apocryphal gospels were written much later. People chose the names of well-known and exemplary figures to be their fictitious authors-Phillip, Peter, Mary, James […] So to answer your question, there would not have been any reason to attribute the authorship to these three less respected people if it weren't true." (p.23) Now John was an exception, and he is the one most disputed over!

3. More evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
a. In A.D 125 Papias said Mark "made no mistake" and made "no false statement"
b. In A.D 180 Irenaeus confirmed authorship.

4. Did Jesus claim to be God?
a. One of significance. Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man. Son of Man does not refer to Jesus' humanity. It refers to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, and nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed" Jesus claims to forgive sins, which only God can do. He accepts prayer and worship.

5. Gospels written too far after Jesus died to be accurate?
a. Most believe the gospels were written 70-90A.D
b. There are two issues
i. Even if there was no evidence that the books were written earlier than the dates I previously provided the argument doesn't work because that is still within the lifetimes of hostile eyewitnesses if false teachings began spreading. We can compare biographies of Jesus those of Alexander the Great.
ii. "The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develop over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers. In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander's story pretty much intact; legendary material began to emerge over the next five hundred years. So whether the gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a nonissue" (p.33)
My second issue is there is evidence that suggest earlier dating of the gospels. If we read Acts, which was written by Luke, Paul is the main character. All of a sudden the book ends when Paul is under house arrest in Rome. So why is that? Well the best answer would be that Paul must have still been alive when Acts was finished. Meaning that Acts could have been written no later than 62 A.D. This also means that Luke had to have been written before that and since Luke incorporates parts of Mark, that must have been even earlier. (p.34)

6. Paul on Jesus
a. "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." I Corinthians 15
b. Crucifixion was as early as 30 A.D. meaning Paul's conversion was 32 A.D. He was sent out and his first meeting with the apostles was about 35 A.D. Somewhere in between that time, he gave this creed.

7. Corroborating Evidence
a. Tacitus said, "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Chrisus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one on our procurators, Pontius Pilatus […] Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" (p.82)
b. Yamauchi (PHD) "Regardless of whether the passage had this specifically in mind, it does provide us with the remarkable fact, which is this: crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate that anyone could undergo, and the fact that there was a movement based on a crucified man has to be explained. How can you explain the spread of a religion based on the worship of a man who had suffered the most ignominious death possible? Of course, the Christian answer is that he was resurrected. Others have to come up with some alternative theory […] but none of the alternative views, to my mind, are very persuasive." (p.82)

8. Death
a. Skeptics say when the gospels say Jesus began to sweat blood, it was their imagination. Alexander Metherell, M.D, Ph.D. said "This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis […] it is associated with high degree of psychological stress." (p.195)
b. "The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart […] some fluid-the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion-came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel!" (p.199)
c. There was no doubt that Jesus was dead

9. Jesus' Body missing from the tomb?
a. William Craig PH.D.,D.TH., "If this burial by Joseph was a legend that developed later, you'd expect to find other competing burial traditions about what happened to Jesus' body. However, you don't find these at all." (p.210)
b. "There was a slanted groove that led down to a lower entrance, and a large disk-shaped stone was rolled down this groove and lodged into place across the door. A smaller stone was then used to secure the disk. Although it would be easy to roll this big disk down the groove, it would take several men to roll the stone back up in order to reopen the tomb" (p.211)
c. "There's no doubt that the disciples sincerely believed the truth of the Resurrection, which they proclaimed to their deaths. The idea that the empty tomb is the result of some hoax, conspiracy, or theft is simply dismissed today." (p.212)
d. From these quotes we se be sure that Jesus was buried in the tomb, the tomb was protected, the disciples believed the resurrection to the point of death, and no one could have stole the body.
e. Gospel accounts are too inconsistent? Historian Michael Grant, in a book called Jesus: An historian's review of the Gospels says, "True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty."

10. Disciples lie about Resurrection?
a. "The apostles were willing to die for something they had seen with their own eyes and touched with their own hands. They were in a unique position not to just believe Jesus rose from the dead but to know for sure. And when you've got eleven credible people with no ulterior motives, with nothing to gain and a lot to lose, who all agree they observed something with their own eyes-now you've got some difficulty explaining that away" (p.247)

Case for Christ - Lee St
Debate Round No. 1
jewgirl

Pro

My opponent did not directly discuss the topic at hand but rather seems to have copied and pasted from some other topic.
Never the less, I will try to respond, based on what I think he is trying to say.

My position is that Jesus is not the son of god, and the bible which says that he is, is either: a)inaccurate, or b)not literal.

a) inaccurate:
The authors had clear motive for writing the bible, as they were trying to start and spread a religion, and the bible was a way of doing so. It may be based on facts but that doesn't mean all contained therein is true.
A sample of some inaccuracies in the bible:
Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever", that doesn't seem to be true; I am a Jew, from the house of Jacob. We did not accept Jesus. Rather his disciples made him popular amongst the pagan nations of the world. The house of Jacob rejected him.

Contradictions:
Mathew 1:17 "from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." For a total of 28 generations from David to Jesus.
Luke 3:23-31. Lists 43 generations from David to Jesus.

The location of his appearance: Mathew 28 and mark 16 place it in Galilee, while Luke 24 and john 20 place it in Jerusalem.

b)Not literal
The reason to assume it is not meant literally is based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1:
"Ye are the children of the LORD your God" This was said to the entire Jewish nation obviously figurative, so to in the case of Jesus it is probably meant figurative. Not only that but Jesus was a Jew so when the new testament says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god.

Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:
Matthew, Chapter 1:"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
It is also interesting to note that in 1:18 it says the Holy Ghost and not simply "the lord" or "god".
In Luke as well 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" ... "thee shall be called the Son of God"
It is interesting to note that it says "he shall be called", indicating that he wasn't literally son of god.
Luke 3:23 ...being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... indicates he had a human father.
That chapter ends with, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was not literally the son of god.
Lastly Jesus is referred to as "son of man". My opponent admits this in "4." but says it's not literal. Or maybe it is the statement son of god which is not literal. A much more likely interpretation.

Rebuttal:
"1. Who wrote the gospels?"
This cannot be relevant to theory "b".
My opponent seems to have been attempting to prove the validity of the NT:
This is not so for 2 reasons: 1) it could be someone else wrote it or the church itself wrote it.
2)Even if they did Wright it doesn't mean they didn't error, add, lie, embellish, or fabricate, to make their religion more attractive.

"2. Reason to lie about who wrote the gospels?"
This cannot be relevant to theory "b".
Even if they did write it doesn't mean they didn't error, add, lie, embellish, or fabricate, to make their religion more attractive. My opponent does not provide evidence for the claim he makes that these were unimportant people. Moreover he admits this was not the case with Paul.

"3. More evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"
This cannot be relevant to theory "b".
Note Papias only speaks of mark, why not the other 3. Furthermore, why should we believe them, they were both just members of the church. Furthermore, they were over 100 years after the fact.

"4. Did Jesus claim to be God?"
Huh? The fact that people claim that Jesus claims to be god proves that he was god?
My opponent here defends against a blatant statement of Jesus mortality by saying it is not to be taken literally and refers to son of man in denial. But why should we assume that the verse in Daniel is not referring literally to a son.

"5.Gospels written too far after Jesus died to be accurate?"
This cannot be relevant to theory "b".
This again is not a proof but rather a defense against the problem of the fact that the NT was written long after the fact.

6-10 Discuss the resurrection which is not relevant to this debate, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't mid debating this sometime in the future but this was not the topic.
stubsmagee

Con

A. To say that the authors motivation for writing the New Testament is that they were trying to spread a religion is obviously ridiculous. If Jesus neither claimed to be God, nor was resurrected, why would his disciples proclaim this to their death. It is crazy to think that these, numerous, credible people would die just to try and start a religion. In Luke we can see his motivation for writing down what had happened. "In as much as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Luke 1:1-4. The gospels writers wrote down the accounts to provide accurate historical events about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

In your example of Luke 1:33 when it says "He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever" it is in reference to the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, because Jacob and Daniel were in the same family line. If you notice the verse does not say "and the house of Jacob will accept Him forever" it says "and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever" Which Jesus is. We both believe there is a God. If an atheist says "There is no God reigning over me" we both know that it does not matter what they think. God is still reigning over them. Likewise with what you are proposing. Just because you don't think Jesus is reigning over the house of Jacob forever doesn't really mean anything, because He is.

Contradictions:
(14 generations... 14 generations... 14 generations.. is repeated in Matthew's genealogy) With this Matthew made it clear that this genealogy is not complete. There were not actually 14 generations between the landmarks he indicates, but Matthew, as some suggest, edited the list down to make it easy to remember and memorize.

For example, Matthew 1:8 says Joram begot Uzziah. This was Uzziah, King of Judah, who was struck with leprosy for daring to enter the temple as a priest to offer incense (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). Uzziah was not the immediate son of Joram; there were three kings between them (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah). Yet as Clarke rightly says, "It is observed that omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies."

Another theory is he uses the genealogy to count 14 generations from each major section. (according to the Jewish practice of geomatria, the giving of numeric value to consonants in a word, David's name would add to D + V + D or 4 + 6 + 4= 14, and David is the 14th on the list)

In the second contradiction my opponent brought up he failed to mention that while Matthew and Mark place him in Galilee, while Luke and John place him in Jerusalem, they were not happening at the same time. Jesus was in Galilee and Jesus was in Jerusalem but obviously not at the same time. "Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

None of the accounts of Jesus´┐Ż€™ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection." - http://www.apologeticspress.org...

"so when the new testament says Jesus says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god." All that attempt is, is syncretism. Taking two verses out of context and trying to connect them. As opposed to the claim I made that the term son of man is referring to Jesus divinity in reference to Daniel 7:13-15. That is something the over whelming majority of new testament scholars agree on.

1. "it could be someone else wrote it or the church itself wrote it" That is a theory however you provided no evidence for it.

2."My opponent does not provide evidence for the claim he makes that these were unimportant people" I did not say that they were unimportant people. I said that they were unlikely characters. Mark and Luke werent in the 12. Matthew was but was a former tax collector.

3."why should we believe them" - Papias would have gotten his information from Polycarp who heard John speak directly.

4."The fact that people claim that Jesus claims to be god proves that he was god? My opponent here defends against a blatant statement of Jesus mortality by saying it is not to be taken literally and refers to son of man in denial. But why should we assume that the verse in Daniel is not referring literally to a son." You are right that the fact Jesus claims to be God does not prove He is God. However all of the arguments presented work together to show that it is very reasonable to think Jesus is God. We should not assume that the verse in Daniel is not referring literally to a son because it said he came down from the clouds. It is not a blatant statement of jesus mortality, if you agree with the overwhelming majority of new testement scholars, which I do, it is a blatant statement of Jesus divinity.

5. You gave me nothing to refute

6-10. "Discuss the resurrection which is not relevant to this debate, as far as I can tell" The resurrection is the most relevant to this debatge. If Jesus did raise from the dead that is overwhelming evidence for Him being God. I am in the progress of getting my undergrad degree in biblical studies and as one of my proffessors always says, "Normal people don't do that." Simple statement; true statement. The more overwhelming thing is there were several, credible people who were willing to die for this fact. If they knew Jesus was not God why would they proclaim it even when it lead them straight to horrific deaths.

Conclusion:
I have refuted all the contradictions you gave. I explained that son of man is a clear claim to divinity. Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus was resurrected and this is what his disciples proclaimed to their death. I have refutted all of the rebuttles you gave. If my opponent brings up more arguments that is fine but I will obviously not have to oppurtunity to respond. But as for all the ones I had the opportunity to refute, I did just that. If you want to debate again just let me know. Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
sorry I meant hand my vote to con
Posted by stubsmagee 5 years ago
stubsmagee
sorry about the bringing up new arguments line. I am used to going first in debates. my apologies.
Posted by stubsmagee 5 years ago
stubsmagee
Well I am not sure what the exact chapter about but the fifth book is deuteronomy which is the second telling of the law to the generation of Joshua. I hope you are not using the laws given to prove Jesus cant be the son of God. Easily disproven
Posted by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
gotta go now. I will respound tomorow.

(Hint: see book 5 of the hebrew bibal) chapter 14.
Posted by stubsmagee 5 years ago
stubsmagee
My source got cut off sorry, It is by Lee Stroble
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Sorry, fail, nevermind.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
I'll accept this if we agree right now that we what we are debating, is that Jesus is the Son of God according to the Bible (since you said we can argue biblically), and that you will negate any of my contentions if I prove that the Bible says so.
Posted by stubsmagee 5 years ago
stubsmagee
My apologies. My arguement is posted
Posted by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
whats the difference?
Posted by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
My resolution states that he is not son of god I am pro that.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave better args and had sources.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good work, Con.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
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: It seems kind of unfair that Con got to make two statements and Pro only got to make one. But that was Pro's fault for not stipulating a format that would allow her an equal number of posts. Con won this debate on the arguments, but I hate to give Con the win since it was kind of unfair. Also, it is unfortunate that Con wrote very little of his own in the first round, but since he did use quotation marks, and he did cite all his sources, we can't fault him for plagiarism.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
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: Con posted an argument in the first round, which was clearly made for acceptance. This was a bad move. Pro also had better arguments than Con.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
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: Jewgirl's arguments are superficial and unconvincing.
Vote Placed by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
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 had no intention of voting on this debate, being the agnostic I am, or atheist, whatever you want to call it, but I decided to vote on this debate anyway. Both pro and con showed excellent debates and rebuttals, but I am going to hand my vote to pro.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jewgirlstubsmageeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Con uses a lot of strawmans, circular reasonings and logical fallacies to fulfill his burden while Pro relies on arguments that Con had pre-emptively refuted. I am trying to decide who was worse.