The Instigator
jd6089
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

validity of new testament

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  
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: 8/29/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,778 times Debate No: 18085
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

jd6089

Pro

Resolved:
The new testament is not reliable since it was written by jesuses followers, who obviously have a bias.
jm_notguilty

Con


Thanks to PRO for instigating.


Overview of the debate:


As CON, I will be arguing that the New Testament of The Holy Bible is a reliable and valid source for religious teachings as it is the second major division of the Christian Biblical canon, and it is considered as an accurate scripture according to various religions, and in this case, I'll be referring to the Catholic Church. I will negate any of my opponent’s contentions (that are reasonable and with accurate sources) that may say that the New Testament was written by, according to my opponent; “jesuses followers” [1], who were biased.


But biased against... whom? Or what? My opponent also needs to argue that.


My opponent will also need to argue that the said writers are biased and needs to prove that being biased or not when writing makes the doctrine per se unreliable and invalid.


If he cannot prove them, then it is sufficient to negate the resolution.


I leave the floor to my opponent for his opening argument.


Sidenote:


[1] PRO needs to clarify the term ‘jesuses followers’ in R2 or I will define it instead.


Debate Round No. 1
jd6089

Pro

jd6089 forfeited this round.
jm_notguilty

Con


Since my opponent forfeited, I’ll start.


Definitions: (All definitions below comes from Wiktionary)


Jesuses- Plural of ‘Jesus’.


followers- One who follows, comes after another.


New Testament- The second half of the Christian Bible (Wiktionary). The second major division of the Christian Biblical canon (Wikipedia).


not reliable- not suitable or fit to be relied on.


bias- inclination towards something; predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, predilection.


Case/Conclusion:


Ladies and gentlemen, obviously my opponent forfeited and well, there is no evidence to suggest that the New Testament was written by this so called, “Jesuses followers”, and no evidence that suggests that they’re biased.


Also, there’s not much to argue about the authors, but the The Bible (which includes the New Testament) is an accurate reference as it has been considered by religious institutions (particularly the Catholic Church) to be inspired by God, that the Bible is a scared book and a sacred scripture. I’m arguing that the New Testament and its books and gospels are but one book, the Bible. That’s according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that the Catholic Church’s view on the Bible, saying it is the word of God and that it teaches the truth.


“The Catholic Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.”


**107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72


SOURCE: http://www.vatican.va...


In conclusion, I’ve proven that in some way, that the New Testament (in the Bible) is a valid reference for religious teachings.


Debate Round No. 2
jd6089

Pro

jd6089 forfeited this round.
jm_notguilty

Con

Arguments extended. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Change your position to PRO, or are you really arguing that it's a valid source according to your full resolution?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
jd6089jm_notguiltyTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
jd6089jm_notguiltyTied
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: Forfeit.