53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"
54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’;
55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but I do know Him, and keep His word.
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57 The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said to them,"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.
1). Abraham was the head patriarch of the Jewish people. It was God's covenant with Abraham that set the Jews apart as a people and Abraham was considered the highly esteemed father of the Jewish people.
Yet here Jesus is saying He is greater than Abraham, their earthly patriarchal father.
1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
The number of the books in the New Testament in Codex Sinaiticus is the same as that in modern Bibles in the West, but the order is different. The Letter to the Hebrews is placed after Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians, and the Acts of the Apostles between the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles.
58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
…As to who witnessed the actual event, we are told no one was at the tomb with the exception of the guards who had fallen asleep and witnessing angels…
My opponent shows she wants us to be specific on the definition of the term 'Logos' as having only one possible meaning of 'Word'
First and foremost, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, it believes in a singular God. The creator, the being that created the heavens and the Earth with the word.
As my opponent so carefully pointed out, while Jesus was alive he rebuked those that would attempt to worship him.
One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Once again Jesus is accused of blasphemy for doing something only God can do, and that is the forgiveness and removal of sin. We see Jesus performing an act of God, the people acknowledging that Jesus is acting as God, and the people accusing Jesus yet again for asserting His divinity.
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
how many characters does a single post allow?
Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.
5a) Unauthorized Access: You will not attempt to access any protected sections of the message board, nor make use of any hacks, cracks, bug exploits, etc. to bypass or modify the features of the forum software or to obtain information beyond the allowed features of your account status. Doing so will result in immediate termination of your account.
Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.
Before I begin, I would like to tell you how I based my decision. I scored each on a point system, where I wrote down notable points, and assigned either a -1, a 0, or a +1 value to it. After I finished, I tallied the points. What you'll see below is my point by point breakdown, along with their respective point allocation.
- She made it a point to not speculate on anything that she presented. She presented the facts, and explained how they supported her side. Not only that, but she refused to stray from the topic. ( +1 )
- She seems to have gotten a bit confused on when Jesus became divine. According to scripture, He never allowed anyone to worship Him before He was crucified. Only after He was resurrected did He allow anyone to even consider worshiping Him. There is a big point here, and that is that He wasn't divine until He came back. The topic of this debate is whether Jesus was God. This presumes that we're talking about while He was alive, and not after He was resurrected. She pointed this out herself. Good catch!! ( 0 )
- Referencing the previous point, she references Romans 1:4, which suggests that Jesus wasn't fully divine until He was resurrected. ( 0 )
- In the final post, Rebuttal 17, stating that it is not, in her opinion, important to include at least a good portion of surrounding material that emphasizes a particular passage, for context sake, is startling. One verse can be taken completely out of context, if read by itself without the supporting commentary. whatukno caught this, and called her on it. She responded by including all of her supporting evidence. Good response. ( +0 )
- In Rebuttal 19, she makes a VERY good point, using an easy-to-understand analogy. WELL DONE! ( +1 )
So, +1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 = +2
- Claims that the monks and scribes that transcribed the Biblical texts were drunk while doing so. Proof? Where did this come from? Was this a joke? ( -1 )
- Point 6: Rebuttal makes solid point which merits a reply. If God is the only one that can absolve sin, then how is it that the Catholic Church is doing it now? VERY valid and pertinent point! ( +1 )
- AshlyD's Point 8 in fact contained quotes that have been altered between versions. She herself stated that she was using the NIV, and not the KJV. There are subtle differences in scripture passages, but the Titus 2:13 quote does merit some looking into. There is a very distinct change in the wording of said passage that seems to support AshleyD's side. However, if we look at the KJV version, we see the following:
13: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
whatukno makes a valid point here. There is clearly a distinction made between God the Father and God the Son. ( +1 )
- 'The Usual Suspects': Jesus' purpose here was to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and to abolish the old covenant. He had to do this by adhering to it's tenets until He was unjustly crucified. So, yes He would have broken the 1st Commandment by claiming to be God, prior to His resurrection. It should be noted here that in Matthew: Chapter 22, verses 42 - 46, we see an interesting exchange where Jesus states that He is indeed the Son of God. He does not say that He IS God; merely that He's the Son. There is a marked division here. ( +1 )
- whatukno pointed out in his closing that AshleyD didn't answer 4 out of 5 of his Socratic questions directly before expounding upon them, as is necessitated by the Socratic Rule of the debate. ( +1 )
So, we have -1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = +3
In my opinion, whatukno has the more compelling argument, and with the +3 points, gets my nod.
I would at this point like to take a brief moment to give my honest thanks to both AshleyD and whatukno for all of their time in debating this topic. You two actually got me thinking again about something that I've not thought about in a LONG time, and this has me going back and doing more research of my own! THANK YOU for such a great debate you two!
Ashley, while I think the same way that you do, there were a couple of key points that you didn't capitalize on, and that hurt you, in my humble opinion. You did well though, for a newbie to the debate forum. I can't wait to see your next debate!
whatukno, I'm impressed man! To have someone defend a view that I oppose, and to have me questioning my own understanding of the topic by the end of the debate is a task that not many have ever done before. Consider this a sincere compliment.
I deem whatukno the winner.
I believe AshleyD has a wonderful debate ability but didn’t use it to the fullest. AshleyD’s posts were very detailed and lengthy, but did not provide much insight into the debate topic after the initial post. Whatukno provided some good insight and always answered and rebutted the points raised by AshleyD in relation to the subject matter. On the other hand, I felt that AshleyD spent more time criticizing whatukno’s post themselves than refuting the claims put forth within. This was an excellent debate from both members and they should feel proud of their work here. Congrats to whatukno and I’m sure (and hope) we will be seeing much more of AshleyD around here!
This debate was refreshing in the scope and reach the fighters strove for. It should be particularly noted that neither fighter attempted to deny the existence of Jesus, as one would expect in a debate such as this, instead correctly arguing the actual debate topic.
I would also like to point out that this debate is one of the finest debates it has been my pleasure to read. Regardless of the outcome, both fighters should be well applauded.
AshleyD strikes right out on the attack using the direct words of Jesus, as stated in the Bible, as her base. She also gives a good accounting of the translations and their specific meanings as they relate to the debate topic.
Then whatukno counters very effectively with biblical quotes of his own and several very interesting takes on the same translation issues brought up by AshleyD. Specifically that of the word “Logos” and it’s implications as to the divinity of Jesus.
AshleyD’s rebuttals were fierce and to the point. She addressed each and every post of her opponent and refuted those posts with referenced and sourced material.
Whatukno lost some valuable ground when he resorted to speculation as to what actually occurred during the resurrection. It would have sufficed to mention that there are several theories, and his “Gas Pocket” theory sounded hollow and almost desperate.
Also of note are whatukno’s references as to the translations and lack of original manuscript from the time of Jesus life. As a researcher would know, the validity of any text that does not exist in it’s original form, is the similarity of existing manuscripts and as the Bible has more existing manuscripts than any other existing book, that all match within accepted guidelines of comparison; I would have expected whatukno to be aware of this.
AshleyD’s use of “Large Text” made reading some of her opening statements problematic.
Whatukno did a good job of separating Jesus from God in his last rebuttal, using scripture to his advantage. Yet in the debate whatukno did reference the Bible to prove certain points and then went on to try and prove the unreliability of the bible. This proved problematic to his case.
Also whatukno’s reference to the word count sounded quite the “Sour Grapes” as it is not his place to judge or moderate the debate.
Now the meat.
Both fighters presented wonderfully interesting arguments that were a joy to read; even three times..
Yet in the end, one fighter stuck to the references and source provided and never deviated from what was presented. One fighter showed a massive amount of knowledge, quite more than the opponent, and the ability to express that knowledge in the debate.
In the end, one fighter had the more convincing argument. This is always the case no matter how well the fight was fought.
A debate should always be judged on how well the fighter presented their case. Not whether or not it was believed by the judge; only that it was believable. The personal opinions of the judge on the subject matter can not be factored in.
While this debate was close, there did emerge a clear victor.
AshleyD won this debate.
Originally posted by whatukno
Of course after Judging is complete, you may indeed if you wish refute anything I have said in this closing argument. This thread will be opened to all fighters for comment after the debate has concluded and been judged.
She seems to have gotten a bit confused on when Jesus became divine. According to scripture, He never allowed anyone to worship Him before He was crucified. Only after He was resurrected did He allow anyone to even consider worshiping Him. There is a big point here, and that is that He wasn't divine until He came back. The topic of this debate is whether Jesus was God. This presumes that we're talking about while He was alive, and not after He was resurrected. She pointed this out herself. Good catch!!
He never allowed anyone to worship Him before He was crucified. Only after He was resurrected did He allow anyone to even consider worshiping Him.
If God is the only one that can absolve sin, then how is it that the Catholic Church is doing it now?
Whatukno provided some good insight and always answered and rebutted the points raised by AshleyD in relation to the subject matter. On the other hand, I felt that AshleyD spent more time criticizing whatukno’s post themselves than refuting the claims put forth within.
Originally posted by AshleyD
On a side note, I do have some good news. I received a publishing offer through my website from one of my readers who was keeping up with this debate as a guest. That makes me happy so I said I would reorganize my research and submit it to him. We had quite the audience, Wukky.