Challenge Match: AshleyD vs whatukno: Was Jesus God?, page 2

Challenge Match: AshleyD vs whatukno: Was Jesus God?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 11:40 AM by Ian McLean

Originally posted by whatukno
This thread will be opened to all fighters for comment after the debate has concluded and been judged.

Congrats, WUK. Curious why you didn't mention the earlier verses from John 8 (or did you, and I missed it?):

17: It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18: I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Here, by one reading, Jesus seems to predicate the validity of his testimony on the 'witness of two': Himself, and the Father. If the two are indeed not separate, doesn't that invalidate the claim? The counter-argument here seems rather convoluted to me.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 12:14 PM by Badge01

I'm very impressed by both debaters.

I would never have guessed this was AshleyD's first debate. I assumed she was a master debater in school.

I hope you both do another.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 12:34 PM by AshleyD

Originally posted by Badge01
I would never have guessed this was AshleyD's first debate. I assumed she was a master debater in school.

This wasn't my first debate- just my first ATS debate.

I was a member of the National Forensic League back in High School and participated in CX debate, or what the Wiki article describes as 'Policy Debate.'

But I lost probably 75% of the time. I was horrible and very, very shy. Also did some radio debates over the last few years as an adult dealing with apologetics. This was just my first ATS rodeo.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 02:22 PM by AshleyD

[edit on 8/23/2008 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 02:53 PM by AshleyD

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Congrats, WUK. Curious why you didn't mention the earlier verses from John 8 (or did you, and I missed it?):

I would have liked to have seen my ante-Nicene author evidence countered with the writings of those deemed 'heretics.' If I was assigned the con position, I would have countered the pro external evidence with the evidence of the authors who questioned Jesus' divinity. As they say, history is written by the victors. Those who attested to Jesus' divinity were considered 'church fathers' while those who questioned it were labeled 'heretics.' I would have loved to have seen that issue brought up but it never was.

Never really saw the Thomas quote contested either because I did make a goof. Thomas only called Jesus God once- not twice. Sorry about that.

Also supposed limitations to Jesus' knowledge. The verse where Jesus states nobody knows the date of His return- not even Himself, being one example. Or how he cried out on the cross about being forsaken. Lots of things that could have been used against my case but never were. I kept expecting to be presented with them but they never were. Lucky me, I guess because that would have made me scramble.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 05:58 PM by whatukno

reply to post by AshleyD

I had to be selective about the subjects I approached.

Jesus' crucifixion is one example. this can easily be refuted because the poor man was being tortured brutally at the hands of the romans. Anyone would have cried out wondering where God was in all of that.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 06:19 PM by AshleyD

Edit: Never mind. Figured it out thanks to Tektonics.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by AshleyD]

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 03:17 AM by Ian McLean

Originally posted by whatukno
I had to be selective about the subjects I approached.

Well I can certainly understand that. When I had to debate that the CIA should be abolished (or radically changed), I had to keep constantly limiting myself, because many of the arguments I could have put forth were broader than the scope of the topic (eg, could be applied to the DoD, NSA, FBI, etc).

Of course, with this debate, I think I'd be hard-pressed to find a broader topic.

(Ashley's sharply-incisive rebuttals aside, of course)

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 09:36 AM by AshleyD

Edit: Never mind. My apologies. It's really not that big of a deal. The debate is over and the facts were already presented, explained, and defended. No need to drag it out any further. Thanks again for the learning experience.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by AshleyD]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^