Would Christ have been a good debater?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #21

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

You don't recall saying anything about divine on this thread? Remind me again, what the forum is about?
LOL.

To be clear, I am saying Iosua was a feeble debater and so got himself killed for attempting to demean and usurp Jewish law.
To jog your memory: Abrogating the penalty for adultery.
Insisting coins, graven images of the gods Caesar and Pax, be paid before one renders to Yahweh.

So, it isn't about you - we need to have debates in context, and sorry Ha!Mesiiah, being semi-devine can not be ignored because it defeats your beliefs, when usually Christians are the one claiming Iosua is the son of God.
Then you are dealing in speculative conspiracy theories.
WHAT? Really, how many times must one remind you the the cut of the Caesars? That many Caesars were worshiped as divine? How many times can you deny it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_ ... cient_Rome
It is ONE thing to have faith in the BIble, it is quite another to deny impartial facts that defeat it. Do you really think there is a conspiracy to create gods out of the Roman Emperors and kings just to disprove Jesus' divinity?

Sorry, the conspiracy is to create divinities where none exist. Obviously.
You asserted that I did something. It is on you to provide examples of that. It is not up to me to provide examples of were I did not do that.
I am asserting you have never done something, and that something you have never done is show your magical HaTorah exists. I can demonstrate something you reference that seems to be in your imagination.

I just can't do it. You want me to reference a document that seems to be completely in your imagination... HUH?

Apology accepted, if you acknowledge the point you would have otherwise avoided by throwing this fellow debater under the bus like that!

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #22

Post by bluethread »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

You don't recall saying anything about divine on this thread? Remind me again, what the forum is about?
LOL.

To be clear, I am saying Iosua was a feeble debater and so got himself killed for attempting to demean and usurp Jewish law.
To jog your memory: Abrogating the penalty for adultery.
Insisting coins, graven images of the gods Caesar and Pax, be paid before one renders to Yahweh.

So, it isn't about you - we need to have debates in context, and sorry Ha!Mesiiah, being semi-devine can not be ignored because it defeats your beliefs, when usually Christians are the one claiming Iosua is the son of God.
The forum may be Christianity and Apologetics, but the topic of the thread is "Would Christ have been a good debater?" Does being a good debater require that one be divine? As I pointed out Socrates also got himself killed for similar reasons, Yeshua did not abrogate the penalty for adultery, He referred to the requirements for the penalty to be carried out. Also, I am not stating the Romans did not consider Caesar a deity. I am saying that Yeshua never acknowledged that. He just acknowledged that the coins were Roman property.
Then you are dealing in speculative conspiracy theories.
WHAT? Really, how many times must one remind you the the cut of the Caesars? That many Caesars were worshiped as divine? How many times can you deny it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_ ... cient_Rome
It is ONE thing to have faith in the BIble, it is quite another to deny impartial facts that defeat it. Do you really think there is a conspiracy to create gods out of the Roman Emperors and kings just to disprove Jesus' divinity?

Sorry, the conspiracy is to create divinities where none exist. Obviously.
Again, I am not denying that. I am denying that Yeshua acknowledged that. You claimed that there were records of the use of Roman coins in the Temple, indicating acknowledgement that Caesar was a deity. I am just asking you to provide support for that, in accordance with the TOS.

You asserted that I did something. It is on you to provide examples of that. It is not up to me to provide examples of were I did not do that.
I am asserting you have never done something, and that something you have never done is show your magical HaTorah exists. I can demonstrate something you reference that seems to be in your imagination.

I just can't do it. You want me to reference a document that seems to be completely in your imagination... HUH?

Apology accepted, if you acknowledge the point you would have otherwise avoided by throwing this fellow debater under the bus like that![/quote]


There is a Torah scroll in every Synogogue and in the front of every bible.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #23

Post by marco »

Elijah John wrote:

Would Christ have been a good and effective debater, say, on this site?
I'm afraid if he'd said the following:-

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness,"

he would have received a warning for being uncivil.


We mustn't judge Jesus by his virtuosity in dealing with dim-wits. Take the following:

“Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?�

That illustrates the headaches he caused by using metaphorical language. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. I would like to have seen Jesus replying to Aristotle, Plato, Cicero or Seneca.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #24

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]
As I pointed out Socrates...
Yes you keep bringing up Socrates and other non-sequiturs to save a point that can't be saved.
So as I pointed out, your analogy is flawed.
The forum may be Christianity and Apologetics, but the topic of the thread is "Would Christ have been a good debater?"
So Christ is the son-of-god to prove his existence sometimes, and a normal joe to prove his existence others, because, of course, to be a good debater, to save souls, etc., he would be expected to have good wisdom. As a matter of fact, so much of the NT is about people with nothing better to do than try to confound an itinerant preacher, demonstrating just how good a debater he was.

It worked well for him strung up in the cross like that for losing a trial.
But then despite being crucified as a criminal, it was supposedly for our sins?
LOL.
I am denying that Yeshua acknowledged that [Caesar was a god].
So you believe Iosua was an idiot who was unaware of other gods, even though such carelessness risked God's wrath? You believe he was unaware of other (claims of) gods? That you believe he was unaware that his audience was unaware that Caesar was a god? Sorry, both Jesus, Jews and the Romans and Greeks (and others) listening to him would have known Caesar was a god. Oh, well.

We are discussing Jesus' support of the God Caesar's tax, BUT I am glad you have finally recognized that Caesr's blasphemous coins would not be allowed in a Jewish temple, for exactly those reasons you have been denying.

Finally! so there is no such thing as a HaTorah, but it is just the Torah... and the Ha! is just an aim at pretentiousness?

I am so glad I spelled Ha!Torah correctly, then.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #25

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]
That bit of nonsense was the rule of law. Any honest wittness could have stepped forward and caste the first stone, but none did. Of course, if it were determined that the witness committed perjury, then that witness would have been stoned.
No one would have been stoned as this was all dramaitzed theater for effect. No one had the right to carry out capital punishment but Rome. This was nothing more than a test of Jesus' knowledge of the law. There was no danger of anyone getting stoned.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #26

Post by marco »

shnarkle wrote:
No one would have been stoned as this was all dramaitzed theater for effect. No one had the right to carry out capital punishment but Rome. This was nothing more than a test of Jesus' knowledge of the law. There was no danger of anyone getting stoned.
Distance confers comfort. I wonder if the lady, taken in adultery, would have been equally relaxed about the possible consequences of her public referral. And I wonder what the follow-up would have been had Jesus simply said: "Have her stoned."

I don't share your view that the Romans concerned themselves too much with one barbarian killing another. They had a touch of multiculturalism and laissez faire, as long as it didn't interfere with Rome.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8637
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #27

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 25 by shnarkle]
No one would have been stoned as this was all dramaitzed theater for effect. No one had the right to carry out capital punishment but Rome. This was nothing more than a test of Jesus' knowledge of the law. There was no danger of anyone getting stoned
So the apologists say.
An aweful stupid game to play with ones' lives.
Especially since bearing false witness is a sin as well.
So, no matter what way you slice that It was true/it was false/ it was a test, it comes up wrong, and is obviously just a fable, at best, and at worst, (if you were Jewish) a story promoting the abrogating of the punishment for breaking a commandment.

There is no way around.
There is no way Jesus comes out a hero to the Jews or the God of the Jews.

The best answer for an itinerant preacher of no worth or opinion of value to say was: Am I your rabbi, has the temple affirmed me? Go see Rabbi Smith and seek his wisdom.

I mean after all, do you go down the road to your street preacher and ask him what to do on such things?
No, you wouldn't then, either.
It is just a made up story.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12196
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #28

Post by Elijah John »

Jagella wrote: You speak as an apologist. Just consign all Jesus' errors to hyperbole, and the problem is solved.
I hope you have read enough of my posts and topics to realize that I am no conventional apologist! ;)

Nor do I consign Jesus actual errors to hyperbole. I do believe Jesus was literally wrong in passages like Matthew 16.27-28. Plainly and simply wrong.

Either that, or the NT writers were wrong in ascribing such statements to Jesus.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #29

Post by dianaiad »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:


Its getting to the point where it looks like you are flooding the forums with these feeble and rather vacuous questions/subjects. I mean, c'mon...what would Christ say on this site? What is he supposed to say? If you are wrong, he will correct you, and if you are right, he will commend you. Is there any more to it than that, generally speaking?

Seriously.
:warning: Moderator Warning


Comment on the content of the posts. Do not make negative statements about the people who write them.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Would Christ have been a good debater?

Post #30

Post by shnarkle »

marco wrote:
shnarkle wrote:
No one would have been stoned as this was all dramaitzed theater for effect. No one had the right to carry out capital punishment but Rome. This was nothing more than a test of Jesus' knowledge of the law. There was no danger of anyone getting stoned.
I wonder if the lady, taken in adultery, would have been equally relaxed about the possible consequences of her public referral. And I wonder what the follow-up would have been had Jesus simply said: "Have her stoned."
No need to wonder when looking at what the texts state. Let's take a look:
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
Here's the problem. The keepers of the law are losing their status to this Johnny come lately who is grabbing all the attention. This isn't good for business. Notice that the author says "all" the people are listening to him.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Again, this is pure theater. Jesus is being tested for his knowledge of the law.
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Verse 5 is key to understanding that this is a test of his knowledge. They bring this woman and suggest that she should be stoned, but they never state exactly what they mean by "such". They suggest that "such" should be stoned, but the Mosaic law provides more than one case for adultery. The scribes and Pharisees haven't indicated whether this woman is married or single. The other party necessary for this offence to occur is also conspicuously absent which has puzzled those who have no reason to be tested on their knowledge of the Mosaic law in the first place. For those who do warrant this attention, a test is required, and this is precisely what the texts state.
6 This they said, testing him, that they might have to accuse him.
Accuse him of what? Breaking the law? Nope. He's not the one in the dock. He's the one being tested remember? He's the one who has "all" the people listening to him teach so he's the one they want to accuse of not knowing what he's talking about.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
He wrote on the ground. Here again it would never enter into the scribes and Pharisees heads to bother testing someone who knows practically nothing about the Mosaic law. However, their hubris is in assuming that their test subject knows less than them, and the power of this scene is in this setting. A packed Temple. This would normally be a good thing for business, but not this time.

The scribes and Pharisees are presenting Jesus with a law that has fallen into disuse due to the fact that God left the Temple to be destroyed; hence the renovation project going on at that very moment, and the ability for rocks to be picked up in the first place(also as props).

Normally both parties would be brought to justice(Deut.22:23,24), but in the case presented "such" was not the case when a married woman who had been warned not to seclude herself with other men(Num.5:11-31). This was for at least two reasons. If the wife was found innocent the other party needn't be exposed, and out of respect for the husband. That procedure required curses be written out, hence the writing in the dirt . This is all theater, and secondary to the fact that the author's of John's gospel are spotlighting that none of this would be happening unless God were in the temple in the first place, but that's just the thing they're spotlighting with Jesus' knowledge of the law. Jesus is the high priest carrying out righteous judgement, and he's doing this because God is back in the Temple. The scribes and Pharisees see that he has ruled correctly and his knowledge is beyond question. God is the only one who is without sin. Therefore...
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
It is also pertinent to note that these narratives were developed within the Jewish liturgy. They are a reflection of the birth and development of the early church, and their struggles with the status quo. The woman is a type for Israel as well as the church in the New Testament. This theme would have been in the forefront of the early church so it should come as no surprise that it shows up in their liturgy.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
I don't share your view that the Romans concerned themselves too much with one barbarian killing another. They had a touch of multiculturalism and laissez faire, as long as it didn't interfere with Rome.
And usurping Roman power was of no little concern to Rome, especially when dealing with a people who could erupt into a mass riot over the killing of one barbarian by another one. They would't have placed a tyrannical ruthless despot in charge of a people who were meek and compliant. They put him there to make sure they didn't think about getting out of line. The fact that the texts point out that Jesus was found innocent and tortured, then crucified by the Roman government spotlights the fact that they had no problem making sure no one else got any bright ideas to take matters into their own hands. Rome would decide who would die, even if Rome considered them innocent.

Post Reply