Would Christ have been a good debater?

[Elijah John]

Inspired by Marco's recent thread regarding the intelligence of Christ, and steveb1's post in that thread:

[Replying to marco]
His quips, comebacks, and his way of reversing intellectual traps and springing them on foes hints at a very sharp, alert intelligence that was able to successfully deal with a variety of circumstances, some of them potentially lethal to Jesus.

Allow me to present a variation on the theme.

Would Christ have been a good and effective debater, say, on this site?

Do you think he would have abided by the rules of the forum?

How logical were his arguments?

Please provide examples, and illustrate "why" or "why not".

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Well, he was able to fool most of the people most of the time.

However, no one seems to notice, that despite what the Bibles SAYS, Jesus fell into every trap.

In the case of the adulterer, he abrogated his father's lawful punishment, stoning, for a bit of nonsense.
A pious Jew would regard this as blasphemy, and if it caused too much trouble, insist upon his death. (And that is what happened.)

In the case of taxation, where the coins being demanded were the graven images of other Gods (the God Caesar and the Goddess, Pax) he said that Jews should not only pay the tax, but stated that what should be rendered to Caesar should be rendered to him before God.*
For these three blasphemies against God, pious Jews could only insist that he be killed. (And that is what happened.)

Then we have Jesus being killed for violating Jewish law, but somehow being brought back for you Jew's and Christian's sins. I don't know how he'd of gotten out of that one.

However, his debating skills seem only to work in hindsight, when events are heavily re-interpreted. As far as I can tell, he evaded no traps - and was killed quite justly by Jewish laws - for being so clever.

* = it even makes a MORE POWERFUL statement - "Render to God what is his before you render to (the God) Caesar what is Caesar's."

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Would Christ have been a good and effective debater, say, on this site?

Do you think he would have abided by the rules of the forum?

Please provide examples, and illustrate "why" or "why not".

Jesus was not a good debater. He was abusive and angry with the Pharisees, for example. He got his facts wrong too wrongly claiming that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds. He would sometimes ramble and could be very difficult to understand. If he debated in this forum, his personal attacks would probably get him into trouble.

[bluethread]

In the case of the adulterer, he abrogated his father's lawful punishment, stoning, for a bit of nonsense.

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.

In the case of taxation, where the coins being demanded were the graven images of other Gods (the God Caesar and the Goddess, Pax) he said that Jews should not only pay the tax, but stated that what should be rendered to Caesar should be rendered to him before God.

No, He did not say anything about Ceasar being a deity. He merely said to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, specifically the coin.

As far as I can tell, he evaded no traps - and was killed quite justly by Jewish laws - for being so clever.

No, nearly everything about Yeshua's trial was done in violation of HaTorah.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Would Christ have been a good and effective debater, say, on this site?

Do you think he would have abided by the rules of the forum?

Please provide examples, and illustrate "why" or "why not".

Jesus was not a good debater. He was abusive and angry with the Pharisees, for example. He got his facts wrong too wrongly claiming wrongly that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds. He would sometimes ramble and could be very difficult to understand. If he debated in this forum, his personal attacks would probably get him into trouble.

Yes, he did get angry with the Pharisees and even called them names. That, while uderstandable, would be considered a "personal attack" here.

And I'm no botanist, but perhaps the mustard seed was indeed the smallest seed, in his region of the world.

Or he could have been using hyperbole. Jesus dd, after all, use poetic language.

The rambing is found mostly in the Gospel of John, and not in the Synoptics. Three out of four Gospel evangelists agree, that Jesus didn't ramble!

I think the Synoptics better capure the voice of the "real Jesus". John presents us with an theologically interpreted Jesus.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

Thy protestations against my exposure of the obvious fraud, are music to my ears, and as ridiculous as a man denying the true Son of God three times!

Your lovely footnotes and assumptions to the story make for great excuses. But if he made the right decisions, why did they crucify him? Not so great at avoiding traps if you ask me.

No, He did not say anything about Ceasar being a deity.

Of course Jesus didn't say anything about Caesar being a deity, he didn't say anything about God being a deity either. The audience, unlike yourself, knew that Caesar was a deity, just as they assumed that God was. It was temples dedicated to them both that gave it away.

No, nearly everything about Yeshua's trial was done in violation of HaTorah.

Ah, yes, your magical HaTorah, a piece of fiction that when ever you are asked to provide a reference to, you don't. Is it just in your mind, or is it an actual thing somewhere?

In any event, that it was against some magical Jewish document, is your word against the Jews of the first century. Every time you bring up this argument you are essentially calling them both dishonest and imbeciles. ON TOP OF THAT, you are making the rather simple assumption that anyone would care what a character of Jesus' character would think, and put up traps for him.

According to the Bible he was poor rabble, not worthy of contemplation... yet ooooh, conspiracy abounds around him. That bit of the story is as ridiculous as graves being opened; and many bodies of saints who had died being raised; and coming out of the graves after Jesus' resurrection, then going into the holy city and appearing to many.

Not-so-much.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

And I'm no botanist, but perhaps the mustard seed was indeed the smallest seed, in his region of the world.

A matter Jesus did get wrong is his saying the mustard seed is the smallest seed. It is not the smallest seed. At approximately 1/20th inch, the mustard seed is five times the size of the seed of the begonia plant. Jesus might be excused here by saying that the mustard seed was the smallest seed known to his listeners, but even in Jesus' day the Jews would have known of a smaller seed, that of the black orchid.

Or he could have been using hyperbole. Jesus dd, after all, use poetic language.

You speak as an apologist. Just consign all Jesus' errors to hyperbole, and the problem is solved.

The rambing is found mostly in the Gospel of John, and not in the Synoptics. Three out of four Gospel evangelists agree, that Jesus didn't ramble!

A good example of Jesus rambling is that of his prayer in John 17. In verse 11 he says: "And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you." If Jesus wasn't in the world, then where was he? He wasn't in heaven because he was still going to his Father. Maybe he was out in space somewhere.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

Thy protestations against my exposure of the obvious fraud, are music to my ears, and as ridiculous as a man denying the true Son of God three times!

Your lovely footnotes and assumptions to the story make for great excuses. But if he made the right decisions, why did they crucify him? Not so great at avoiding traps if you ask me.

Well, Socrates was also convicted and executed, and it is generally believed that he was a rather clever fellow.

No, He did not say anything about Ceasar being a deity.

Of course Jesus didn't say anything about Caesar being a deity, he didn't say anything about God being a deity either. The audience, unlike yourself, knew that Caesar was a deity, just as they assumed that God was. It was temples dedicated to them both that gave it away.

He never referred to Caesar as a deity. He referred to Adonai as a deity repeatedly throughout His life. It may have been their desire to get Him to acknowledge that Caesar was considered a deity, but it didn't work.

No, nearly everything about Yeshua's trial was done in violation of HaTorah.

Ah, yes, your magical HaTorah, a piece of fiction that when ever you are asked to provide a reference to, you don't. Is it just in your mind, or is it an actual thing somewhere?

I provide references all of the time. There is a Torah scroll in every synagogue. And it is also the first five books in every bible.

In any event, that it was against some magical Jewish document, is your word against the Jews of the first century. Every time you bring up this argument you are essentially calling them both dishonest and imbeciles. ON TOP OF THAT, you are making the rather simple assumption that anyone would care what a character of Jesus' character would think, and put up traps for him.

I am not calling them anything. I am merely stating my judgement regarding how the events line up with the requirements of the Scriptures.

[Elijah John]

Just to refine the OP a little bit. Did Christ mostly appeal to reason, using logical arguments in his preaching and religious debates?

How good and logical were his arguments?

Or did he mostly preach, appealing to his own authority.

Examples of each?

[Jagella]

Just to refine the OP a little bit. Did Christ mostly appeal to reason, using logical arguments in his preaching and religious debates?

Although it might be best to examine Jesus' arguments (if he ever really made any arguments) on a case-by-case basis, I'd say he mostly made assertions that he demanded others take as the truth. He rarely resorted to logic. (See Mark 16:16.)

How good and logical were his arguments?

Again, it's best to look at each of his claims individually. Little attributed to Jesus seems true to me.

Or did he mostly preach, appealing to his own authority.

He did plenty of that! Jesus is portrayed by the gospel writers as an egomaniac who essentially preached that what he said was true because he made himself out to be "The Truth" (upper-case T). It's laughable that a man who equated himself to truth would make a category error in doing so. (See John 14:6.)

And even this is based on the assumption that Jesus really existed. 2 Peter 1:16:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Oh? You didn't follow cleverly devised myths?