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 8 by bluethread]

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

Such a non-sequitur denial (the situations ARE NOT analogous between Socrates and the blasphemous Jesus). I guess that is a concession.

Conclusion: The Jewish authorities insisted on his death because he blasphemed.

He never referred to Caesar as a deity...

Continuing the denial, huh? That Caesar was a God was written in the tithe-collecting temples in Jerusalem. It was written on the coins that would have made a Jew unclean to touch, and that Jesus didn't invent stories about the God Caesar, is not proof when it comes to the invented stories he had about God. There was the real and present man-god Caesar, and the imagined, undetectable Yahweh. But thanks for playing.
Conclusion, Jesus was and still is not an authority to the Jews on God, he is certainly not an authority on the God Caesar.

I provide references all of the time.

Perhaps you remember providing references, but the actual ones you have provided remind me that this Ha!Torah may be a figment of your imagination.

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 judgment regarding how the events line up with the requirements of the Scriptures.

I am sorry, but you are, and not it is "in your judgment" they are dishonest and painfully simplistic/complimentarily gullible. Only by believing that, could you believe such silly ruses were real.

There is no other way around.

[steveb1]

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".

Inasmuch as we moderns have inherited a lot of philosophical thinking from Greece and Rome, I doubt that Jesus would have accepted the premises, because he was not a philosopher, but a mystic and a revealer. His argumentation style is seldom "Greek", but is often "Judaic" and applies the special rules of midrash, etc. to the presumed "logic" of Jewish scriptural thinking.

As it stands in the Gospels, Jesus did seem to have a good debating style as applies to his contemporary Judean religious culture - turning back the would-be stoners of the adulteress, showing that he was not in league with Beelzebul on the principle that Satan cannot fight against himself, citing certain "signs" and scriptures which when attended to, "it follows that the Kingdom is upon you", arguing from Moses that his peers were or were not keeping to Moses, issuing his famous "then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's", puzzling his interlocutors by demanding if they thought that John's baptism was from heaven or from earthly sources (their response would either confirm John's and Jesus's misisons, or reject them, in which case the common people would have struck against the critics), etc., etc.

The Gospels of course - as hagiographies, not history - were obviously bound to depict their Christ as a wise and clever debate opponent, and so they present readers with a sly and inventive Jesus.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus was never presented as a debater by those who put "his" words in his mouth. They never presented evidence for any of the things they had him saying.

He was presented as a preacher. Preaching doesn't need evidence, in fact relying on evidence destroys preaching. Preaching's purpose is to create a shared ecstatic experience. About the only content that is key is the promise of some "promised land" that can be reached if you follow the preacher. Other than that, the content of the preaching is almost meaningless as long as the preacher creates in their audience some state of ecstasy which allows the preacher to convince the audience anything the preacher says is true.

Just watch the films of the preacher known as Adolf Hitler. You don't need to speak German to see his ability to create ecstasy in his audience. Did people follow him because his message was sound or because he promised a future paradise and gave his audience a taste of it through shared ecstatic experiences?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus was never presented as a debater ...

DEBATE

: a contention by words or arguments
b : a regulated discussion of a proposition [...] between two matched sides
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

I suppose that would come down to what one means by being "a debater".

• Jesus most certainly engaged in heated "debates" arguments over religious matters with his opponents (a). Were these arguments "regulated" in the conventional modern day idea of before a deciding authority? Not really, they were public contentions often conducted to influcence public opinion on a given matter. It was not unusual for Jesus to decline to engage depending on the circumstances, but when he did, and there is little doubt the exchanges would qualify as verbal contentions.

Did the gospel writers present Jesus as someone who on occassions "debated", as in argued his theologgical position, certainly; whether they present him as "A Debater" is a subjective, opinion based conclusion subject to whether such occassions merited such a classification. In short is anyone that engages in any sort of contention "a debater"?

[JehovahsWitness]

They [the writers] never presented evidence for any of the things they had him saying.

Irrelevant.

It is essentially irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus was presented (in scripture) as a debater or not. Even if he (Jesus) was entirely fictional and they had absolutely no evidence to support the picture they drew of hIm, the question is: "What picture did they draw of him? Was he presented as a debater or not?" Evidence that Jesus existed or support for the picture they drew of him (as a debater or not) is not a prerequisit for analysing the information they presented in the text.

The fact is that the Jesus of the gospel is presented as someone that drew on scriptural evidence on numerous occassions as support for his conclusions. In other words, when Jesus is presented as making an argument, he more often than not quoted the Hebrew scriptures (which was at the time the accepted authoritive text on religious matters) to support his points.

EVIDENCE
1.
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Whether that "evidence" should have been considered as such by the people of his day is irrelevant to this central question of whether he was a debater or not. The Hebrew scriptures where accepted as evidence (supporting "information") in his day by both participants and observerse and thus, by dictionary definition, we can conclude that the Jesus of the gospel did indeed present "evidence" for his arguments.


JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

Excellent point, if the writers never presented any evidence, then what they wrote is irrelevant.
One cannot be a good debater, at least ultimately, for irrelevant, or non-existent subjects (such as deities).

That would explain why Jesus never actually wrote anything - aside from the likely scenario that he didn't exist - because what this Jesus had to say was irrelevant and required embellishment and invention.

In order to make a silk purse out of the sows ear, as you say, he, (presumed Jesus) had to draw on the existing wisdom from the Old Testament. Or rather whom ever wrote the Bible had to copy the wisdom of the existing culture - Judaism. Without it, he had nothing to himself (of course, not being a real person).

That is an excellent revelation, and explains so much of the New Testement's unanswered questions, thank you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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".

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.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

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

Such a non-sequitur denial (the situations ARE NOT analogous between Socrates and the blasphemous Jesus). I guess that is a concession.

Conclusion: The Jewish authorities insisted on his death because he blasphemed.

The Greek authorities prosecuted Socrates for corrupting the youth and impiety. More specifically, failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledged and introducing new deities. How does the comparison not follow?

He never referred to Caesar as a deity...

Continuing the denial, huh? That Caesar was a God was written in the tithe-collecting temples in Jerusalem. It was written on the coins that would have made a Jew unclean to touch, and that Jesus didn't invent stories about the God Caesar, is not proof when it comes to the invented stories he had about God. There was the real and present man-god Caesar, and the imagined, undetectable Yahweh. But thanks for playing.
Conclusion, Jesus was and still is not an authority to the Jews on God, he is certainly not an authority on the God Caesar.

First, are you talking about the Roman temples, or Herod's Temple? If you are referring to records in Herod's Temple, please provide your sources. That said, could you please provide a reference from the Tanakh(OT) regarding Caesar being recognized as a deity.

I provide references all of the time.

Perhaps you remember providing references, but the actual ones you have provided remind me that this Ha!Torah may be a figment of your imagination.

Please, provide examples.

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

I am sorry, but you are, and not it is "in your judgment" they are dishonest and painfully simplistic/complimentarily gullible. Only by believing that, could you believe such silly ruses were real.

There is no other way around.

You have a right ot your opinion, however, so do I. Please provide an example of what I said being dishonest.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

The Greek authorities prosecuted Socrates for corrupting the youth and impiety. More specifically, failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledged and introducing new deities. How does the comparison not follow?

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! Socrates was just a man, you claim something divine. Socrates was "killed" because of his political beliefs.

Do you get how it is different, and why Jews insisted on his death? Jesus blasphemed and usurped Jewish law. Religious Jews would have no choice but to condemn, at peril of their god.

First, are you talking about the Roman temples, or Herod's Temple? If you are referring to records in Herod's Temple, please provide your sources. That said, could you please provide a reference from the Tanakh(OT) regarding Caesar being recognized as a deity.

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! You want me to provide a non-paganized Jewish source declaring Caesar a deity? You do realize that to do so would be blasphemy, right? They could not do that. Temple Mount was originally dedicated to Jupiter. Temples were where tithes were collected. I am, talking about Herod's temple AND Roman temples. Or shrines for the backwater towns.

Please, provide examples.

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! Please, provide examples of where you have not provided references to a possibly imaginary text?
Please provide proof that your HaTorah isn't a figment of your imagination.

You have a right ot your opinion, however, so do I. Please provide an example where I was dishonest.

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! See, right in this very quote, I was not calling you dishonest, yet you clipped a quote out of context and attempted to make it into a personal attack from me. How would you describe this behavior? How would Jesus describe this behavior? Looks like you've got some forgiveness to ask him for tonight in prayers.

The actual quote was:

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 [1 st century Jews and NOT you!]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 very sure you understand what you are writing...
Since you chose to try to warp it into a personal attack from me.
I surmise because to acknowledge it, and other presentations is simply to face the fact that Christianity is demonstrably false.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

The Greek authorities prosecuted Socrates for corrupting the youth and impiety. More specifically, failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledged and introducing new deities. How does the comparison not follow?

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! Socrates was just a man, you claim something divine. Socrates was "killed" because of his political beliefs.

Do you get how it is different, and why Jews insisted on his death? Jesus blasphemed and usurped Jewish law. Religious Jews would have no choice but to condemn, at peril of their god.

I don't recall claiming something divine on this thread. We are discussing whether Yeshua was a good debater, not whether He was divine. Sorry, I did not note that “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges� and “introducing new deities� was a quote. What about that is not a matter of religion. Also, how can you say that politics was not part of why Yeshua was killed?

First, are you talking about the Roman temples, or Herod's Temple? If you are referring to records in Herod's Temple, please provide your sources. That said, could you please provide a reference from the Tanakh(OT) regarding Caesar being recognized as a deity.

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! You want me to provide a non-paganized Jewish source declaring Caesar a deity? You do realize that to do so would be blasphemy, right? They could not do that. Temple Mount was originally dedicated to Jupiter. Temples were where tithes were collected. I am, talking about Herod's temple AND Roman temples. Or shrines for the backwater towns.

Then you are dealing in speculative conspiracy theories. If you have any support for the assertion that Yeshua would have recognized Caesar as a deity then provide it, as required by the TOS.

Please, provide examples.

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! Please, provide examples of where you have not provided references to a possibly imaginary text?

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.

You have a right to your opinion, however, so do I. Please provide an example where I was dishonest.

I wonder if you understand what you are writing! See, right in this very quote, I was not calling you dishonest, yet you clipped a quote out of context and attempted to make it into a personal attack from me. How would you describe this behavior? How would Jesus describe this behavior? Looks like you've got some forgiveness to ask him for tonight in prayers.

Sorry, I simply misread the post. I was not saying it is in my judgement that they are dishonest. I said nothing about their honesty, I was merely pointing out that noting about the trial was done properly. You are the one who is speculating regarding their motives.