Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    I liked this debate, First off i would state again i am a trinatarian Christian. So now my thoughts on the debate. I feel that both presented good arguments BUT starting with peoples champ. He argued that the new testament says the Old laws are abolished also that the laws were given to the Israelite's and the New Covenant was given to the gentile's. Under the New Covenant the Old laws don't necessarily apply. Now ELi's argument is that the 10 Commandments are universal and are applied to all people's not just those under the Old covenant. My take is the same as Eli i believe the 10 commandments are universal. Jesus himself affirmed the 10 commandments by placing them in 2 categories Love thy God and Love thy neighbor. If we think about the 10 commandments we can separate them in 2 different categories. Also in the Old testament God judges the nations many times. One question to ask is why does God judge those nations if there is no standard in which to judge from? meaning God must have given these people Commands which they went against to be judged for lets say Idolatry, Sexual immorality and other things. So we do see Laws were given to all nations and as Eli said they were described as the Moral laws. this is just my 2 cents but i really did enjoy this debate. I myself would not vote on this debate because my bias would take over. I thank Eli and people's champ for a wonderful debate blessings to both.

  • 2 years ago

    As a former christian and a non traditional "Jew" (by birth and by faith choices, although I fancy myself as a "deuteronomist"), I take umbrage with the idea that christianity is somehow a projection of a fulfilled "old Covenant". The idea that "christ" came to fulfill the "ceremonial law" comes from a complete misunderstanding of the Levitical system of atonements.

    I would enjoy the chance to discuss/debate the misapplied definitions and misuse of the prophets words with a context unknown at their time. I would look forward to such a debate for the purpose of honing my debate skills, and not to force a change in your faith choices.

    Since, in my understanding of the "Covenant of Moses" given by God, there is no eternal judgment for being wrong about who or what "God" is. In the Torah there is no eternal punishment. Also, no need for sacrifice during the time of Exile. During Exile, the only mechanism for atonement is defined within Torah as having no need for blood atonement. And also a Command to not fear the words of anyone who would tell you differently than what Moses presented in his day.

    I hope that we can set aside some time to discuss these ideas in light of your comments made here within this ten commandment debate.

  • 2 years ago

    @orv_claus, @eli_mcgowan and @talkingtorah I would love to have a series of religious debates that are actually religious discussions. I think eli and I did a great job doing this first one because it was very respectful.

    We should always remember that we are representatives of God when we debate and that arguing only does ourselves and our religious beliefs an injustice.

    I think you guys brought up some excellent future debate topics. I would love to see and participate in some old testament debates. I have been playing around with a debate topic that is controversial in a christian way. It would be titled something like "Genesis 3 is the most important chapter in the Bible.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ... sure.. agreed.. And a discussion on Gen 3 would be interesting. Although I would rather take the con for such a discussion. Not that I always have to take con. But, when the shoe fits.. you know :)

    • 2 years ago

      @talkingtorah it’s not something I feel is “foundational” it’s just an interesting topic To discuss, I’m trying to be provocative in a Christian way, lol

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ sure, there are many things I can think of to discuss as well. :) Although I am someone who likes to define contexts and that process is often drawn out. And repeated in most discussions. It can become a bit tedious, but I find it helpful with clarity.

  • 2 years ago

    My Post-Debate Response:

    @eli_mcgowan, @orv_claus

    This is somethings I wanted to mention as we are talking about being under the law or not being under the law.

    2 Corinthians 3:6-11

    God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters of stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.


    Here you have Paul once again speaking of the written letter of the law that was carved in stone, being brought to an end, and coming to an end. In all his writings he refers to the laws of Moses in past tense as being “brought to an end”and the New Covenant through Christ being current and permanent.

    Romans 7:1-6

    Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

    Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.


    Once again we are told that we are dead to the Law. This time it specifically references Laws from the 10 Commandments. The most important part of this is that at the end it says “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code”. Once again a reference to the 10 Commandments.


    So once again I bring up the point which I brought up in the debate. Jesus at the last supper said this is my blood that is the new covenant. We have the tearing of the veil. Then we have in every book of the Bible after the book of John saying that either the law is dead, or we are dead to the law or the law has been brought to an end.

    I assure you my translations are not wrong, because the reason why I have taken so long to write this is because I wanted to look up all my responses and translations again.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ the word for “law” there wasn’t understood by the audience, and couldn’t be understood to mean the moral law. It’s talking about the book of the law - the temple system. The temple’s veil was torn. There remains no evidence that the moral law, rooted in creation, like God’s sabbath rest on the seventh day, God’s instruction to punish murder with the death penalty, and God’s destruction of the sexually immoral isn’t still in full efffect.

    • 2 years ago

      @eli_mcgowan what you just said is not backed up by any scripture. Every scripture I have shown you says "LAW". This is what the Bible says, it makes no separation of certain types of laws. So if it is not the Bible that says it than is it scripture. Because the tiebreaker to every spritual dispute is always scripture. So my question is can you back up your point of view with scripture. I can, allow me to give you some more verses.

      I am going to give you some literal translations.

      Jesus’ death put the New Covenant in effect:

      In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living…

      In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
      Hebrews 9:16,22

      The Old Covenant is now obsolete:

      By calling this covenant “new,” He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
      Hebrews 8:13

      No one could keep the Old Covenant:

      For if there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people.
      Hebrews 8:7-8

      Changing the line of priests means changing the covenant:

      If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
      Hebrews 7:11-12

      The New Covenant is a promise made by God to Jesus:

      And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but He became a priest with an oath when God said to Him “The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: “You are a priest forever.” Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
      Hebrews 7:20-22

      Jesus, born under Law, fulfilled it for us:

      But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
      Galatians 4:4-5

      For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
      Romans 8:3-4

      Law and faith do not mix:

      Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
      Romans 10:4

      So, the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
      Galatians 3:24-25

      But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
      Galatians 5:18

      Don’t look to the Law:

      You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
      Galatians 3:1-3

      Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
      Galatians 5:2-4