Instigator / Pro

AdaptableRatman

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#6111

quick unrated debate: The apostles were Messianic Jews as opposed to Christians.

Status

Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

Tags

Jew

Parameters

Publication date: 05.06.2025 07:30AM
Last updated date: 05.07.2025 04:33PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Twelve hours
Max argument characters: 2,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

TheRizzler

1500

rating

debates

75.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

AdaptableRatman

05.07.2025 02:27AM

Pro

Forfeited

TheRizzler

05.07.2025 03:06AM

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the first round. I will allow Pro to make the first argument and set up the case, and I wish him the best of luck.

Round 2

AdaptableRatman

05.07.2025 02:03PM

Pro

They were Jews and Luke wasnt an apostle even a secondary one that got added in like Paul.

Not only were all Apostles Jews but they still figured God was Yhwh and werent sure yet on trinity or that Jesus was God. Peter in fact douvted Jesus 3 times over even being the Messiah, let alone God.

They were all circumcised if male and none ate pork. It was suggested by Paul, who ironically was a severe Pharisee, that eating pork became okay as all meat was clean spiritually now.

They still faated the Jewish fast and upheld Yom Kippur etc. lenten fasting was come up with later on in Nicaea.

They were Jews still and while Paul maybe was evolving he was also the most sexist among them amd a severe traditionalist in other respects. Paul is why Catholics rule out female priesthood despite having Nuns that preach and teach.

None of them called tbemselves non-Jews. They didnt say the Christ had made Judaism false or outdated, they claimed Judaism was now fulfilled.

They saw Jesus as a Jewish Messiah for the Judaism religion and by their own definitions, what we now call Christianity would simply have been a Jewish sect that welcomed gentiles in. The issue is that since other Newish sects see it racially exclusive by bloodline, a new religion was needed.

TheRizzler

05.07.2025 03:08PM

Con

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for having me in this debate.

Definitions:

My opponent has neglected to define key terms, so I will clarify for any unfamiliar voters.

The Apostles: The 12 disciples of Jesus who were written about in the New Testament gospels.

Messianic Jew: A person of Jewish heritage who believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

Christian: A believer (of any heritage) in the sacrifice and teachings of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

I would like to establish that the burden of proof weighs heavily on Pro. His official resolution is: "The apostles were Messianic Jews as opposed to Christians." The key word here is 'opposed', meaning he must prove that both:

1. The Apostles were Messianic Jews

2. The Apostles were not Christians

Arguments:

They were Jews and Luke wasnt an apostle even a secondary one that got added in like Paul.

While this isn't perfect English, my opponent seems to be saying that all the Apostles were Jewish.

Not only were all Apostles Jews but they still figured God was Yhwh and werent sure yet on trinity or that Jesus was God. Peter in fact douvted Jesus 3 times over even being the Messiah, let alone God.

This again is some rushed-looking English, but he says here that: 'The Apostles were Jews and they believed Jesus to be the Messiah. However they were confused by the trinity and some of them doubted for a long time whether Jesus was the Messiah or not.' He is again saying the Apostles were all Jews, and he is saying that they all eventually came to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah. This supports the claim that the Apostles were Messianic Jews, but does nothing to prove that they cannot be considered Christians as well.

Unfortunately, since my opponent chose a very low character limit, I am unable to address all of his arguments individually. However if you (the voters) look for yourselves, you will find that the rest of his arguments are trying to support that 'the Apostles were Jewish and engaged in Jewish customs' but never once say anything to prove that they weren't Christians as well. Honestly, I would say that he failed to even prove that the Apostles were Jewish, due to the fact that he provided no sources or quotes throughout his post. Thank you. That is all.

Mall

05.07.2025 04:33PM

My vote is there is no opposition in what the topic statement says as long as "messianic jew" means a believer in the Messiah.

TheRizzler

05.07.2025 03:20PM

-->

@Tickbeat

@Sunshineboy217

Vote?

TheRizzler

05.07.2025 03:20PM

-->

@Barney

@Mall

@Sir.Lancelot

@FishChaser

@TheGreatSunGod

Vote?

Sir.Lancelot

05.06.2025 03:26PM

Oh hell yeah.
This is a debate of true substance

Tickbeat

05.07.2025 04:23PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con did provide a better counter-argument than pro. However he did not provide a better argument, as he claimed he didn't have to because the burden of proof was solely on pro. But I suspect that this is only because of the low character limit, and he may have provided an argument against the idea that the apostles were Messianic Jews as opposed to Christians, not specifically just against what pro said. All pro did was make baseless claims, no evidence or sources provided.

FishChaser

05.07.2025 03:53PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro fails to define "Messianic Jew" and "Christian" in a way that makes them mutually exclusive.

Pro's argument also contains frequent typos.

TheGreatSunGod

05.07.2025 03:51PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

When person forfeits 50% of debate, by voting standards here, the need to consider his arguments ceases.