Instigator / Pro

FishChaser

1542

rating

110

debates

59.55%

won

Topic

#6154

If the Abrahamic God is real, Judaism is true

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

FishChaser

Parameters

Publication date: 05.16.2025 07:13PM
Last updated date: 06.03.2025 05:12PM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: None

Contender / Con

TheRizzler

1486

rating

debates

70.0%

won

Description

Semantic argument = forfeit/concession

Round 1

FishChaser

05.17.2025 01:44AM

Pro

There are three Abrahamic religions and all 3 of them say that Judaism is true. Christians believe that their religion is the continuation of true OT (old testament) Judaism and Muslims believe the same thing about their own religion. Modern Jews also affirm that OT Judaism is legitimate but that certain aspects have evolved, so essentially all three see OT Judaism as the OG correct religion and just disagree what the proper continuation of it is. This isn't all I have in store though, because I have recently begun to suspect that Judaism in it's current form is more correct than Christianity or Islam. Consider the following inconsistencies present in the NT:

1: God suddenly becomes a trinity when no Jew believed this prior.

2: Eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood becomes a sacrament when drinking blood or eating human flesh would have been considered super forbidden to Jews throughout all of Jewish history.

3: The concept of afterlife suddenly changes, there is no "hell" in Judaism and heaven is a subject of debate.

4: NT promotes a very ascetic outlook and glorifies the rejection of worldly pleasure whereas OT views pleasure as a good thing.

5: Jesus's sacrifice is supposed to be a gift to the world to allow it's salvation but more people will be saved if Judaism is true and Christianity is false.

In this paragraph I shall elaborate on point number 5. Jews have a concept known as "Noahide law" which is a set of 7 very simple, very reasonable principles that gentiles must follow in order to be considered righteous and have a place beside Jews in the afterlife. Jews in contrast were given way more rules (613) and held to a much higher standard in exchange for divine revelation and intervention meant to make them the top dogs morally, intellectually and socially (which ironically actually happened as Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any population and Jews are the most wealthy/influential race on earth). If Christianity is true then you must believe in Jesus specifically to be saved (all other religions are fucked), you must receive valid sacraments (presumably from the Catholic Church), you must strictly abstain from hedonistic pleasure (lame and not supported by OT texts), all of this is particularly a problem for people living in Asia. If Judaism is true however non-jews must simply not worship idols, not curse God, not murder, not steal, not commit sexual immorality such as adultery (this doesn't include masturbation), not be cruel to animals and be a respecter of lawfulness.

In this paragraph I will elaborate on point number 4. It doesn't make sense that God suddenly decided to change his attitude on pleasure after giving the Jews 613 laws and never once saying it is a crime to masturbate or get drunk etc. If this is as important to God as Christians think it is then surely he could have added a couple extra commandments about it, but instead we see pleasure and earthly things celebrated as a blessing from God in the OT. The Catholic Church even goes so far as to label recreational drug use (including getting drunk) and masturbation/any not purely reproductive sexual act as a MORTAL SIN ON PAR WITH COMMITTING MURDER. There is no way this isn't a contradiction (on top of being downright irrational), God literally went from being indifferent about it to hating it with a burning passion.

If Judaism is true, Christianity was allowed to spread by God (after filtering out the more toxic/blasphemic version known as gnosticism) because even though it comes with false concepts it also facilitated the mass spread of Jewish values into gentile populations. If Christianity is true the vast majority of Jews after Jesus came were damned as a result since most of them continued to be Jewish and even among gentiles it caused more people to be damned as it went from simple rules of decency to needing a hyper-specific religion with hyper-specific sacraments (assuming catholicism is true everyone who isn't catholic is screwed in that regard) and needing to follow stricter rules. Even most Christians will be damned if Christianity is true.

As for Islam, God's morality suddenly changing is also an issue. Islam also doesn't have an explanation for why the Jews literally rule the earth if God supposedly abandoned them for breaking his covenant. There is also no evidence that Judaism was originally more similar to Islam than modern Judaism as Muslims claim.

TheRizzler

05.18.2025 11:36PM

Con

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for having me and putting effort into this debate.

Burden of proof:

The official resolution for the Pro side is 'If the Abrahamic God is real, Judaism is true'. So, my opponent must prove beyond reasonable doubt that if the God in the Torah/Old Testament is real, that directly proves Judaism to be true. Due to the nature of the claim, Pro should not introduce any new/outside evidence, but rely strictly on his the Old Testament. Any other evidence that supports Judaism would be outside of the subject of this debate. He also has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity and Islam are untrue, because if either of them is true then Judaism is false. This makes Pro burden of proof very immense.

Arguments:

There are three Abrahamic religions and all 3 of them say that Judaism is true.

Judaism is one of those three religions and it conflicts with the other ones.

1: God suddenly becomes a trinity when no Jew believed this prior.

(a) There are several references to the trinity in the Old Testament, such as God using the pronouns 'us' and 'we' multiple times. Also there are verses that hint at the trinity such as Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 61:1.

(b) Even if the Jews did not believe in the trinity, that's not valid proof that Christianity is false.

2: Eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood becomes a sacrament when drinking blood or eating human flesh would have been considered super forbidden to Jews throughout all of Jewish history.

We can all agree that Christians obviously don't actually eat flesh and blood. It's a metaphor for the sacrifice Jesus gave. Claiming that it contradicts the Old Testament is a bit of a stretch.

3: The concept of afterlife suddenly changes, there is no "hell" in Judaism and heaven is a subject of debate.

Saying that the New Testament introduces new information is hardly evidence against it.

4: NT promotes a very ascetic outlook and glorifies the rejection of worldly pleasure whereas OT views pleasure as a good thing.

I'm gonna need more than just an empty claim. How about some evidence or quotes here?

5: Jesus's sacrifice is supposed to be a gift to the world to allow it's salvation but more people will be saved if Judaism is true and Christianity is false.

In this paragraph I shall elaborate on point number 5. Jews have a concept known as "Noahide law" which is a set of 7 very simple, very reasonable principles that gentiles must follow in order to be considered righteous and have a place beside Jews in the afterlife. Jews in contrast were given way more rules (613) and held to a much higher standard in exchange for divine revelation and intervention meant to make them the top dogs morally, intellectually and socially (which ironically actually happened as Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any population and Jews are the most wealthy/influential race on earth). If Christianity is true then you must believe in Jesus specifically to be saved (all other religions are fucked), you must receive valid sacraments (presumably from the Catholic Church), you must strictly abstain from hedonistic pleasure (lame and not supported by OT texts), all of this is particularly a problem for people living in Asia. If Judaism is true however non-jews must simply not worship idols, not curse God, not murder, not steal, not commit sexual immorality such as adultery (this doesn't include masturbation), not be cruel to animals and be a respecter of lawfulness.

My opponent is essentially saying 'Judaism is better for people's general well being so it must be more true than Christianity'. He also claims that the New Testament requires refraining from pleasures that the New Testament does not command people to refrain from. I'm genuinely not sure whether this is true or not, so I would appreciate some examples.

In this paragraph I will elaborate on point number 4. It doesn't make sense that God suddenly decided to change his attitude on pleasure after giving the Jews 613 laws and never once saying it is a crime to masturbate or get drunk etc. If this is as important to God as Christians think it is then surely he could have added a couple extra commandments about it, but instead we see pleasure and earthly things celebrated as a blessing from God in the OT. The Catholic Church even goes so far as to label recreational drug use (including getting drunk) and masturbation/any not purely reproductive sexual act as a MORTAL SIN ON PAR WITH COMMITTING MURDER. There is no way this isn't a contradiction (on top of being downright irrational), God literally went from being indifferent about it to hating it with a burning passion.

Again there is no quote/example to back your claims up. I would really appreciate it. As for the Catholic Church, I have no arguments to back it up (and I agree it's probably incorrect in multiple areas), as I am not a Catholic.

If Judaism is true, Christianity was allowed to spread by God (after filtering out the more toxic/blasphemic version known as gnosticism) because even though it comes with false concepts it also facilitated the mass spread of Jewish values into gentile populations. If Christianity is true the vast majority of Jews after Jesus came were damned as a result since most of them continued to be Jewish and even among gentiles it caused more people to be damned as it went from simple rules of decency to needing a hyper-specific religion with hyper-specific sacraments (assuming catholicism is true everyone who isn't catholic is screwed in that regard) and needing to follow stricter rules. Even most Christians will be damned if Christianity is true.

You are repeating some concepts here:

(a) The other non Judaism religions can't be true if they land more people in hell. This is hardly a logical argument.

(b) "Even most Christians will be damned if Christianity is true." That is false. You seem to be using Christianity and Catholicism interchangeably.

As a Protestant Christian myself, I don't really have much to defend Catholicism or Muslim/Islam. However I can say that Pro definitely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that if the Old Testament is true, Judaism is true. While he raised some thought-provoking theological questions concerning other Abrahamic Religions, he was unable to meet the steep burden of proof required since he had to disprove them. Even if the unverified claims I mentioned earlier are all true, Pro would still not be able to meet his burden of proof. It is nearly impossible to concretely show the other religions as false using only the Old Testament.

I wish my opponent luck in the next round. That is all.

Round 2

FishChaser

05.19.2025 04:18PM

Pro

Pro should not introduce any new/outside evidence, but rely strictly on his the Old Testament. Any other evidence that supports Judaism would be outside of the subject of this debate.

You are arbitrarily trying to set up boundaries that don't need to be there as a sleazy, underhanded, intellectually dishonest tactic to ensure your own victory. You haven't substantiated why I can't appeal to reason, empirical evidence, scriptures etc. that exist outside the text of the OT. There are multiple angles I can use and you are trying to limit them to give yourself an advantage, not because those angles aren't valid.

He also has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity and Islam are untrue, because if either of them is true then Judaism is false. This makes Pro burden of proof very immense.

Proving either of them right actually proves Judaism true, because both agree that Judaism is true and just disagree what the proper continuation of it is. Once again though, you're trying to arbitrarily dictate what my BOP is to give yourself an advantage. Your BOP is actually much bigger than mine because you have to not only prove that either Islam or Christianity is more likely to be true but that this somehow doesn't also mean that Judaism is true even though both just claim to be the continuation of Judaism.

(a) There are several references to the trinity in the Old Testament, such as God using the pronouns 'us' and 'we' multiple times. Also there are verses that hint at the trinity such as Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 61:1.

There are also verses that insinuate God is female if you read the original hebrew text. You can make OT say all sorts of things by either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the original hebrew text. According to Jews who actually learn the OT in Hebrew, Christian translations contain numerous errors and Christians frequently make shitty interpretations that superimpose their beliefs on to what is fundamentally a Jewish text meant to be understood by Jews in it's original language and none of them see these verses as supporting trinitarian theology.

We can all agree that Christians obviously don't actually eat flesh and blood. It's a metaphor for the sacrifice Jesus gave.

There are multiple views of the eucharist but only the most theologically brain dead denominations think it's symbolic.

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist: Transubstantiation, it literally IS the body/blood of Christ and this is by far the most mainstream view.

Lutheran: Consubstantiation, Jesus's body is "with" the eucharist so it's still cannibalism.

Reformed denoms: real spiritual presence of christ in eucharist, not physical.

baptist: Pastor billy bobs backwater baptist bible church in alabama often says eucharist is symbolic, but baptists aren't even real christians because their theology is retarded.

Saying that the New Testament introduces new information is hardly evidence against it.

The new testament introduces theological concepts which are foreign to judaism, however Jesus also plagiarizes and reiterates things that previous Jewish theologians and philosophers said. Literally every one of Jesus's moral teachings come from previous sources.

The trinity concept is plagiarized from the philosopher Plato.

Plato: Everything proceeds from a metaphysical reality called "good"

Jesus: The Father is the only good

Plato: the logos/word is the organizing principle which proceeds from the logos

John the Baptist: Jesus is the logos/word made flesh

Plato: the world-spirit proceeds from logos and shapes the world

Christians: the holy spirit is the hand of God

I'm gonna need more than just an empty claim. How about some evidence or quotes here?

Read Ecclesiastes then read the gospels and epistles and tell me if they have the same mindset at all. One is saying to enjoy your life as much as possible and the other is saying to deny yourself, deny worldly pleasure and embrace suffering.

This is why many early Christian communities were full of extreme ascetics and to this day many denoms see pleasure as inherently evil. One of the church fathers, Origen, even castrated himself to avoid lust. This makes sense when you consider that Jesus recommended plucking out your own eye and cutting off your own hand to avoid sinning.

You think you can just sit back and tell me what standard of evidence I have to meet and what my BOP is, you have provided no evidence for your own claims and have even said something blatantly false in claiming that all christians view eucharist as symbolic.

He also claims that the New Testament requires refraining from pleasures that the New Testament does not command people to refrain from. I'm genuinely not sure whether this is true or not, so I would appreciate some examples.

I would like some examples of where you got the idea that Christians view the eucharist as symbolic. You were literally just talking out of your ass like you were from the beginning, to try and frame things in a way that makes you the default winner.

(a) The other non Judaism religions can't be true if they land more people in hell. This is hardly a logical argument.

All 3 religions claim that God is benevolent.

"Even most Christians will be damned if Christianity is true." That is false. You seem to be using Christianity and Catholicism interchangeably.

That's because Catholicism is the most likely to be the correct denomination if Christianity is true. In Christianity there is a concept known as the magisterium, which is the authority of the body of clergy to make authoritative and sometimes even infallible statements on Christian doctrine. If you look at the history of the church from it's beginning and examine every schism the most likely interpretation is that all other denoms have been disconnected from the magisterium and thus have no magisterial power. The Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Eastern Orthodox church all schismed from the Catholic Church over arguments they were clearly in the wrong about. The Protestant reformation likewise resulted in a chaotic theological free for all and disconnected from the default "one true church".

. However I can say that Pro definitely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that if the Old Testament is true, Judaism is true.

So far I have provided way more arguments and far more substantial ones. If we end this debate and there is more supporting my side than yours, I am the rightful winner. You want me to be held to the highest standard of evidence and for you to be able to just glide through as the default winner if I don't jump through each hoop that you arbitrarily decide on.

TheRizzler

05.20.2025 03:35PM

Con

I think it's best that I now lay out my case in what I believe is the simplest way possible.

Pro's official resolution is: If the Abrahamic God is real, Judaism is true.

The key wording is 'is true'. Since he does not say 'is probably/most likely true', he must prove with 100% certainty that (given the God of the Old Testament is true) Judaism is true as a whole. That means if (by the end of the debate) there is any chance, however small, that Judaism is false, then he failed to meet the burden of proof.

I will narrow my focus between Christianity and Judaism from now on, since I have little knowledge concerning Islam.

Pro has claimed multiple times that 'Christianity and Judaism work together' and 'if Christianity is true then Judaism is true'. However he could not be more wrong on that matter. The greatest difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity claims Jesus is the son of God and savior of the world, and Judaism claims he was a false prophet. Jesus was either the Son of God or he wasn't, so either Christianity is true and Judaism is false, or Judaism is true and Christianity is false. They are clearly mutually exclusive.

Essentially, this means that in order for Pro to win this debate and meet his burden of proof, he must completely disprove Christianity as a whole (something many people have tried to do and failed for centuries). Even if he shows that Christianity is very unlikely in comparison to Judaism, that would not count as him meeting the burden of proof. Again, he must absolutely disprove Christianity with 100% certainty in order to prove Judaism is correct. Thus, his burden of proof is insurmountable.

While he has raised interesting theological questions that may cast doubt concerning Christianity, he has not 100% disproved it. Frankly, I believe it is impossible to 100% disprove Christianity and all its denominations.

Additional rebuttals:

My opponent claimed there are many New Testament contradictions with the Old Testament but have provided no direct citations showing these. When I requested for some cited evidence earlier, he just told me to "go read Ecclesiastes". However, It is not mine nor any voters responsibility to verify Pro's claims, but it is up to him to provide evidence.

Pro insists most historic churches teach the Eucharist as literal cannibalism. That’s a caricature. Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestants explain it sacramentally, not cannibalistically.

OT praises joy in wine (Psalm 104:15), but also warns against drunkenness (Proverbs 23:20–21). Your charge that God “suddenly” hates pleasure is overstated. Pro hasn't shown any explicit NT prohibition on wine or song—New Testament epistles caution excess, but do not ban celebration under grace.

Referring to “Bible church in Alabama” as “retarded” insults a whole group and undermines Pro's credibility. Let’s keep this academic. Because of the unnecessary disrespect, I believe it's safe to say Pro loses the conduct point.

That is all I have to say for this round. Best of luck to FishChaser.

Round 3

FishChaser

05.20.2025 03:57PM

Pro

If the Abrahamic God is real, either Judaism is true (hence judaism is true) Christianity is true (hence judaism is true) or Islam is true (hence judaism is true). There are 3 options here, one option being held to an infinitely higher standard doesn't make sense, especially when any of them being true means that one is also true. If the Abrahamic God is real, one of them must be true and Judaism is actually the DEFAULT answer since both Christianity and Islam affirm it's truth. The burden of proof is on the two latter religions to prove that the religion of the Jews is now their own, even though the actual Jews don't agree with them. Further it requires a great deal of substantiation and BoP to support the idea that two religions which are derived from and are built on a foundation of judaism actually don't affirm judaism.

The entire Bible that Christians use was written by PRACTICING JEWS. The literal "God" Jesus that Christians worship was a practicing Jew. You are worshipping a practicing Jew while claiming that Judaism is false. All of the moral teachings professed by Jesus were already said in different words by Jewish scholars that proceeded him. In order for Christianity to be true, Judaism must be true or it's entire foundation is ripped out from under it.

TheRizzler

05.20.2025 05:12PM

Con

My opponent's big mistake in this debate is this:

He asserts that Judaism is not a separate religion from Christianity and Islam, but that Christianity and Muslim are encompassed within Judaism/they support Judaism. This is not the case.

Practicers and preachers of Judaism assert that Jesus is not the son of God. Christians all believe the opposite. Therefore, since the beliefs contradict, if one is true, the other must be false.

The logical error Pro appears he is making is: If Judaism is false, then ALL the beliefs of Judaism are false. If ALL the beliefs of Judaism are false Christianity cannot be true. In reality, Judaism (as a whole) has a false truth value if any part of it is false. That does not mean all other Judaistic beliefs automatically become false as well.

In conclusion:

It is possible for Christianity to be true and for Judaism to be false at the same time.

If Christianity is true, then Judaism must be false.

Pro failed to disprove Christianity

Therefore he failed to meet the burden of proof and fulfill his resolution (If the Abrahamic God is real, Judaism must be true).

TheRizzler

06.03.2025 12:52PM

#14

-->

@AdaptableRatman

VOTE QUICK!!!

TheRizzler

06.02.2025 06:36PM

#13

-->

@AdaptableRatman

I personally believe that I beat FishChaser soundly in this debate. If you think that he won, I would like you to explain why you think so (via private message or comment section) before you officially cast your vote. However, you really don't need my permission to vote against me.

AdaptableRatman

06.02.2025 05:13PM

#12

-->

@TheRizzler

if I vote against you is it fine?

I am asking before I reread this fully.

Based on a fast skimreading, I am not sure whether you won or he did. The semantics of what Judaism is, seems a huge part of the debate

AdaptableRatman

05.31.2025 02:37PM

#11

-->

@Barney

I already ignored it and voted eslewhere. I will get to this debate later ty.

Barney

05.31.2025 02:14PM

#10

-->

@AdaptableRatman

Thank you for asking... Given the unfortunate reasons for the ban, the RO isn't really in effect anymore. So while any resumed interaction ought to be handled with care, you may resume interactions much the same as had the RO reached the natural end of its lifespan.

AdaptableRatman

05.30.2025 08:28PM

-->

@Barney

Please may I vote on this debate in an objective manner as I have voted thus far?

AdaptableRatman

05.27.2025 10:34PM

-->

@TheRizzler

A user I cannot name cried to mods to ban me voting on his/her debates. Sorry, and no I am not joking.

That user is about to get banned for a loooong time though. Just waiting on whiteflame.

TheRizzler

05.27.2025 08:42PM

-->

@AdaptableRatman

This is your one week reminder :)

fauxlaw

05.21.2025 03:48AM

I will vote on this before the clock expires, trying to ignore the ongoing spat between the participants, which is too raw on both sides to offer an immediate vote which would render a loss to both for conduct, at least, not having read a word of the arguments of any round. Your debate is over, guys, Stop trying to influence voters by this useless banter, now.
If that did not make sense, try this:
Shut the @##%$% up!

AdaptableRatman

05.20.2025 08:55PM

-->

@TheRizzler

There are reasons why it is best for me to wait at least a full week before voting on this.

Remind me later ty.

TheRizzler

05.20.2025 07:04PM

-->

@FishChaser

Your resolution isn't "If the OT is true, then original Judaism is true", it's "If the OT is true, then Judaism is true". You failed to clarify that you only meant original Judaism (that has nothing to do with whether Jesus is our savior or not) so this is hardly a 'steamroll'. The comment you made is a clearly desperate attempt to sway votes in your favor.

FishChaser

05.20.2025 05:23PM

The only way con's final round holds water is if he were to substantiate that OT Judaism and modern Judaism are two different religions which he didn't. Essentially all 3 agree that Judaism is true, they just disagree what current religion is the proper successor of OG Judaism.

If anyone votes against me in this debate I know they are biased af. This was a complete stomp. I annihilated this guy and no one can tell me otherwise.

TheRizzler

05.20.2025 05:16PM

-->

@AdaptableRatman

Would appreciate a vote!

TheRizzler

05.20.2025 05:15PM

-->

@Barney

@Mall

@fauxlaw

@Sir.Lancelot

@Moozer325

Would appreciate some votes, this was a lively debate 😁!

AdaptableRatman

06.03.2025 01:26PM

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:

Conduct to Con for the insults to Alabama saying baptists from there are R slur and fake Christians also it was based no logic backing it, in Round 2. It was unprofessional conduct and also unwarranted in any logical sense for where the debate was going.

Arguments to Pro.

Con decided to drop Islam completely as he said he did not know about it. In my opinion, Islam is the single best way to win the debate for Con. The issue is that since he did not do so, the debate has then only 2 religions unless Jehovah's witnesses, seventh day adventists, latter day saints, gnostics etc got involved.

Those 2 are Judaism and Christianity. Even though Islam is technically in the debate, Con not challenging it means Islam defaults in Pro's favour as affirmibg Judaism (this is untrue but I cannot hse that knowledge as a voter because it is from outside the debate).

Con argues that Judaism must refer to modern Judaism that has more than only Tanakh involved. Pro argues that Judaism of the Old kind is enough to win.

In essence the entiee debate becomes abiut whether Judaism is true if the Bible's old testament is true. If you read Round 3 that literally becomes the sole clash.

I warned Con that on skimreading it was plausible Pro won. He demanded I vote.

I vote.

Pro wins. I do not find sufficient reason to doubt Judaism inside of Christianity. The rest of the debate ended up fluff from both sides.