December Tournament Round 2: Jews are going to heaven.

My opponent failed to show how either all Jews have a characteristic that gets them into heaven OR that they never sin, so therefore, do not have to pay the price for sin (hell). My opponent also failed to show a verse that says you don't need Jesus, what good works even are, or that works are good enough by themselves. None of it was even implied let alone actually stated in any way we could deem to be conclusive or definitive. I stated several verses which leave no room for error or misinterpretation. They all explicitly prove my point. My stance did not require any kind of strange or fanciful interpretation, especially one that completely contradicts and opposes the Christian (Gospel) message. I would venture to say that most atheists/nonbelievers even know that Jesus is considered by Christians to be the Messiah or Saviour. So what does that tell you in and of itself? Why is he our saviour if you can blaspheme Him and it has nothing to do with salvation even? Why do we have to use illogical interpretations, ignore verses, add to verses things they don't even say, take his word for it that it's true since no verse was provided that actually says that, and so on to support my opponent's stance? Well, again, because you have to completely ignore and contradict the whole point and message of the New Testament. So yeah, if you want to throw out the whole message and make it null and void while adding your own spin on it, then yeah, you can come to almost any conclusion, such as you don't need Jesus to go to heaven. Just don't call it the legitimate Bible message... I noticed from reading the prior conclusion (which attempts to slip in last minute refutations/rebuttals) that many false statements were made. Saying I conceded this and said that, when I did no such thing. Pretending like it's a mystery what is being said when it doesn't go well, etc. Let me remake this very clear for anybody reading: If you are a Pharisee, a Jew, a man, a woman, old or young, big or small... if you are a human being, there is one way to be saved, Jesus. By believing on Jesus Christ (having faith in Jesus). Salvation is a gift of God's grace that we don't deserve, however, through (faith in) Jesus we are justified (saved). If you go with my opponent's stance then... why bother having the New Testament at all? If you don't need Jesus then why on earth did the early church fathers suffer a martyr's death because of their faith (Christianity)? They certainly weren't being martyred because of good works. And if my opponent's stance is correct then that is the same as saying that they died for nothing. They could've just preached the need for good works and not been persecuted. They could've just defined for themselves what good works are and put their faith in that (themselves) instead. Except, God is who defines morals and what is or isn't good works. God is who decides how you can get into heaven. Fortunately, faith in Jesus (the actual method of salvation) is much easier than trying to follow some vague, undefined, unverified, and false path to salvation. Why did my opponent reference the corrupt Catholic version when they wouldn't agree with that stance either? It's almost as if it's just a subjective matter to my opponent, picking and choosing what the message/interpretation should be, and not the actual legitimate standard/authority (Bible) we have to go by. Why source the material but present a whole different contradicting interpretation? In other words, why would you say that the Catholic source is really good and reliable but then contradict the doctrine that they hold? It's not just Catholics and Protestants either. ALL Christians who know what they're talking about know that you need Jesus to be saved. Some may put more emphasis on needing certain works and/or rites but if you notice they don't say you can deny Jesus and be considered good. Of course there are a few renegades that are false prophets and looking to make a buck out there. The ones you typically see on tv with the feel good message regardless of contradicting the true doctrine/teachings. They don't have any authority though and could care less about your soul, but rather they're after your money. We have 2 choices, we can either A) trust what is written in the Bible and what Jesus Himself said, or, B) trust that my opponent knows better or has more authority than Jesus. Not to mention the Gospel writers and the Bible as a whole (which was deemed to be the only credible source). The letter J will reflect what Jesus says, the letter O will reflect my opponent's stance: J: I am THE way; If you believe on Me you will be saved. O: That is only 1 way, you can figure out others. J: If you don't believe in Me you will die in your sin O: Nah, you're good. Just figure out what good deeds are and do that instead. J; You are saved through faith and grace, not by works, otherwise, people could boast. O: Nope. Works are the key and do the trick. Jesus is pointless. J: If you believe on me you go to heaven, if you don't you go to hell. O: Well I can use a corrupt Bible translation to pretend like that wasn't the point and what was said, ignoring their stance on it and how it lines up perfectly with the various other verses. J: You aren't saved by works but by faith in Me. O: I will redefine/misunderstand justification so that it suits me and doesn't destroy my whole stance. J: There is no salvation except through Me. O: This must be a lie... Why would the New Testament be talking about Jesus? It's probably some alternate mystery person... J: Some will say, "but what about my good works?", and I will respond, "I never knew you". O: If you have (undefined) good works alone then you've done the will of the Father and you'll get into heaven. J: What good is it to claim to have faith and your actions show otherwise? O: You need works alone to get into heaven. J: I will judge everybody according to their deeds. (All will be found guilty of sin and need faith and grace to be saved.) O: Works are the ticket into heaven. You don't need to be saved. I would suggest my opponent learn to use context and rational thought to come to conclusions when examining the Bible. Then the obvious things wouldn't be overlooked about what the message is and who it applies to. It was unfortunate that it even came to pretending like it wasn't clear and I might be lying. It will be an even more unfortunate situation for anybody who expected forgiveness and access to heaven solely based on their supposed good deeds. For the record, I would rather just lose the debate than lie about a matter such as this, with such vast importance and consequence, but I guess that's just me. May God bless and shine the light of truth on anybody reading this.