The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
RBaker
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Biblical Errancy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
RBaker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 22516
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Microsuck

Pro

Resolved: The Bible contains errancy of consequence.

Terms
The Bible - The 66 books of the established cannon recognized by the Christian Church.
Contains - Contradictions that are WITHIN the text. It is not a viable argument to present the New Testament as contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the 1st Century, etc.
Genuine Errancy - An actual error. Consequence - A error that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine.

Rules and Debating Proceedure
Con will further present any additional rules, comments, or questions. Moreover, he can choose which version of the Bible I will use.

In the following round, I will present my argument and my partner will attempt to refute them. Here is the actual structure

1. Acceptance / Definitions
2. Opening Arguments and Con's response
3. Rebuttals
4. Closing

A note about Burden of Proof
This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My BoP is to find the errors of consequence and my partner's job is to explain them a way.

Limitation of Space
Since it takes more space to answer an apparent contradiction than it does to claim one, I will limit myself to no more than 5 errors at a time, unless my partner says otherwise.
RBaker

Con

Greetings.
This will be new territory as a subject of debate for me. I hope I can do justice to this important teaching of the orthodox Christian faith. I do accept your terms of limitation - "A(sic) error that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine."

While there are numerous variants in the different streams of over 25,100 extant manuscripts of the New Testament alone and while there are scribal errors and emendations or expansions in the various copies, the important doctrines of the Christian faith are held intact throughout. The Christian doctrine of "Biblical Inerrancy" is in regard to the original autographs. "Error of consequence" would be "concerning all things necessary for His (God's) own glory, man's salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture …The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: And therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold but one) it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly." (The 1689 London Baptist Confession) and therefore has full and final authority. This is not to say that outside sources cannot be used.

Further, the essential doctrines which must be believed to be numbered among God's children - The Deity of Christ, Salvation by Grace, The Physical Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, Monotheism, Doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is the only way to salvation, Jesus' Virgin Birth – are those doctrines of consequence which I assert to be free of "genuine error and Contradictions that are WITHIN the text of the 66 books of the Bible". And these truths cannot be truly known outside the Inspiration and Authority of God's special revelation i.e. The Holy Bible.

My preferred Bible version is the NASB. However when approaching Biblical interpretation all the tools available including the original languages of the vast amount of manuscripts, the comparison of the numerous translations and versions, and Biblical exegesis within the historical, grammatical, common sense hermeneutical method must be employed as not all passages of Scripture are equally clear.

I would like not only to attempt to refute the alleged contradictions that you present in the next phase, but also ask some questions of you at this time since there is space. If this is acceptable to you then we can proceed or if you would like to amend, the ball is in your court.

A point of interest. You said: "This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My BoP is to find the errors of consequence and my partner's job is to explain them a way."(emphasis mine) I would consider us as opponents rather than "partners" in a debate.

First Question:

This was just a humorous attempt to "poison the well"- suggesting that my explanations will just be rationalizations ["explain them a way" (sic)], right?

Either way it is indicative of the fact that at the very outset you are predisposed to preclude all explanations of the texts in question out of hand, which is not a surprise. You may not be persuaded, while that would be great, being an Apostate to Christianity and "really don't want to re-convert", my task will be to give plausible interpretations comparing other applicable texts while maintaining consistency with the overall teachings of Scriptures which receives acceptance within the Christian worldview since it contains those scholars which give themselves to textual criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, systematic theology etc.

Would you mind telling me:

What Christian church/denomination you were a part of?

What caused you to renounce your profession of faith (fall-away)?

Have you read the Bible?

Do you have any formal religious training?
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I will respond to my partner's questions in the comments.

-->Opening Arguments<--

The Bible is its own worst enemy when it comes to prime facia for the Bible abounds in errors, contradictions, and failed prophecies that severly challenge the authenticity of the Bible.

I. Jesus cannot be the Messiah

A. Jesus' genealogies


Jesus' genealogies are perhaps one of the most contradictory passages in scripture. However, my focus aren't the contradictions in the passage; rather, my focus will be on the fact that based on Jesus' genealogies, he cannot be the Messiah. Here is a chart of Jesus' genealogies [1]:

Genealogy from David to Jeconiah according to Matthew

David — Solomon — Rehoboam — Abijah — Asa — Jehoshaphat — Jehoram — Ahaziah — Joash —Amaziah — Azariah (also called Uzziah) — Jotham — Ahaz — Hezekiah — Manasseh — Amon — Josiah —Jehoahaz (annointed by the people) — Jehoiakim (annointed by Pharaoh) — Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) —AssirShealtiel Zerubbabel

Genealogy from David to Jeconiah according to Luke

David — Nathan — Matththah — Menan — Melea — Eliakim — Jonan — Joseph — Judah — Simeon — Levi — Matthat — Jorim — Eliezer — Jose — Er — Elmodam — Cosam — Addi — Melchi — Neri —Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) — Assir Shealtiel Zerubbabel


Both of these genealogies disqualify Jesus as the Messiah. For Matthew, he adds in Jechoniah, a man who was cursed so that no descendant will sit upon the throne (Jeremiah 22). Luke disqualifies Jesus because he must be a descendant from Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16; see also 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 2 Chronicles 7:17-18).

II. Contradictions in the Bible

I. What day was Jesus crucified?

A. The first day of Passover, 15th day of Nissan

Matthew 26:20-30, "Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me." Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord?"

Mark 14:12, "On the first day of Unlevend bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and perpare for You to eat the Passover?"

B. The day before passover, or the 14th day of Nissan

John 13:1, "Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end."
John 18:28, "Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover."

John 19:14, "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour..."

Because all three synoptic Gospels insist that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, they must therefore maintain that the crucifixion occurred on the first day of Passover, rather than the eve of Passover as the Book of John claims [2]. Why this discrepancy? I contend that this is because for John, it was all about making Jesus the Passover sacrifice.[3] In fact, John has Jesus crucifed on the 6th hour (noon, when the sacrifices started) whereas the synoptics had Jesus sacrificed on the 3rd hour.


III. Failed prophecies

A. Failed prophecy of Tyre:

Ezekiel 26:7


“For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.

None of this ever happend. After a 13 year seige, Nebuchadnezzar abandoned Tyre and reached a compromised agreement. Although Tyre was destroyed by Alexander the Great, it was rebuilt. [4] In fact, the New Testament records Jesus visiting the city of Tyre after its alleged destruction.

Matthew 15:21: "And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon."

-->Summary<--

1. Jesus' lineage proves he cannot be the Messiah
2-3. What day and time was Jesus crucified?
4. Failed prophecy of Tyre.

Thanks
_____________
Sources


1. Yosef, Uri. "Genealogical Scams and Flim Flams." http://thejewishhome.org...;
2. Singer, Tovia. "Crucifixion Chart." http://www.outreachjudaism.org...;
3. In fact, other scholar's have agreed with such findings. See Ehrman, Bart. "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible." Chapter 3
4. Tobin, Paul. "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager; a skeptic's guide to Christianity."
RBaker

Con

Genealogy of Jesus:

Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary. This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4). (Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He." John 4:25-26

What day and hour was Jesus crucified?

The uniform impression conveyed by the synoptic Gospels is that the Crucifixion took place on Friday of Holy Week. If it were not for John 19:14, the point would never have come up for debate. But John 19:14 says (according to NASB): "Now it was the day of preparation [paraskeue] for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘Behold, your king!'" The NIV suggests a somewhat less difficult handling of the apparent discrepancy: "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour." This latter translation takes note of two very important matters of usage. First, the word paraskeue had already by the first century A.D., become a technical term for "Friday," since every Friday was the day of preparation for Saturday, that is, the Sabbath. In Modern Greek the word for "Friday" is paraskeue.

Second, the Greek term tou pascha (lit., "of the Passover") is taken to be equivalent to the Passover Week. This refers to the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Heb. massot) that immediately followed the initial slaughtering and eating of the Passover lamb on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month Abib, which by Hebrew reckoning would mean the commencement of the fifteenth day, right after sunset. The week of masso-t, coming right after on the heels of Passover itself (during which masso-t were actually eaten, along with the lamb, bitter herbs, etc.) very naturally came to be known as Passover Week (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., 12:1041), extending from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Abib, inclusively. (Arndt and Gingrich [Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 638-639] state: "This [i.e., Passover] was followed immediately by the Fast of Unleavened Bread … on the 15th to the 21st. Popular usage merged the two festivals and treated them as a unity, as they were for practical purposes.") It was unnecessary to insert a specific term for "week" (such as sa-bua) for it to be understood as such. Therefore, that which might be translated literally as "the preparation of the Passover" must in this context be rendered "Friday of Passover Week."

It turns out, therefore, that John affirms just as clearly as the Synoptics that Christ was crucified on Friday and that His sacrificial death represented an antitypical fulfillment of the Passover ordinance itself, which was instituted by God in the days of the Exodus as a means of making Calvary available by faith to the ancient people of God even before the coming of Christ.

Note that in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is referred to as the Passover Lamb for believers: "Purge out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, just as you were unleavened. For Christ, our Lamb was sacrificed for us." The statement of E. C. Hoskyns on John 19:14 is very appropriate here: "The hour of the double sacrifice is drawing near. It is midday. The Passover lambs are being prepared for sacrifice, and the Lamb of God is likewise sentenced to death" (The Fourth Gospel [London: Farber and Farber, 1940], ad. loc.). It simply needs to be pointed out that the lambs referred to here are not those that were slaughtered and eaten in private homes-a rite Jesus had already observed with His disciples the night before ("Maundy Thursday")- but the lambs to be offered on the altar of the Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel. (For the household observance on the evening of the fourteenth of Abib, cf. Exod. 12:6; for the public sacrifice on the altar, cf. Exod. 12:16-17; Lev. 23:4-8; 2 Chron. 30:15-19; 35:11-16. These were all known as Passover sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week.)

Thus it turns out that there has been a simple misunderstanding of the phrase paraskeue tou pascha that has occasioned such perplexity that even Guthrie (New Bible Commentary, p. 964) deduced an original error, for which he had no solution to offer. The various ingenious explanations offered by others, that Christ held His personal Passover a night early, knowing that He would be crucified before the evening of the fourteenth; that Christ and His movement held to a different calendar, reckoning the fourteenth to be a day earlier than the calendar of the official Jerusalem priesthood; or that He was following a revised calendar observed by the Essenes at Qumran-all these theories are quite improbable and altogether unnecessary. There is no contradiction whatever between John and the Synoptics as to the day on which Christ died — it was Friday. (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982], pp. 375-376)

The hour of Crucifixion

The simple answer to this is that the synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) employed a different system of numbering the hours of day to that used by John. The synoptics use the traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00am in modern reckoning), making the crucifixion about 9:00am, the third hour by this system..

John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil day. This reckoned the day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) both tell us as much. Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Jesus' trial by night was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first hour of the Hebrew reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the crucifixion, Jesus underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and beaten by the soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth in the Roman, or 9:00am by our modern thinking.

This is not just a neat twist to escape a problem, as there is every reason to suppose that John used the Roman system, even though he was just as Jewish as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John's gospel was written after the other three, around AD90, while he was living in Ephesus. This was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, so John would have become used to reckoning the day according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him doing so is found in John 21:19: 'On the evening of that first day of the week'. This was Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part of the second day, each day beginning at sunset. (Archer 1994:363-364)

Because of the space limitation here I can answer the problem of the prophecy of Tyre in the next post if you wish.
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

It is a shame that you ran out of room. Please respond to the Tyre error in the next round.

I. Jesus cannot be the Messiah

A. Jesus' genealogies


Had my partner read the argument, I am not saying that they are contradictory; rather, the argument was the fact that based on both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, Jesus is in no way qualified to be the Messiah. My partner has failed to answer the question.

Moreover, I'll respond by saying that I believe it is impossible that the contradiction can be reconciled by saying one was Mary's and the other was Joseph. Because Mary is a relative of Elizabeth and Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe, then Mary also is of the tribe of Aaron.

Luke 1:5 (NIV)


5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.


Let's talk about the Jerusalem Talmud. My partner cited it as support for such a view and unfortunately he took the Talmud way out of context. The Talmud says the following:

R. Joseph, when he came to the [following] verse, wept: But there is that is swept away without judgment. [He said]: Is there anyone who passes away before one's [allotted] time? Yes, as in the story [heard] by R. Bibi b. Abaye, who was frequently visited by the Angel of death. [Once] the latter said to his messenger: Go, bring me Miriam, the women's hairdresser! He went and brought him Miriam, the children's nurse. Said he to him: I told thee Miriam, the women's hairdresser. He answered: If so, I will take her back. Said he to him: Since thou hast brought her, let her be added. But how were you able to get her? She was holding a shovel in her hand and was heating and raking
[Folio 5a]
the oven. She took it and put it on her foot and burnt herself; thus her luck was impaired and I brought her. Said R. Bibi b. Abaye to him: Have ye permission to act thus? He answered him: Is it not written: There is that is swept away without judgment? He countered: But behold it is written: One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh! He replied: I have charge of them till they have completed the generation, and then I hand them over to Dumah! He [then] asked him: But after all, what do you do with her years? He replied: If there be a Rabbinic scholar who overlooks his hurt, I shall give them to him in her stead.

What we see is that the Talmud does not mention Mary, Jesus, OR Heli!

The interesting thing is the name מִרְיָם מְגַדְּלָא [שֵׂיעַר] נְשַׁיָּא (Mary the Hair Dresser), which I believe is the origin of the name "Mary Madgelene."

Secondly, it is impossible for Mary to be the lineage in Luke. Luke states that Mary is the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) and Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron. (Luke 1:5). Consequently, this makes Mary a descendant of David.



II. Contradictions

A. What day and what time was Jesus crucified?


Concerning the time that Jesus was crucified, my partner claims that the synoptics are using Jewish times and the G of John are using regular times; however, this is impossible. For one, it makes no sense for a Jewish author that is writing to Jews to use such timming.
As for the day, I'll respond in detail in the next round. I want to give my parnter a chance to respond.


III. Failed Prophecy

A. Tyre


It is a shame that you could not have responded to this argument.

Summary

1. Jesus' genealogy disqualifise him as the Messiah
2. Elizabeth, Mary's cousin was a descendant of Aaron; thus making Mary a descendant of Aaron as well.
3. What day and time did Jesus die?
4. Tyre's failed prophecy.
RBaker

Con

Luke 3:27-31

NASB-the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David


KJV-Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David

NIV-the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David

I don't know from what version you copied the Lukan genealogy, but- "Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) — Assir — Shealtiel — Zerubbabel"- doesn't appear in ANY version I could find. Perhaps my opponent mistakenly mixed the Matthew and Luke genealogies together. At any rate the fact that Luke depicts Jesus' genealogy (without Jeconiah as evidenced above) establishes His genealogical qualification as the Messiah.


"Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to the Davidic throne. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then traced back to Adam.

The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth. How else could the physical descent of one who had no human father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a creative departure from customary genealogical lists by starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors rather than starting at some point in the past and descending to Jesus.

This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal representative of that line of descent for which eternal perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be fulfilled?


First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah. He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat, instead he refers to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous. But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone, through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father, Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30). Thus the problem is resolved." http://www.answering-islam.org... - Look familiar?

"Because Mary is a relative of Elizabeth and Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe, then Mary also is of the tribe of Aaron." A Half-Truth Fallacy

Regarding your Talmud citation. Really?...Seriously? You offer no reference to confirm. You offer no relevance to the discussion. Indeed it is totally irrelevant . Then to say "see…the Talmud does not mention Mary, Jesus, OR Heli!" this CANARD is a blatant "Red-Herring Fallacy."

"Luke states that Mary is the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) and Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron. (Luke 1:5)."

First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as "cousin" (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean "first cousin." The Greek term syngenis simply means "relative" (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or "kinswoman" (ASV, RSV). It is "a general term, meaning ‘of the same family'" (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin.

Second, Mary and Elizabeth could have been from different tribes and still have been first cousins. It may be that their mothers were sisters. Their mothers could have been from the tribe of Judah or Levi. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: "Though Elisabeth was, on the father's side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother's side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah".

However Mary and Elizabeth were related, tribal heritage among the descendants of Jacob was passed down through fathers, not mothers (cf. Ruth 4:18-22); children were always of their father's tribe, not their mother's. Thus, Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, respectively, by way of their fathers' ancestry, and not necessarily of their mothers'.

Before I move on I must make sure the viewers do not miss a very important, albeit easily over-looked, feature of my opponent's argument. Please notice that he states correctly that "Mary is a RELATIVE of Elizabeth" above he then states later that "Mary is the COUSIN of Elizabeth". This is known as "Equivocation". A logical fallacy-The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound.
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your rebuttals.

I. JESUS' GENEALOGY DISQUALIFIES HIM AS MESSIAH

My contention in this wasn't the contradictions surrounding the lineage, but that both lineages prove Jesus is not the Messiah, my partner still doesn't grasp that. Because the contradictions are irrelavent, I'll concede the point that the two lineages are not contradictory, but just for a sake of time and space.

"I don't know from what version you copied the Lukan genealogy, but- "Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah)...(without Jeconiah as evidenced above) establishes His genealogical qualification as the Messiah. "

I'm referring to MATTHEW's genealogy, not Luke's. My partner still hasn't refuted the fact that Luke uses Nathan and not Solomon; hence Jesus is disqualified. Here it is in syllogism form:
  1. The Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon.
  2. Jesus was not a descendant of David and Solomon.
  3. Therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.

This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal representative of that line of descent for which eternal perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be fulfilled?

My partner makes a straw man fallacy. This is no dillemma at all! What we notice through the Kings of Israel (ref. here http://www.kchanson.com... Tovia Singer's lecture), we see that it normally goes through father-son-father-son etc. However, when we get to the cursed king, his BROTHER becomes king after him; not his son; hence there is no dilemma. No DESCENDANT will prosper; yet you can still be the brother of him and not be cursed.
My partner claims the "virgin birth" answers all problems. However THIS poses a dilemma: If the virgin birth bypassed the curse; then it also bypassed the throne from Solomon! You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

"Regarding your Talmud citation. Really?...Seriously? You offer no reference to confirm. You offer no relevance to the discussion. Indeed it is totally irrelevant . Then to say "see…the Talmud does not mention Mary, Jesus, OR Heli!" this CANARD is a blatant "Red-Herring Fallacy.""

You were the one that mentioned the Talmud; I showed that YOU took it out of context. Please reference the online talmud: http://www.sacred-texts.com..., you didn't even REFERENCE the Talmud, just quoted some "scholar" on the Talmud.

Again, I'm conceding there are no contradictions between the genealogies; however contradictions are the least of my concerns.

LET'S RECAP
  1. In Luke, Jesus is not a descendant of Solmon; hence he is not the Messiah.
  2. In Matthew, Jesus is cursed via Jechoniah; hence he is not the Messiah.
  3. The genealogies, though not contradictory, prove a Biblical errancy.
  4. Therefore, the Bible contains errrors.


Why vote Pro?

  1. My partner inadaquetly addressed the genealogies of JC, taking the Talmud out of context.
  2. My partner drops the error concerning the failure of the Tyre prophecy
RBaker

Con

Genealogy from David to Jeconiah according to Luke

David —Nathan — Matththah — Menan — Melea — Eliakim — Jonan — Joseph — Judah — Simeon— Levi — Matthat — Jorim — Eliezer — Jose — Er — Elmodam — Cosam — Addi —Melchi — Neri —Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) — Assir Shealtiel Zerubbabel

You really do need to hold yourself accountable to what you assert. This is not the genealogy
recorded in Luke. The historical and scholarly evidence given in round 3 speaks for itself as establishing Jesus’ right to inherit David’s throne through the bloodline of both Joseph and Mary.

1.The Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon.

2.Jesus was not a descendant of David and Solomon.

3.Therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.


Your syllogism above fails in premise 2 making your conclusion false.

1.The Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon.

2.Jesus was a legal descendant of David and Solomon through Joseph.

3.
Jesus was the physical descendant of David through Mary.

4.Therefore Jesus is the Messiah.

Your argument against Jesus’ genealogy using the Talmud is invalid according to your own terms.
“It is not a viable argument to present the New Testamentas contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the 1st Century, etc.”

This article by Jewish scholar may be more persuasive: “Untangling Yeshua’s
Genealogical Record.” By Rabbi Yehudah ben Shomeyr-
http://www.adint-ministries.com...

"Tovia Singer, following the tact of numerous skeptics, atheists and agnostics, demonstrates the lack of understanding of the Gospel texts, created by a lack of desire to sincerely understand them. He states that Matthew and Luke's genealogies are both of Yosef. This raises a valid question: How can Yeshua have two contradictory genealogies?

Matthew's genealogy is that of Yosef, the son of Ya'akov, the descendant of Shlomo, who would LEGALLY pass the throne to Yeshua. Luke's Genealogy is that of Miryam's, the daughter of Eli, the descendant of Natan. This shows that Yeshua is PHYSICALLY the descendant of David, to fulfill the prophecy that Messiah would be of David's seed.

Does then, the concept of the virgin birth create a problem for Yeshua? How can he legally
inherit the Throne of David from Yosef, if Yosef is not Yeshua's physical progenitor, as
inheritance is through the father?

Messianic Jewish scholar David Stern notes in his Jewish New Testament Commentary:

Yosef's behavior shows that he accepted Yeshua as his son. According to the Mishna, "If one say, 'This is my son, 'he is to be believed" (Bava Batra 8:6). The Gemara explains that he is believed "as regards the right of inheritance" (Bava Batra 134a). Thus Yeshua, as legally acknowledged son, is entitled to inherit the throne of King David from Yosef, a descendant of David (v. 8). (This point is made by Phillip Goble, How to Point to Yeshua in Your Rabbi's Bible, New York: Artists for Israel, 1986.)"Full article: http://www.messianicart.com...

Below is the "death blow" to the Jeconiah curse argument

http://www.messianicart.com...

As for Tyre: This is another so-called error or contradiction being repeated again which has been addressed so many times in the past. The mainstream Christian explanation is well represented here: http://www.apologeticspress.org...

Drawing the Word of God into question has been the special tactic used by His enemies from the very beginning of the human experience. The fatally wrong response by our first parents to- “Has God really said” (Genesis 3:1) resulted in a universal calamity that will only be finally
resolved when Jesus returns to “make all things new”. (Revelation 21:5) The Biblical record of human history is replete with the defiance, hatred, rejection, unbelief, and willful blindness of God’s authoritative Word of all those who are ruined by nature and by choice aping Adam and Eve’s misplaced trust in themseves.

God explains why people reject His Word:

And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. John5:37-38

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the
house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.” They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were
not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your
Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth
because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
John 8:31-47

At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. John10:22-30

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2Cor4:3-4

just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2Peter3:15b-16

These citations speak directly to the issue. The “Fall” (Genesis 3) has ruined the image of God that man was created in, esp.-mind, will, emotions. Atheists insist on “enough”? evidence so that they may understand in order to believe but you do not understand God’s word because you do not believe.

Hard sayings?-Yes

Difficult passages?-Yes

Study required?-Yes

Is God’s Word, the Bible, the consistent, reliable truth? Yes

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Sounds good. I'm re-designing the site and giving up CMS
Posted by RBaker 4 years ago
RBaker
I attempted to forward my answers to "Questions for Christians" to your blog but apparently it is no-longer available. You can view them on my website: bcsministries.org
Posted by RBaker 4 years ago
RBaker
Nothing??? You asked 2 simple questions and, yes, I'm looking down and right there, I see them, 2 simple answers explaining 1. What could cause me to lose my faith and 2. What could cause me to concede that the Bible has errors (of consequence). You may not like the answers but they are clear, concise and cogent.

As far as your attempt at "poisoning the well" again ( which, as someone who "loves philosophy" knows is a fallacious argument) by negatively answering your question for me-as if I could not possibly refute your arguments-is sophomoric. MY answers to the "evidence" you offer will come in my next post in the debate like it is supposed to.

Hopefully my answer to-"Next question, isn't that blind faith then?" will be visible/readable/to the point or whatever is interfering with our exchange.

Christian faith has content as I exampled in the third paragraph of my post in round 1. Faith engages the emotions, the will, and the mind. The person SEES that he has been God's enemy deserving His justice. He FEELS the crushing weight of his sins against the Holy God upon his conscience. He KNOWS he has nothing to offer to right himself before the "Judge of all the earth." He RECOGNIZES his only hope is to cast himself before Him pleading mercy for what he UNDERSTANDS concerning the gospel declaration that Jesus, God's Son, gave Himself as a substitute for sinners like him. That the Father laid his sins upon Jesus who alone was qualified to accomplish salvation. That through Him forgiveness is available to those who TRUST Him. He was man that He might be a sacrifice. He was God that He might be the remedy.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
So basically, you answered "nothing." Next question, isn't that blind faith then? "I don't care what evidence you present to me; it's false because the Bible is true!"
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
When will your arguments be up?
Posted by RBaker 4 years ago
RBaker
1.When the omnipotent One who redeemed me and freely gave saving faith to me no longer has the ability to keep me, failing to fulfill His promise to "uphold me with His righteous right hand."

I am an adherent to the Biblical doctrine of "The Perseverance of the Saints"

John 6:38-40, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."

All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

2."Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior"
Titus 1:1-3

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 2Timothy 3:16

The debate in which we are engaged is whether or not there are errors or contradictions "of consequence" which affect important doctrines of the Christian faith-which doctrines were described in round one-not whether variants or scribal emendations have occurred in subsequent copies.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
What Christian church/denomination you were a part of? Baptist.

What caused you to renounce your profession of faith (fall-away)? A lot! Some will be discussed today.

Have you read the Bible? Yes

Do you have any formal religious training? Nope.

-->Questions for You<--

What will cause you to lose your faith?
What will cause you to concede that the Bible has errors?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
MicrosuckRBakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Can convincingly resolved the alleged contradictions, although Con loses conduct for just pasting a link regarding Tyre rather than debating in his own words (which effectively circumvents the character limit). I am giving sources to Con because Pro's Luke genealogy is suspect, and the link sourcing it is dead.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
MicrosuckRBakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO showed many question begging, holey, and weak parts of the bible that contradict, etc. He shows the bible contradicts, and CON never refutes those points, hence CON loses the debate, and PRO wins. good debate.