The Instigator
TheWORDisLIFE
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
tschuk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Jesus Christ had an earthly father

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
TheWORDisLIFE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 74395
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

Hello everyone. This debate is open to those who believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit ONLY, typically speaking, Catholics and Christians.

Rules:

1. Challenger must believe in Jesus Christ

2. Challenger must believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost only.

3. Challenger must prove his/her side using the Bible as evidence.

4. Challenger must stay on topic, else wise he/she automatically loses debate.

5. If CON forfeits, he/she automatically loses this debate.


R1 - Agreement to rules and acceptance only

R2-4 - Arguments and Refutes

R5 - Closing statements


Good luck to you CON and thank you for accepting.
tschuk

Con

I accept your Debate.

Before we start, I would like to know what Bible you are using. There is a large difference between the Catholic Literature and Christian Literature. So I would like for you to make that clear.

Also, Scripture will be used. However, Historical Events that altered certain parts of Christianity will be brought into light if any of us do so. I look forward to a interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

I’m using the KIV 1611 with Apocrypha. Thank you CON for accepting. Good luck


I’d first like to point out that Jesus Christ had a genealogy.

Matthew 1:1-16

[1] The book of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of David, the sonne of Abraham.

Generation and genealogy have the same meanings. It is a line of descendants traced from one ancestor to another. The key word in “generation” is “gene”.

[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Iacob; and Iacob begat Iudas and his brethren;

[3] And Iudas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naassonne; and Naassonne begat Salmon;

[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Iesse;

[6] And Iesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

[8] And Asa begat Iosaphat; and Iosaphat begat Ioram; and Ioram begat Ozias;

[9] And Ozias begat Ioatham; and Ioatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Iosias;

[11] And Iosias begat Iechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Iechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Iacob;

[16] And Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Iesus, who is called Christ.

If Christ came only through Mary without Joseph, why would it mention Joseph in this verse? If Christ popped up in Mary, what would be the significance of mentioning Joseph right here that says he was the husband of Mary? Why would that even be mentioned? If we are reading about the genealogy of Jesus Christ, why would Joseph be mentioned?

Christians/Catholics don’t understand the Bible. They read the Scriptures just to read them, but they don’t grasp what the Bible is actually saying.

Hebrews 2:16-17

[16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels” – Does an angel have an earthly father? No….does an angel need a man and a woman to have sex to conceive? No….angels are not created like that. “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels” – meaning Christ was not immaculately born. “but he took on him the seed of Abraham” – He, Christ, took on him the sperm of Abraham. Christ came out of the lineage, the generations of Abraham; the generation of Abraham; sperm.

[17] Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like vnto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

made like unto his brethren” – so He was made like unto His brethren. “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest” – He couldn’t be a merciful and faithful high priest if He wasn’t made like you and me. If He was celestial, he wouldn’t understand temptation, He wouldn’t understand trials, He wouldn’t understand love and hate. He understood all of that though…..why? Because He, Christ, was made like you and I.

Precept for Hebrews 2:17

Deuteronomy 18:18

[18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like vnto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak vnto them all that I shall command him.

This is God speaking to Moses about the coming of Christ’s birth. The LORD said that HE was going to raise a Prophet from among the brothers of Moses, but Christ was going to be made like Moses. How was Moses born? Mother and father. Moses WAS NOT immaculately born. “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (like unto Moses; like Moses).

1 Corinthians 15:39-40

[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, an] another of birds.

[40] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

There are also celestial bodies” – celestial means angelic. “bodies terrestrial” – terrestrial means what? Earthly; terrain. “but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.” – so you can’t mix those two together. So, I know some Catholics/Christians say that an angel had sex with Mary. If an angel had sex with Mary, she’d be blown up. The Most High God is showing us that each of these flesh have their own order. The Most High God is not the author of confusion – 1 Cor 14:33.

Romans 1:3

[3] Concerning his Sonne Iesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of Dauid according to the flesh;

Galatians 4:4

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Sonne, made of a woman, made under the law,

when the fulness of the time was come” – The fullness of time is that 9 or 10 months of pregnancy.

Precept to “when the fulness of the time was come

Wisdom of Solomon 7:2

[2] And in my mothers wombe was fashioned to be flesh in the time of tenne moneths being compacted in blood, of the seed of man, and the pleasure that came with sleepe.

“made of a woman, made under the law,” – The law this is referring to is Leviticus 15, the entire chapter. So Christ was, “made of a woman, made under the law,”.

John 7:42

[42] Hath not the Scripture saide, that Christ commeth of the seede of Dauid, and out of the towne of Bethlehem, where Dauid was?

I don’t need to explain this, as it is written very clearly.

Acts 13:23

[23] Of this mans seed hath God, according to his promise, raised vnto Israel a Sauiour, Iesus:

according to his promise”The precepts to this is Deuteronomy 18:18, Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:21.

Deuteronomy 18:18

[18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like vnto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak vnto them all that I shall command him.

Luke 1:35

[35] And the Angel answered and said vnto her, The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee, and the power of the Highest shall ouershadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall bee borne of thee, shall bee called the sonne of God.

Matthew 1:21

[21] And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus: for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.

2 Timothy 2:8

[8] Remember that Iesus Christ of the seede of Dauid, was raised from the dead, according to my Gospel:

Acts 2:30

[30] Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworne with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loines, according to the flesh, hee would raise vp Christ, to sit on his throne:

“that of the fruit of his loines, according to the flesh,” – So the fruit of his loins is not spiritual. It’s according to his flesh. Look at a man’s flesh, what is a man’s loins? It’s his penis, his rod, his sperm comes from his loins.

Loins: the region of the sexual organs, especially when regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power.

John 6:42

[42] And they said, Is not this Iesus the sonne of Ioseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that hee sayth, I came downe from heauen?

John 1:45

[45] Philip findeth Nathaneel, and saith vnto him, We haue found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did write, Iesus of Nazareth the sonne of Ioseph.

“of whom Moses in the Law” – Meaning Deuteronomy 18:18

Matthew 13:55

[55] Is not this the Carpenters sonne? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, Iames, and Ioses, and Simon, and Iudas?

Matthew 1:25

[25] And knewe her not, till shee had brought forth her first borne sonne, and he called his name Iesus.

This is basically saying that Joseph didn’t sleep with Mary till Jesus was born. He had to wait 40 days, that’s what the LAW says. Leviticus 12:2-4 is the LAW regarding pregnancy and not being able to have sex during a woman’s pregnancy.

Luke 2:48

[48] And when they sawe him, they were amazed: and his mother said vnto him, Sonne, why hast thou thus dealt with vs? Behold, thy father and I haue sought thee sorrowing.

So Mary is calling Joseph the FATHER of Jesus Christ, not the STEP FATHER of Jesus Christ.

1 John 4:3

[43] And euery Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you haue heard, that it should come, and euen now already is it in the world.

And euery Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God” – so if you don’t confess that Jesus came from the seed of man, if you don’t confess that Joseph is His earthly father, you are not of God. “whereof you haue heard, that it should come, and euen now already is it in the world.” – So John warned us Israelites that Catholicism and Christianity were going to twist the Word of God and say that Jesus did not have an earthly father; that is what is being taught today.

tschuk

Con

Your argument is very well thought out. However, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Book of Matthew. The Book of Matthew has been widely known to be directed towards Jews to convince them of Jesus being the Messiah (As the Messiah would've had to be from the Line of David). There are two lineages put in the Bible, one being Mary's and one being Joseph's. A question many have asked is, why?

Now, there are two explanations. Of which I will list.

(1.) One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of "levirate marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man"s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man"s name. According to Eusebius"s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil"s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the "son of Heli" legally and the "son of Jacob" biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph"s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

(2.) Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary"s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph"s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus" legal father), through David"s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus" blood relative), though David"s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for "son-in-law," Joseph was called the "son of Heli" by marriage to Mary, Heli"s daughter. Through either Mary"s or Joseph"s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother"s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke"s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (Luke 3:23).

So, there you have it. I am leaning more towards point 2. Reason being is because Joseph, while not being the blood-father was still considered Jesus's father legally. Which was very important to the Jews given their patriarchal society. However, Jesus is still (By blood) of the Line of David through Mary.

I would also like to give a reason (Backed by Scripture) why Jesus couldn't have been Joseph's blood descendant.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man [Jeconiah] childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Jeconiah was a descendant in the line of Solomon, so the genealogy in Matthew is tainted with a blood curse from Jeconiah all the way to Joseph. No descendant of Jeconiah would qualify as King of Israel. But remember, Joseph was only the legal father of Jesus, not his biological father. Therefore Jesus was not of the seed of Jeconiah. The blood curse, which would have disqualified Him from a legal right to rule as King of Judah, was not passed on to Jesus.

Mary was Jesus" only human parent. It was through her ancestry that Jesus had a birthright in the bloodline of the Tribe of Judah, the line from which all kings of Judah came. The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is not through Solomon, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of King David). Jeconiah was not an ancestor of Mary"s and therefore the blood curse is not upon Jesus" ancestral line through His mother.

So if Joseph had been Jesus" biological father, He could not have fulfilled the prophecy of being Messiah. This supports the virgin birth, which is exactly what was prophesied:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

In summary, Joseph was Jesus" earthly, adopted father. God is Jesus" heavenly Father. Jesus was begotten of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was Jesus" human mother, a young virgin who gave birth to the Son of God. The blood curse upon Joseph"s line was not passed on to Jesus.

I am open to your refutation. However, you must keep in mind that Joseph could not have been Jesus's blood father due to the Blood Curse put upon the line of SOLOMON. Since Mary is descended from David's other son (Nathan) Jesus was able to fulfill the Messianic Prophecy.
Debate Round No. 2
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

Well there is not too much for me to refute, seeing as CON did not refute too many of my points.

*Note: I will be quoting evidence that I used in R2, since CON did not refute my points.

This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers.”

No, this is incorrect. The book of Matthew is giving the genealogy of Jesus Christ and Joseph. The book of Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary. Every person has two genealogies, one from the father’s side and one from the mother’s side. Joseph is Heli’s son-in-law, which indicates that Heli is the father of Mary, even though the Scripture doesn’t say it directly; as I stated, every person has two genealogies.

Luke 3:23 - And Iesus himselfe began to be about thirty yeeres of age, being (as was supposed) the sonne of Ioseph, which was the sonne of Heli,

“Joseph, which was the sonne of Heli” – Matthew says he is the son of Jacob, Luke says the son of Heli. Joseph cannot be from the sperm of two men. Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli. Joseph and Mary both come from the tribe of Judah. I have a little red bible and next to the name Heli it has a number 6.

Heli6Son-in-law.

“(2.) Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary"s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph"s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus" legal father), through David"s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus" blood relative), though David"s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for "son-in-law," Joseph was called the "son of Heli" by marriage to Mary, Heli"s daughter. Through either Mary"s or Joseph"s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother"s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke"s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (Luke 3:23).

Again, everyone has two genealogies. No one can come just from a man’s sperm and no one can come just from a woman’s eggs. It takes both male and female to conceive a child. So this doesn’t make any sense. The Bible is giving account for both Joseph and Mary’s genealogy, not just Joseph and not just Mary; Jesus came from both Joseph and Mary.

CON, can you show us the scripture that says, Joseph and/or Mary adopted Jesus or is the step father or step mother of Jesus?

“Reason being is because Joseph, while not being the blood-father was still considered Jesus's father legally. Which was very important to the Jews given their patriarchal society. However, Jesus is still (By blood) of the Line of David through Mary.

That’s not scriptural.

Matthew 1:16

[16] And Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Iesus, who is called Christ.

If we are reading about the genealogy of Jesus Christ, why would Joseph be mentioned?

Can you show me the verse(s) that say Joseph is not the father of Jesus?

Acts 2:30

[30] Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworne with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loines, according to the flesh, hee would raise vp Christ, to sit on his throne:

“that of the fruit of his loines, according to the flesh,” So the fruit of his loins is not spiritual. It’s according to his flesh. Look at a man’s flesh, what is a man’s loins? It’s his penis, his rod, his sperm comes from his loins.

Loins: the region of the sexual organs, especially when regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power.

So this is letting us know that Jesus came from the sperm of David, meaning Joseph because Joseph descends from the lineage of David.

“Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man [Jeconiah] childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

“Jeconiah was a descendant in the line of Solomon, so the genealogy in Matthew is tainted with a blood curse from Jeconiah all the way to Joseph. No descendant of Jeconiah would qualify as King of Israel. But remember, Joseph was only the legal father of Jesus, not his biological father. Therefore Jesus was not of the seed of Jeconiah. The blood curse, which would have disqualified Him from a legal right to rule as King of Judah, was not passed on to Jesus.

You are correct, to a point. Israel does not have a king right now. Jesus Christ is our King and when He returns to deliver us out of this captivity, He will be our King, ruling.

Jeremiah 36:30 - Therefore thus saith the Lord of Iehoiakim king of Iudah; He shall haue none to sit vpon the throne of Dauid, and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heate, and in the night to the frost.

Now, when Christ was born, who of Judah was sitting on the throne? No one of Judah was sitting on the throne, Herod was ruling, and Herod was an Edomite.

1 Chronicles 3:16 - And the sonnes of Ioakim: Ieconiah his sonne, Zedekiah his sonne.

So Jeconiah was the son of Joakim.

Isaiah 7:16 - For before the childe shall know to refuse the euill and choose the good; the land that thou abhorrest, shalbe forsaken of both her kings.

the land that thou abhorrest, shalbe forsaken of both her kings.” - This means neither Kingdom, Judah nor Israel, would have a king when Christ was born….there would be no king of our people that’s what this is saying.

Isaiah 9:6 - For vnto vs a child is borne, vnto vs a Sonne is giuen, and the gouernment shalbe vpon his shoulder: and his name shalbe called, Wonderfull, Counseller, The mightie God, The euerlasting Father, The Prince of peace.

So Christ, when He returns, is going to be our King.

Matthew 1:17 - So all the generations from Abraham to Dauid, are fourteene generations: and from Dauid vntill the carying away into Babylon, are foureteene generations: and from the carying away into Babylon vnto Christ, are fourteene generations.

So Rome was in power when Christ was born. So from Babylon, we (Israeites) went into the Persian Mede captivity, from Persian Mede we went into the Greek captivity, from the Greek captivity we went to the Roman captivity, which is when Christ was born.

Matthew 1:21

[21] And she shall bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his Name Iesus: for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.

So Jesus is going to be our King, He is going to save us out of this captivity.

So because the Israelites went into slavery for breaking God’s laws, neither of the Kingdoms of Israel was going to be ruling, until Christ returns, Judah will be in government because Christ came from the tribe of Judah – Hebrews 7:14. Jumped a bit off topic, but I’ll move one.

“Mary was Jesus" only human parent.” - I provided evidence proving otherwise, and you have yet to refute any other evidence I pointed out.

“It was through her ancestry that Jesus had a birthright in the bloodline of the Tribe of Judah, the line from which all kings of Judah came. The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is not through Solomon, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of King David). Jeconiah was not an ancestor of Mary"s and therefore the blood curse is not upon Jesus" ancestral line through His mother.– Where is this in the Bible?

“Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

First let’s get the meaning of “virgin” because CON doesn’t understand what virgin means, in Biblical terms.

Virgin-virgin, young woman

A. of marriageable age

B. maid or newly married

So we know that Mary was not married yet, so the other possible meaning to “virgin” is an unmarried woman or marriageable age. Virgin, in Biblical terms does not mean a woman who has never had sexual intercourse.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 1:16 - And Iacob begate Ioseph the husband of Mary, of whom was borne Iesus, who is called Christ.

“Joseph the HUSBAND of Mary,” – They were already married.

CON, can you explain, using the Bible, the Laws and Customs of Marriage in Israel?

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

So now, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee”, what is the Holy Ghost talking about? The Law…The Word is going to be fulfilled in her.

Precept for Holy Spirit

Acts 7:51-53

[51] Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.

[52] Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

[53] Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

That’s what they were resisting. “Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.” That’s the Holy Ghost we were resisting.

“In summary, Joseph was Jesus" earthly, adopted father.

CON, can you show evidence in the Bible where it says “Joseph is the adopted father of Jesus”?

“However, you must keep in mind that Joseph could not have been Jesus's blood father due to the Blood Curse put upon the line of SOLOMON.

So why is Joseph mentioned in the blood line (Matthew 1:1-16) of Jesus?

You ignored Acts 2:30 and 1 John 4:3.

Let’s define Genealogy.

Genealogy - a line of descent traced continuously from an ancestor.

tschuk

Con

I believe you misunderstood my reason for placing the two different interpretations of the lines, I did so just to show why I supported the latter theory. The one maintained by the majority of Historians.

Con, you said " No one can come just from sperm and no one can come just from a woman's eggs. It takes both male and female to conceive a child. So this doesn't make any sense."

Fine. It doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't change that Christ's virgin birth is true. The whole point of the Virgin Birth is that it is a miracle. A miracle done by God, who by definition is "All Powerful". Do you dispute God being all powerful? Do you not believe that He could perform miracles?

I didn't feel the need to refute any of your points because they are all meaningless due to this:

"Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man [Jeconiah] childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

Regardless of what interpretations you have of those various lines of Scripture, you can't ignore that God himself curses the line of Solomon (Of which Joseph is from) that they will never sit upon the throne of David. Therefore, you can't accept this and still believe that Joseph was Jesus's biological father. It would be impossible.

You said this: "It was through her ancestry that Jesus had a birthright in the bloodline of the Tribe of Judah, the line from which all kings of Judah came. The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is not through Solomon, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of King David). Jeconiah was not an ancestor of Mary"s and therefore the blood curse is not upon Jesus" ancestral line through His mother." " Where is this in the Bible?

You asked where this was in the Bible...

In addition Luke"s and Matthew"s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David"s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel"s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was "thought" to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew"s genealogy traced the kingly line of David"the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke"s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.

2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph"s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line.

Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one"s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel"that Jesus came to save all people"Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32).

Luke 3:23 says, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary"s father and Jesus" grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.

So, once again. The Line of David is split when it comes to Mary and Joseph. It's split between two of David's sons. Solomon and Nathan. Since Solomon's line was cursed because of one of his descendants (Jeconiah) Joseph couldn't have been Jesus's biological father. Mary was of the line of Nathan, which not only made her not a descendant of Jeconiah (Who was one of Solomon's descendants) but it also made her exempt from the curse as she was from a different line.

So why is Joseph mentioned in the blood line (Matthew 1:1-16) of Jesus? This was one of your questions that I answered twice already. He is put there for legal reasons, through the legal system of the Hebrew's Jesus is considered of the Line of David from Joseph's side. However, through blood He is a descendant of David through Mary's side. He fulfills the Messianic Prophecies from both sides.

You continually tell me to use things inside of the Bible to explain customs of Jewish Society. The New Testament isn't a book on Jewish Society, it's a book on the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, following with the letters of Paul, etc. It doesn't talk of these customs, because that's not it's purpose. Simply by researching these topics you can find them out. It's not rocket science.

So, are you ignoring the verse in Jeremiah that cursed the line of Solomon? Answer me that one question. That's what the debate should be centered around.

Let me put it in a series of steps to help you understand.

(1.) God cursed the line of Solomon, saying that never will any of his descendants sit upon the throne.

* If you dispute this, then you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

(2.) Joseph was of the Line of Solomon.

(3.) Therefore, He couldn't have been Jesus's biological father. Rather, He is an adopted father.

Now, let me explain it in Mary's case to show why SHE is Jesus's one and only parent.

(1.) David had two sons.

(2.) One was Solomon, one was Nathan (Matthew 1:6-7) (Luke 3:31-32)

(3.) Solomon's line was cursed, therefore the Messiah would have to come from Nathan's line.

(4.) Mary is of the line of Nathan (Who is David's Son)

(5.) Jesus was born from Mary.

(6.) Therefore, Jesus is still of David's "seed" however it is through Mary's line. BY BLOOD.

Does this make sense to you? Jews trace legal lineage through the Male Line, open up a History Book.
Debate Round No. 3
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

“Fine. It doesn't make sense to you”,

That doesn’t make sense to any of us, except for the Christian and Catholic churches that teach this lie. The Scripture clearly tells you that Christ is from the seed of David. The man holds the seed.

Leviticus 15:16 - And if any mans seede of copulation goe out from him, then hee shall wash all his flesh in water, and bee vncleane vntill the Euen.

So if the man holds the seed, how did Jesus come from the seed of David with no man to plant the seed in Mary? That doesn’t make sense.

Deuteronomy 18:15 - The Lord thy God will raise vp vnto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like vnto me, vnto him ye shall hearken,

The Prophet Moses is speaking of here is Christ. “like vnto me,” – Christ came into the world as Moses did, through a man and woman having sexual intercourse to conceive a child. Moses was not immaculately born, neither was Christ.

that doesn't change that Christ's virgin birth is true.”

You’re right it doesn’t change the fact that the virgin birth is true, it was still a prophecy fulfilled. You just have a misunderstanding of what the virgin birth really is because the Catholic/Christian churches are lying about how Christ came into the world.

“The whole point of the Virgin Birth is that it is a miracle. A miracle done by God, who by definition is "All Powerful". Do you dispute God being all powerful? Do you not believe that He could perform miracles?

Of course, everything my Creator does among HIS people is a miracle.

“I didn't feel the need to refute any of your points because they are all meaningless due to this:

So CON doesn’t feel the need to refute my points because “they are all meaningless” due to his few verses he used.

CON doesn’t really use the Bible to refute any of my points, besides the three or four he has listed. I’ve provided many verse and refute his points.

"Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man [Jeconiah] childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

I’ve already refuted this using the Bible.

“Regardless of what interpretations you have of those various lines of Scripture, you can't ignore that God himself curses the line of Solomon (Of which Joseph is from) that they will never sit upon the throne of David. Therefore, you can't accept this and still believe that Joseph was Jesus's biological father. It would be impossible.

1. I didn’t give any interpretation, I gave scripture and I let the Bible refute your points.

2. I accept that Solomon’s lineage was cursed, the entire nation of Israel is under curses right now because we broke HIS commandments. Therefore, Israel did not and still doesn’t have a king until Christ returns to deliver us out of this captivity.

“You said this: "It was through her ancestry that Jesus had a birthright in the bloodline of the Tribe of Judah, the line from which all kings of Judah came. The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is not through Solomon, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of King David). Jeconiah was not an ancestor of Mary"s and therefore the blood curse is not upon Jesus" ancestral line through His mother." " Where is this in the Bible?

I’m sorry, can you quote exactly where I made this statement? I read through my argument and could not find anywhere where I made this statement.

“In addition Luke"s and Matthew"s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David"s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel"s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was "thought" to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew"s genealogy traced the kingly line of David"the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke"s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.

Again, Jesus had two genealogies, his father’s side, Joseph, and his mother’s side, Mary. You seem to continue ignore Acts 2:30 and 1 John 4:3.

“He is put there for legal reasons, through the legal system of the Hebrew's Jesus is considered of the Line of David from Joseph's side.”

Can you show us this in the Bible?

“You continually tell me to use things inside of the Bible to explain customs of Jewish Society. The New Testament isn't a book on Jewish Society, it's a book on the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, following with the letters of Paul, etc. It doesn't talk of these customs, because that's not it's purpose. Simply by researching these topics you can find them out. It's not rocket science.

No, the New Covenant is a promise to the Israelites to deliver us out of this captivity. Christ did away with animal sacrifice, that’s what the New Testament is about. Everything in the New Covenant is recited from the Old Covenant. When Christ came on the scene, what covenant were the Israelites under? They were under the Old Covenant.

Hebrews 10:4-5

[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Jeremiah 31:31 - Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Galatians 4:4

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Sonne, made of a woman, made under the law,

“made of a woman, made UNDER THE LAW,” – Leviticus 12:2-4 is the law it’s talking about. Again, when Christ was on the scene, the Israelites were under the Old Covenant.

“So, are you ignoring the verse in Jeremiah that cursed the line of Solomon? Answer me that one question. That's what the debate should be centered around.

No, I’m not I because I already explained to you that Israel didn’t not and still doesn’t have a king because we broke the commandment of God. We are still in captivity today.

It seems CON is not going to answer my question nor is he going to refute any of my points. He continues evading questions I asked regarding Scripture.

“(1.) God cursed the line of Solomon, saying that never will any of his descendants sit upon the throne.

Actually, Jesus comes from David and Solomon.

Matthew 1:6 - And Iesse begate Dauid the King, & Dauid the King begat Solomon of her that had bin the wife of Urias.

“(2.) Joseph was of the Line of Solomon.

As was Jesus; Matthew 1:6 up above shows the genealogy of Christ.

“(3.) Therefore, He couldn't have been Jesus's biological father. Rather, He is an adopted father.

Well, that’s not true because both Joseph and Jesus descend from David and Solomon. You are still evading the question. Can you show us the Bible verse that says Joseph adopted Jesus?

“(3.) Solomon's line was cursed, therefore the Messiah would have to come from Nathan's line.”

And again, Matthew 1:6 says Jesus comes from David and Solomon. Both David and Solomon are listed in the blood line of Christ, therefore Jesus comes from both David and Solomon.

“(6.) Therefore, Jesus is still of David's "seed" however it is through Mary's line. BY BLOOD.”

So you saying David came back from the dead and had sex with Mary and impregnated her with Jesus? That’s non sense. The man, as I mentioned above, the man holds the seed or sperm.

Leviticus 15:16 - And if any mans seede of copulation goe out from him, then hee shall wash all his flesh in water, and bee vncleane vntill the Euen.

Seed (sperm): From speiro; something sown, i.e. Seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting) -- issue, seed.

So I defined “seed”. Now let’s get the definition for “copulation”.

Copulation: sexual intercourse.

“Does this make sense to you? Jews trace legal lineage through the Male Line, open up a History Book”

It sure does make sense, that’s what Numbers 1:18 says.

Numbers 1:18 - And they assembled all the Congregation together on the first day of the second moneth, and they declared their pedegrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty yeres old and vpward by their polle.

tschuk

Con

Let me deal with each point you made one by one, as you seem to misread my intentions.

(1.) ( "You said this: "It was through her ancestry that Jesus had a birthright in the bloodline of the Tribe of Judah, the line from which all kings of Judah came. The genealogy of Jesus through Mary is not through Solomon, but through Nathan (the second surviving son of King David). Jeconiah was not an ancestor of Mary"s and therefore the blood curse is not upon Jesus" ancestral line through His mother." " Where is this in the Bible?"
I"m sorry, can you quote exactly where I made this statement? I read through my argument and could not find anywhere where I made this statement.)

I thought you would see the part where you had said "Where is this in the Bible". Which I answered.

(2.) (Of course, everything my Creator does among HIS people is a miracle.) I hope I misread this statement, Pro. It seems like you're limiting God's power and ability to work Miracles among Jews. Which is laughable.

(3.) (I accept that Solomon"s lineage was cursed, the entire nation of Israel is under curses right now because we broke HIS commandments. Therefore, Israel did not and still doesn"t have a king until Christ returns to deliver us out of this captivity.) I'm confused Pro, do you not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? Once again, Jesus could not have been born out of the line of Solomon, due to the blood curse set down upon THAT line by God. You continue to ignore this part.

(4.) (Actually, Jesus comes from David and Solomon.) In the legal aspect, yes. However, biologically he solely came from Mary. Mary and Joseph's lineages branch off between Solomon and Nathan. Both were sons of David. Pro seems to lack a knowledge of the difference in family lines, and continues to ignore this. Jesus is still from David's line, however He comes through Nathan, not Solomon. This is because Solomon's line was cursed by God.

(5.) (Joseph was of the Line of Solomon."
As was Jesus; Matthew 1:6 up above shows the genealogy of Christ.) Once again, I don't dispute this. Jesus was of Joseph's line in the legal aspect, but not the biological aspect.

(6.) (And again, Matthew 1:6 says Jesus comes from David and Solomon. Both David and Solomon are listed in the blood line of Christ, therefore Jesus comes from both David and Solomon.) Once again, in the legal sense Jesus is descended from Solomon, but not biologically. It's impossible for Jesus to have been biologically of Solomon's line due to the curse put upon the line of his descendants. Pro, you continually ignore the curse. You can't believe Jesus was the Messiah and also that He is from Solomon's line. Once again, he is from Solomon's line in a legal sense. However, biologically He is from Nathan's line.

I have refuted each one of your points. While I accept that there are two lines, what is clear is that Joseph is descended from David, however it is through Solomon's line. Mary is also descended from David, however for her it's through Nathan's line.
Solomon's line was cursed, therefore Jesus (Who is the Messiah) could not have come from HIS line. It would be impossible. Now, Mary is a different story. The curse wasn't put down upon Nathan's line, therefore that is the line where Jesus traces his lineage from biologically. Jesus comes from Solomon's line in the legal sense.
Nowhere in the Bible is it said explicitly that Joseph is Jesus's adopted father, but it is implied due to the fact that Mary had a virgin birth.
So, once again. There are two lineages, however; Solomon's line was cursed. No King would ever come from that line, which is why Joseph isn't Christ's father. However, the other Lineage (Nathan's) wasn't cursed therefore that is the line Jesus came from. Solely through Mary.

Pro circumvents the facts, and seems blind to the obvious. He also has racist implications in that He makes it sound like God's salvation isn't for everyone.
Debate Round No. 4
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro


In closing, Jesus Christ had a genealogy, He came from the seed of man. The seed of man defined in the Bible is a males sperm.


Leviticus 15:16 - And if any mans seede of copulation goe out from him, then hee shall wash all his flesh in water, and bee vncleane vntill the Euen.


Seed (sperm): From speiro; something sown, i.e. Seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting) -- issue, seed.


So I defined “seed”. Now let’s get the definition for “copulation”.


Copulation: sexual intercourse.


Acts 2:30


[30] Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworne with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loines, according to the flesh, hee would raise vp Christ, to sit on his throne:


Loins: the region of the sexual organs, especially when regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power.


“according to the flesh” – means a man’s flesh. Look at a man’s flesh…what is his loins? It’s his sexual organs.


1 John 4:3


[43] And euery Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist,whereof you haue heard, that it should come, and euen now already is it in the world.


Acts 13:23


[23] Of this mans seed hath God, according to his promise, raised vnto Israel a Sauiour, Iesus:



Moses said that Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord thy God will raise vp vnto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like vnto me, vnto him ye shall hearken, - “like unto me” meaning that Christ came into the world just as Moses and the rest of us have, through a man’s seed or sperm and the woman’s eggs.



Each individual on this planet has two genealogies, from the father and mother. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus and Joseph and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary and Jesus. Jesus had an earthly father, according to Scripture. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says Joseph adopted Jesus or Joseph is the step father of Jesus. Those are lies being taught in the Catholic and Christian churches.



I asked CON many questions and he ignored most of them and didn’t answer them. Also, CON didn’t try to refute too many of the points I made, he only used a few Scriptures and misinterpreted them with his own thoughts instead of letting the Bible interpret the Scriptures.


All in all, CON ignored much of the evidence I revealed and stated my evidence was “meaningless”. I refuted many if not all of CON’s points. I thank CON for the opportunity to debate this talking matter, good luck to you CON in your future debates.



Vote PRO!



tschuk

Con

tschuk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
@silverneccho

Your statements are proof to back up my statement of Catholics/Christian not understanding what they are reading

I'm delusional, yet you don't want to challenge me to a debate, lol.
Posted by silverneccho 1 year ago
silverneccho
@TheWORDisLIFE

My statement is proof for your statement? Which statement gives you proof?

This one?

"What's the point in insulting a large percentage of the globe?"

or

"Not the first time I have seen you do this. When are you going to provide proof of this statement? You make me want to spew."

Neither of those create a drop of proof for your statement:

"Christians/Catholics don"t understand the Bible. They read the Scriptures just to read them, but they don"t grasp what the Bible is actually saying."

You are delusional.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
@silverneccho

Your statement is proof for my statement. Are you Catholic/Christian? If so, maybe we should debate the laws apparently being done away with.
Posted by silverneccho 1 year ago
silverneccho
@TheWORDisLIFE
What's the point in insulting a large percentage of the globe?

"Christians/Catholics don"t understand the Bible. They read the Scriptures just to read them, but they don"t grasp what the Bible is actually saying."

Not the first time I have seen you do this. When are you going to provide proof of this statement? You make me want to spew.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 1 year ago
TheWORDisLIFE
@GID
What's the point of debating against non-believers?
Posted by GID 1 year ago
GID
Way to establish a one sided extremely biased debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
TheWORDisLIFEtschukTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the rules, ff equals loss