The Instigator
Truin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ScottyDouglas
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Mary Mother of Jesus Scarlet or Saint

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 2 votes the winner is...
ScottyDouglas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,231 times Debate No: 23980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Truin

Pro

Mary in the eyes of many believer of the Judeo-Christian religions is the women who was visited by an angel and given the child of "god." Is it possible she is a liar and con many to believe this completely illogical concept of child bearing with the void of deed being skipped. Is the very cornerstone of this religion a false concept and complete lie.
ScottyDouglas

Con

Thank you to my opponent for this debate.
I will accept the challenege to prove Mary (mother of Jesus) was factual.
My opponent I assume is stating Mary(mother of Jesus) was a fraud.

Since my opponent offered no resolution I will:
The most convincing case that offers creditiability of Mary either being fact or fraud.

Rounds:
1. acceptance
2. arguements
3. rebuttals/arguements
4. rebuttals
5. rebuttals/conclusion

Rules:
1. All sources must be given,
2. Must stay on topic.(about Mary)
3. Must stay respectful
Thank you and Gl
Debate Round No. 1
Truin

Pro

The idea of Mary giving birth to a child without the needed biological process of insemination is not possible. The biology of the human race is not able to make life without the use of human Egg Cells and human Sperm Cells. There has not been an account of this in the passed two thousand years because it is not possible to occur. There have been women that have lied in the past and the truth was surfaced that their pregnancy's origin was falsifiable (many are apart of religious cults). The idea of virgin births are also old concepts used by greeks romans and even before the beginning of Judaism. Pagan religions have been copied my those who worship this concept and many others throughout all the stories of the bible. Mary could not have given birth to a child as a virgin.

If my opponent would like I could give sites on the history of virgin births before christ. If he/she can disprove my claims in anyway I would gladly try to back them up as best I can. (Sorry my protocol is not proper this is my first debate on this site).
ScottyDouglas

Con

I want to thank my opponenet for this very interesting topic.

This topic has been on my mind alot and I thank my opponent for giving me a chance at debating it.

My opponent provided no sources on his claims. By doing this his shows all his information is speculation and not provable. And since we are in a dicussion with great need of other information then sources are required.

My opponent states:
"The idea of Mary giving birth to a child without the needed biological process of insemination is not possible. The biology of the human race is not able to make life without the use of human Egg Cells and human Sperm Cells."

In all rational cases my opponent would be right here but this is not the case. In this case we are given means of miraculous conception. Therefore by this means all prior biological means are mute.

"There has not been an account of this in the passed two thousand years because it is not possible to occur."

Again my opponent makes wild assertions without any evidence to back up his claim. His was not around two thousands years ago and I do not think anyone was.

"There have been women that have lied in the past and the truth was surfaced that their pregnancy's origin was falsifiable (many are apart of religious cults)."

I agree with what He says here, It is know many people are liars. But Is the Mary we are debating about a liar? He provided no proof she was.

"The idea of virgin births are also old concepts used by greeks romans and even before the beginning of Judaism. Pagan religions have been copied my those who worship this concept and many others throughout all the stories of the bible. Mary could not have given birth to a child as a virgin. If my opponent would like I could give sites on the history of virgin births before christ. If he/she can disprove my claims in anyway I would gladly try to back them up as best I can. (Sorry my protocol is not proper this is my first debate on this site)."

Before I respond to this claim I would like to allow my opponent to back his claims and provide the resources He is refering to.

We should start this round with some fore-shadowing of the life of Mary-mother of Jesus.

Her name was Mary, a form of the name Miriam, the famous sister of Moses. The name was common among Jewish women in those days. A well-known tradition says she was born in Jerusalem, the daughter of Joachim and Ann. Other early sources say Mary was born in Nazareth. There is even an ancient record that points to Sepphoris, a town a few miles from Nazareth, as her birthplace. Map (15 K gif)

Wherever she was born, Mary's life most likely unfolded in the staunch Jewish settlement of Nazareth in the hills of Galilee, not far from the important caravan routes linking Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The Jews there were a strong, robust people. The hill climate was dry and healthful. And though the land often lacked water and no one knew from one year to the next if enough rain would fall or if invading locusts or field mice would spoil the crops -- still, facing uncertainty only made the people of Galilee more hard-working and close-knit. Struggling for a living deepened their religious spirit. They learned you must depend on God always.

The people of Nazareth had a strong Jewish faith. As God's chosen people, descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Jews believed this land was theirs, given to their ancestors whom Moses led out of Egypt. They knew by heart the deeds of kings like David and Solomon and the words of prophets like Isaiah and Elijah. Even though the Romans, with Herod's family as their puppets, now occupied Palestine, the Jews of Galilee believed God would someday send a Messiah who would free Israel from her enemies.

"Now at that time Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census -- the first -- took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his own town to be registered. So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee and traveled up to Judea, to the town of David called Bethlehem, since he was of David's House and line, in order to be registered together with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to a Son, her first-born. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them at the inn.

After the birth of Jesus, according to St. Luke's Gospel, Mary and Joseph fulfilled what Jewish law customarily required when a child was born. Eight days later, they had the child circumcised and gave him the name Jesus.

After forty days, they took him to the temple at Jerusalem to consecrate him to God. There, the old man Simeon and the old woman Anna recognized the child's extraordinary mission. Taking him into his arms, Simeon said to Mary his mother: "You see this child: he is destined for the fall and for the rising of many in Israel, destined to be a sign that is rejected -- and a sword shall pierce your own soul, too -- so that the secrets of many hearts may be laid bare."

We can hardly guess how Mary experienced the tragic days when they arrested and crucified her Son. Tradition says she stood on the road as Jesus passed by carrying his cross. When all his disciples fled, she remained with him. Helpless to do anything else, she watched her dying Son and offered her love. When he died, they took him down from the cross and placed him in her arms. She held him gently, her child of long ago.

She was one of those who saw him risen from the dead.
Her cries of grief turned into cries of joy as she waited in prayer with the apostles for the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised to send them.
As the mother of Jesus, Mary had a special place among his followers, strengthening their faith through her own. From his cross, Jesus gave her to his church as a mother for all ages.

John's Gospel, the last of the four, speaks twice of Mary. At Cana in Galilee she intercedes with her son for a newly married couple and he changes the water into wine. (Jn 2:1-12) On Calvary she stands beneath the cross at Jesus' death. (Jn 19:25-27) At Cana and on Calvary Jesus calls his mother "Woman," which early Christian tradition saw as an allusion likening her to the first woman, Eve. In God's plan, Mary, by her faith, reversed the failure of Eve and so became the new "mother of all the living." Through the centuries the stories of Cana and Calvary have led Christians to seek Mary's intercession with her Son and to rely on her as a mother with compassion for those in need.
http://www.cptryon.org...

In this round I gave rebuttals are advice to my opponent. I only described the stroy of Mary. In the next round I will rebuttal my ooponent of He chooses to offer evidence of his claims. I will also provide documanted evidence that Mary in fact lived and was Jesus's mother. I will offer the many years of tridion of Mary being a virgin and mother of God manifest in the flesh.

Thanks to my opponent. I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Truin

Pro

In all rational cases my opponent would be right here but this is not the case. In this case we are given means of miraculous conception. Therefore by this means all prior biological means are mute."

As a miraculous conception is not only not provable it can not be disprove this topic must be thrown out on the basis of lack of evidence on both parties. I am sure my rival will agree with my reasoning here. As my statement was agree my CON I will state it can not be thrown from the discussion.

"I agree with what He says here, It is know many people are liars. But Is the Mary we are debating about a liar? He provided no proof she was."

She stated to Joseph that an angel came and god made her with child. As this isn't possible in the natural world it is a lie. Zeus and Poseidon have taken virgins many times. Those stories are also false.

"Before I respond to this claim I would like to allow my opponent to back his claims and provide the resources He is referring to."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Miraculous Births in other cultures. It isn't new to the world knowledge but this is the only one accepted my Christ's followers. Gods have impregnated virgins before. Kind of a past time throughout religion as a whole.

This debate is not for if Mary existed. She did but was there a virgin birth that is the topic.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I would again thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent started off again without sources to help his claim. He gives us Wikipedia to chew on. We will get back to that one.

I stand by my previous statement:

"In all rational cases my opponent would be right here but this is not the case. In this case we are given means of miraculous conception. Therefore by this means all prior biological means are mute."

I stand by this not because I am a creationist but because no one or thing can disprove this claim. It is simply that, 'a claim.' It is to far in the past to make biological evidence from it. Therefore we both must have a 'tie' in this point. He does not believe and I do. Dead point.

"As a miraculous conception is not only not provable it can not be disprove this topic must be thrown out on the basis of lack of evidence on both parties. I am sure my rival will agree with my reasoning here. As my statement was agree my CON I will state it can not be thrown from the discussion."
Yes I do agree!

"She stated to Joseph that an angel came and god made her with child. As this isn't possible in the natural world it is a lie. Zeus and Poseidon have taken virgins many times. Those stories are also false.'
Again my opponent stays with semantics. He can not prove it was not possible. This goes to another debate as in, 'does God exist or not.' If God does exist then this is possible, if He does not then is is not. My opponent must provide proof that God does not exist.

"Miraculous Births in other cultures. It isn't new to the world knowledge but this is the only one accepted my Christ's followers. Gods have impregnated virgins before. Kind of a past time throughout religion as a whole."

You are right, this practice is used in many cultures throughout the world both before and after Christ. Why? Well we must look back at, satan, satan desired to be God. In desiring to be God, he learned many things about God and His knowledge. This knowledge aquired was helpful for him to decieve. I like my opponent believe no 'virgin births' took place other than Jesus. Signs of other cultures accross the world, only gives credance to Jesus, as actually bring a true event. Jesus was the only one in all these false Messiah's to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah. This hold wait for Him being the Messiah, if there was one.

Though my opponent supplied no reasons why Mary-mother of Jesus, is a liar. He also gives no reference to why we should throwout thousands of years of belief. I can undertand his clause that women today do not have babies without sex, agreed. But that is not evidence against divine intervention.

"This debate is not for if Mary existed. She did but was there a virgin birth that is the topic"

I can not give as my opponent wants, Live proof! That is impossible, atleast for me. Though I can offer the thousands of years of Christianity and faithful followers of Christ, who they themselves experince the spirit of Mary. If thses people are in fact experiencing Mary-mother of Jesus. This is evidence she was a virgin as claimed and mother of God.
My opponent concedes to the fact Mary was real and Jesus's mother.

So we will procede to evidence of her being a virgin by thousands of years of belief:

Theological basis for the veneration of Mary
http://www.catholic.org...

The Catholic veneration of Mary is based on two aspects: the workings of God who made a virgin the Mother of God,[12] and the biblical view of Mary as the selected maiden of the Lord[13] who is greeted and praised[14]by both Elisabeth[15]Luke 1:28.

A Christology without Mary is erroneous in the Roman Catholic view, because it is not based on the total revelation of the Bible. Traces of this parallel interpretation go back to the early days of Christianity and numerous saints have since focused on it.

OUR MOTHER THE SAINT VIRGIN
http://tasbeha.org...

There is no woman about whom the prophets prophesied, and
about whom the Holy Bible cared, like the Virgin Mary.......There are
numerous symbols about her in the Old Testament. In the New
Testament also, there are her biography, her praise, and the miracles.
How many are the glorifying expressions and the contemplations,
which were cited about the Virgin in the books of the fathers.........How
full of praise are the surnames by which the Church calls her, and which
are inspired from the Spirit of the Holy Bible.......!

Many witnessed accounts of Jesus and Mary:
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org...
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com...
http://www.jesuswalk.com...

A more troubling question is if eyewitnesses can't seem to get their stories straight, whether we can believe the story or not. When you think about it, you realize that these very differences validate the authenticity of the story.
In the big, important things we see five main points of agreement.

They include:
Jesus was dead and buried.
The disciples were not prepared for Jesus' death. They were overcome with confusion.
The tomb was found on Easter morning to be empty. But this in itself didn't inspire faith. Mary thought the body was stolen.
The disciples encountered a number of experiences which they took to be appearances of Jesus risen from the dead.
The disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, near where he had been buried.

Key Verses
"[The other disciple] bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed." (John 20:6-8)
"Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: 'I have seen the Lord!' And she told them that he had said these things to her." (John 20:18)

To conclude this round I would like to make some BOLD statements myself.

First, anything in this world is perception, what you percieve will most likely be what you believe. If the billions upon billions believe and feel Jesus Christ, then that itself proves Mary as a virgin, because it give credance to it.
If you do not believe then you will not percieve these miracles. Can we as a society makes claims that such miracles do not and can not happen? I do no think we can.

I give thousands of years of verified testimony of billions of believers. This holds weight. I gave thousands of years of documanted evidence that Mary was a virgin and the mother of the Living God. This holds weight. My opponent only approach is biological evidence of today, which means nothing to thousands of years ago.

Final note* I think opponent and the reader can see this whole topic relies on hear say. My opponents whole case relies on hear say and as does mine. Who's hear say is more convincing is the question?

In the next round is the conclusion were our final arguement and rebuttal clashes. Thanks to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
Truin

Pro

My rival uses the arguement of belief. I do respect his idea on this topic of god but in order to prove this that god exists or does not is not possible. How does one argue a thing that can't be sensed by touch sight or hearing.

As the burden of proof was not given at the beginning I assume that he undersood that we both must share this as concept of faith does not give proof to something It must be thrown out. The concepts that can not be proven and disproven must also be thrown out my rival has agreed to this. Devine intervention is included in this one can not argue a religion with a god that is "almighty."

This debate is for if Mary of Nazareth lied about the origin of Jesus. Not that she wasn't alive and gave birth to Jesus but that the virgin birth was not in existance. This means that in the science of biology which is actual physical and testable proof Mary must have had sex with a man to birth Jesus.

All arguements that use any god or divine usage is thrown as with the actual agreement by my rival.
ScottyDouglas

Con

Thanks to my opponent on his speedy response. I wish Him GL and God Bless.

My opponent still has yet to provide any sources for his assertions and this concerns me. Can we go around and say whatever we like without strong evidence to back it up? I think not.

He claims I use only the arguement of belief and he is wrong, I do use that arguement as a point because it is founded. I also repsect my opponent as anyone should be respected. He is also right that God can not be disproved. We differ on being able to prove God. And if in fact we can give proof of God then we ultimately give proof of Mary. What is proof?
Proof is: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

With this deffintion I will prove Mary and Jesus. What is evidence?

Evidence is: something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: In Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses-heresay, records, documents, or objects. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Law Evidence:

The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The law of evidence is also concerned with quantum, quality, and type of proof needed to prevail. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how realiable such proof is to be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay and eyewitness. http://en.wikipedia.org...(law)

Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. The definition of hearsay is not too difficult to understand. There are many exceptions in the federal rules that do not require proof that the person who made the statement is unavailable. http://criminal.findlaw.com... These are:

1. Certain public records and reports.
2. Evidence of a judgment of conviction for certain purposes.
3. Excited utterances or spontaneous statements.
4. Family records concerning family history. Judgments of a court concerning personal history, family history, general history, or boundaries, where those matters were essential to the judgment.
5. Reputation concerning boundaries or general history. Reputation concerning family history. Reputation of a person's character.
6. Past recollections recorded.

The criminal justice relies heavily on eyewitnesses to determine the facts surrounding criminal events. Eyewitnesses can identify culprits, recall conversations, or remember details. A eyewitness can be a powerful form of evidence for any juror if the witness appears to be highly confident and about thier recollection and this is usually accepted by jurors, judges, and lawyers. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...[1].pdf

Proof:

By the terms supplied above I will offer proof with evidence. The evidence provided fulfills all requirements of proof by the court of law.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(mother_of_Jesus)
2. The Bible itself (including all apostles and people of that time.)
3. Billions upon billions of believers and followers of all ages.
4. Verified family history. http://home.inreach.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. Fulfillment of the life of the Messiah by Jesus. This gives evidence to Mary.
6. The status of saint Mary gives credance to her reputation.
7. Evidence of Roman documentation of Jesus's conviction and crucifiction. http://law2.umkc.edu...

Conclusion:

With this mounting evidence of Mary being who she said she was would hold up in any court of the land. My ooponent has not offered one single shred of proof for his claim. Lets remember that my opponent made the claim and resolution therefore He must provide proof and I argue against it. Instead I am stuck defending. Hopefully in the last round my opponent will supply proof of his claims as he has so adiquitely desired me to do. I think I already proven my case far beyong my opponent. I thank him for this debate and c-ya in the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
Truin

Pro

Truin forfeited this round.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and hope we do it again sometime.

I think I made my point clear last round.

Thanks to all those read this, Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Truin 4 years ago
Truin
The argument is "Did Mary have a virgin birth or not?" I am for she is not.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
So what are you debating here? Are you Pro that Mary was the literal mother of Jesus, or Pro that she was a liar?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Pink1234 4 years ago
Pink1234
TruinScottyDouglasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
TruinScottyDouglasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. I'll probably come back to do arguments.