The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Resolved: The Bible as we have it today contains no errors of consequence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,084 times Debate No: 27435
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)





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 Old Testament as contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the Ancient World, etc.
Genuine Contradiction - An actual contradiction. An example of two texts that cannot both be true.
Consequence - A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. The converse would be trivial contradictions, such as slight variations in dates or counting. Such trivial contradictions are typically easily explained, or pose no challenge to the truth being taught or the accuracy of the historical retelling.

Rules and Debating Procedure
Round 1
Con must present any contradictions they believe are insurmountable. Please label them for clarity of response (Contradiction A, B, C, etc).
Round 2
I will respond to the contradictions and attempt to explain how they are either A) Not Genuine Contradictions, or B) Not Contradictions of Consequence.
Con may respond in round 2 either with challenging my response, or presenting new contradiction (or both).
Round 3
I will respond to his challenges or new contradictions.
Con may only respond to my answers.
Round 4
I will respond to his challenges.
In the close of round 4 Con may not present new arguments or responses to my challenge (that gives us each 3 rounds since my first round is being used only to describe rules). In Round 4 Con will enter "Closing Round" or something similar. If Con presents new arguments or rebuttals in Round 4, they are in violation of the terms of this debate and forfeit all 7 points to Pro for the debate.

A note about Burden of Proof
This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My burden of proof will be to reasonably explain any apparent contradictions that Con identifies. Con's burden of proof is to provide adequate biblical citations so that I may find the passages he is referencing. In addition, please use the ESV as the translation (It can be found at as it is both accurate and readable, and using only one translation prevents us from slipping into confusion over variant readings in different translations. If space is a premium, ESVonline provides a link shortening service to link to verses. Simply type reference and you will get a link. For example. will link to John 3:16. This stipulation does not cast the original Greek texts out of bounds, and is simply to avoid falling into conspiracy over varient modern translations.

Limitation of Space
Since it takes more space to answer an apparent contradiction than it does to claim one, My opponent will be limited to 5 active contradictions. If he wishes to add a new contradiction, he will be required to drop a prior contradiction. Dropping a contradiction equates to acknowledging that contradiction as invalid.

If there are any questions, please pose them in comments prior to accepting the debate. By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above.

(This is a copy of another debate's format)


Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I agree to the rules and the terms of this debate and look forward to an excellent debate.

Contradiction 1: Genealogies of Jesus

The Bible gives the genealogies (note the plural) of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. Both are contradictory to each other and if either one of the genealogies is correct, Jesus is not the Messiah. Here is a chart that lists the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke and you can see the differences in each of the charts [1].

MATTHEW 1:1-16

LUKE 3:23-31

1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Jacob
4. Matthan
5. Eleazar
6. Eluid
7. Achim
8. Zadok
9. Azor
10. Eliakim
11. Abiud
12. Zerubbabel
14. Jechoniah
15. Josiah
16. Amon
17. Manasseh
18. Hezekiah
19. Ahaz
20. Jotham
21. Uzziah
22. Joram
23. Jehoshapat
24. Asa
25. Abijah
26. Rehoboam
27. Solomon
28. David
29. Jesse
30. Obed
31. Boaz
32. Salmon
33. Nahshon
34. Amminadab
35. Ram
36. Hezron
37. Perez
38. Judah
39. Jacob
40. Isaac
41. Abraham

1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Heli
4. Matthat
5. Levi
6. Melchi
7. Jannai
8. Joseph
9. Mattathias
10. Amos
11. Nahum
12. Esli
13. Naggai
14. Maath
15. Mattathias
16. Semein
17. Josech
18. Joda
19. Joanan
20. Rhesa
21. Zerubbabel
22. Shealtiel
23. Neri
24. Melchi
25. Addi
26. Cosam
27. Elmadam
28. Er
29. Joshua
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Judah
36. Joseph
37. Joanm
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menna
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David

By looking at this chart, we see that they contradict one another: Some of the names in the genealogeis are taken out of the Old Testament. Even from this known source, we find that Matthew and Luke used the source rather freely to fit into their theological scheme. Secondly, we see that both lists disqualify Jesus as being the promised Messiah. Finally, we see that there have been names that have been left out of the list. I do not feel that the skipping of genealogies is that important because we are focused more on the contradiction per se, rather than the actual jot and tittle of the list.

The Old Testament is very specific as to who is and who is not qualified to be the Messiah. For one, he must be a decendant of David and Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12). That means that Luke disqualifies David as being the Messiah because he would not be a direct descendant of Solomon.

The Gospel of Matthew does not allow Jesus to be the Messiah as his lineage goes through a cursed man named Jehoiachin who is banned from the throne. Him and his descendants were not allowed to inhereit the throne. Interestingly, the Ryrie Study Bible even notes the following:

"The N.T. form of Jeconiah, who was Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and who was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. Jermiah contracted "Jeconiah" to "Coniah" (22:24, 28; 37:1). A curse was pronounced on Coniah that none of his descendants would prosper sitting on the throne of David. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, He could not be successful on the throne of David because of this curse. But since He came through Mary's lineage, He was not affected by this curse." (Emphasis mine) [2]

The pigheadedness (what else could I say) of such an explanation absolutely astounds me for such a "scholar" as Ryrie was. In Jewish Law (which Jesus was still under), the genealogies were only inhereited through the males. Mary's genealogy is completely irrelavent as far as the genealogies is concerned. [3]


The genealogies of Jesus are inconsistent and post more difficulties than just the fact that they contradict each other. Within the contradiction is a dichotomy that is posed: Which ever one is true (if either one is true), then Jesus is not the Messiah; hence the Bible is false. This is a serious challenge to the Christian faith.

Contradiction 2-3: The Last Supper and Crucifixion Date

I will now focus on the end of Jesus' life in an event known as the Last Supper. The three synoptic gospels clearly state that this event was a Passover meal:

Mark 14:12-17 (Matthew 26:17-20; Luke 22:7-14),
"And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples...went to the city...and they prepared the passover. And when it was evening he came with the twelve and they were at the table eating."

Therefore, this event was on the 14th day of Nisan. However, in the Gospel of John, this Last Supper was a normal meal on the 13th of Nisan:

John 13:1-2, "It was just before passover feast...the evening meal was served."

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. This table [4] outlines the general gist of the contradictory chronologies:

Date Synoptic's Chronology John's Chronology
13 Nisan - Thursday: Last Supper (normal meal)
14 Nisan Thursday: Last Supper (passover meal) Friday: Crucifixion
15 Nisan Friday: Passover & Crucifixion Saturday: Passover
16 Nisan Saturday Sunday: Resurrection
17 Nisan Sunday: Resurrection -


The gospels present contradictory accounts as to the timing of Jesus' death and the Last Supper

Contradiction 4: The Triumphal Entry

Matthew 21:1-3,
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once."

Mark 11:1-3:
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.'"

Luke's account is in agreement with Mark's account. However, here's John's account:

John 12:10-20
12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out,

“Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”

14 And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written,

15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!”

16 His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him. 17 The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear witness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

So, John's account contradicts the other three: In this account, it is Jesus that finds the donkey. Moreover, in Matthew, Jesus is sitting on two animals and not just one! The reason is an obvious misunderstanding of the prophecy in Zechariah.


The Bible contains serious contradictions of consequnce concerning the genealogies of Jesus, the Last Supper, and the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

I rest my case.


1. Tobin, P. (2000). "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager."

2. The Ryrie Study Bible notes on Matthew chapter 1. King James Version of the Holy Bible.
4. Tobin, P. (2000). "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager.";

Debate Round No. 1


My apologies, in light of a busy schedule, I find that I will very possibly not have time to post my arguments. As is, it is almost hours away.

Rebuttal 1: Genealogies of Jesus
So, the first objection is due to seeming inconsistencies between the lists. [1]

Matthew’s list is actually a selection of names, as evidenced by his use of “begat.” It is intended to be incomplete. This is the complete opposite of Luke’s “son of.” Matthew traced the paternal line through Solomon, Luke, the maternal line. The two chronologies intersect at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, but separate after. Joseph was at the end of the paternal, and Mary, the maternal, lines.

Joseph is the direct descendant of David. So is Mary. This establishes that Joseph, and as such Jesus, is heir to the throne. (For an explanation of Joseph son of Heli, see ref. 1. I’m not going into it.)

We will not care about genealogical contradictions, of which there is none. They are of no consequence as my opponent has pointed out. So, what does 2 Sam. 7:12 say?
“When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.” (ESV)
Who was this addressed to? David. Did it mention Solomon in any way? No. This means that all the Messiah has to be is to be a descendant of David. Which Jesus is.

Conclusion: The main crux of Con’s argument is that Jesus is not the Messiah because he is not from Solomon. As the verse shows, the promise was not to Solomon, but to David. This is thus not a contradiction of any kind, either minor or of consequence. It is, rather, a misconception due to a misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

Rebuttal 2-3: The Last Supper and the Cruxifiction Date
There are two interesting ways to consider this. I will expound on both.

1st: It is not a contradiction!
[2] This argument basically harmonizes the four gospels and takes into account the fact that no lamb was present at the meal described by the three gospel writers. As it is integral to the meal, they most certainly would have mentioned it.

“The simplest solution, and the one assumed in this commentary, is that Jesus, knowing that he would be dead before the regular time for the meal, deliberately held it in secret one day early....Of course it was strictly incorrect to hold a "Passover" at any time other than the evening of Nisan 14/15 [that is, at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th], but Jesus was not one to be bound by formal regulations in an emergency situation!....It was therefore a Passover meal in intention, but without a lamb [page 365].” (Commentary of Matthew in the Tyndale New Testament series, by R. T. France as quoted in [2])

This shows that strictly speaking, the Last Supper was not a passover meal. It would also mean that He was crucified at the same time as the slaughter of the lambs.

2nd: If it is a contradiction, it is of no consequence.
This is of no consequence because no command was given to hold the Last Supper. It is merely tradition held by the Church. Is this a shocker? To some, maybe. So we can see from this, easily, that the commands given by Christ is not put into any doubt by this. Why? This is because the commands given there is to serve one another, and to love one another. The other command is to keep the Lord’s Supper, which is different from the Last Supper.

Conclusion: It can be quite clearly seen from this that the contradiction is both not a contradiction or of consequence.

Rebuttal 4: The Triumphal Entry
I need not quote the Scriptures for this. This is not even a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction:
Technically, Jesus did find the donkey. He did it through His disciples by tasking them with getting it for Him. It is evident from all versions that the disciples got both the mother and the colt. It is also evident that Jesus sat on the colt only.

This is an example of the many times that the Gospel writers emphasized different parts of the story, giving us a most detailed account of the life of the Messiah, which would not have happened if there was only one mutually inclusive account.

In general conclusion

The first contradiction is a result of shallow scholarship. (No offence)
The second and third contradiction is the result of a lack of harmonization.
The fourth contradiction is not even a contradiction.

Please bring up actual contradictions in the next round.



I would like to thank you for your rebuttal. Needless to say, I do not find your arguments to be satisfactory. I will explain why in this round.

I. The Genealogies of Jesus

I would like to respond in two parts. First, I would like to respond to the attempt to reconcile these verses via the lineages of Joseph (Matthew) and Mary (Luke). Secondly, I will refute the attempt at reconciling the consequence of this contradiction.

A. Reconciling the Contradictions

Reconciling the contradictions in the genealogies is not as easy as saying that Matthew is giving Joseph’s and Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy. This explanation is not without its problems. As D. A. Carson notes:

"The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.” [1]

Indeed, because Jews do not admit to transmission of genealogy by the mother, St. Jerome rightfully stated, “It is not the custom of the scriptures to count women in their genealogies.” The reason is because it is the male that is the legal lineage of the child – once again, we see that Mary’s lineage is completely irrelevant.

Finally, Mary was supposedly a relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), whom he gave as a descendant of priestly family of Aaron (Luke 1:5). This makes Mary a member of that family – not a direct descendant of David and Solomon.

B. What’s the Consequence?

In addition to the contradiction, I pointed out several consequences that should be made apparent because of this contradiction: Whichever horn of the contradiction my opponent chooses to take, Jesus is not the Messiah. My opponent attempted to explain these difficulties.

First, let’s unwrap the fact that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon. I will present several verses below that prove this point [2]:

1 Chronicles 29:1, “And David the king said to the entire congregation: Solomon my son, who alone God has chosen...’”

God also declared that He will not take the throne away from Solomon as He took it from Saul:

2 Samuel 7:14-15, “If he [Solomon] commits iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul . . .”

So yes, the Messiah must be a descendant from David – but it goes one step further as well with Solomon.

My opponent dropped the consequence of Jesus having Jehoiachin in Matthew’s lineage. Please answer that problem in the next round.

II. The Last Supper and Crucifixion Date

Once again, I’ll break this rebuttal into two parts: I will refute my opponent’s explanation and then I will explain how this is a contradiction of consequence.

The problem with the explanation is that the synoptics clearly tell us that this was the 14th day of Nisan:

Mark 14:12-17 (Matthew 26:17-20; Luke 22:7-14), “And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples...went to the city...and they prepared the Passover. And when it was evening he came with the twelve and they were at the table eating.”

So, the synoptic gospels clearly state that: 1) This was on the first day of unleavened bread; and 2) This was when they sacrificed the Passover lamb. Emphasis in the verses are mine.

John clearly states that this was before this event:

John 13:1-2, “It was just before Passover feast...the evening meal was served.”

So, how is this of consequence? Remember how we defined what a consequence was. In our opening round, we defined it as a contradiction that poses an actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. As such, it is unnecessary for there to be a command within the passage in order for it to be of consequence. In order to understand how this is a threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine, we need to understand the theology of what is going on within the passages.

For John, Jesus was the new Paschal lamb (the Lamb of God). Therefore, it would make sense that Jesus would be crucified at the precise moment of the slaughter of the Passover lamb [3] (which John specifically states that he is). The synoptics’ theology, however, was to connect the Passover meal to the institution of the Eucharist. So the consequence is not necessarily one of command per se, rather it is a consequence of theology.

I will respond to the final contradiction in the next round as I am out of space. In conclusion, I feel that the contradictions that I have presented still stand.

[1] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Lk 3:23–38). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press. Quoted on

[2] Sigal, G. (n.d.). “Must the Messiah be a descendent of Solomon?”

[3] Tovia, S. (n.d.). “Did the Passover Lamb Foreshadow the Crucifixion of Jesus?”;

Debate Round No. 2


I agree that my answers were less than satisfactory. However, I will defend them further in this round.

1. Genealogies of Jesus

Is the genealogies really Mary’s?
To quote a problem given in that article but fail to provide the solution given is odd, at most generous. I will quote from the same article as my opponent, to show that there is an explanation.

“...Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.”

And viola! It answers both contradictions and consequences at once! Fascinatingly, Solomon is mentioned in the genealogies, this means that Jesus is a descendant of David twice over. Or even maybe more.

2. The Last Supper and the Cruxifiction Date
Let us now assume that this is a contradiction. So now, I must explain why it is of no consequence. I will leave off the previous explanation. It is not good. Instead, I will be using Prof. Humphrey’s explanation. This explanation is actually quite brilliant in that it is fact based. Or rather, based on facts known outside the Scriptures.

“...The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that there were a number of different Jewish calendars in use in Israel in the first century AD, and so different Jewish groups celebrated Passover on different days. We have a similar situation today with the date of Easter: Catholics and Protestants celebrate Easter on a different date from Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians, because they calculate the date of Easter using different calendars (Gregorian and Julian, respectively). In his description of the Last Supper, John uses the official Jewish calendar, in which the Last Supper was before the date of the official Passover....”

“...The official Jewish calendar at the time of Jesus’ death was that still used by Jews today; a lunar system in which days run from sunset to sunset. This was developed during the Jewish exile in Babylon in the sixth century BC. Before that, however, the Jews had a different system. This is referred to in the Book of Exodus, which describes God instructing Moses and Aaron to start their year at the time of the Exodus from Egypt... this pre-exilic Jewish calendar was based on the Egyptian lunar calendar (their calendar used for religious feasts and festivals, as distinct from the Egyptian solar calendar used for civil purposes)...”

“...There is extensive evidence that this original Jewish calendar survived to Jesus’ time. Not all Jews were exiled to Babylon. Those who remained retained the pre-exilic calendar and by the first century AD groups such as the Samaritans, Zealots, some Galileans and some Essenes were still using the original Jewish calendar. Under this pre-exilic calendar, Passover always fell a few days earlier than in the official Jewish calendar, and the days were marked from sunrise to sunrise, not sunset to sunset...”

“...From the clues they give, it’s clear that Matthew, Mark and Luke all used the pre-exilic calendar in their description of the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John uses the official calendar in which the Last Supper was before the Passover...” [1]

I find these explanation enough to make my point. See also my previous points regarding commands. It also applies to doctrines. I do not feel the need to phrase all of these in my own words simply because this is a fact based theory, and if I were to phrase it in my own words, there would be almost no change. I could then be accused of plagiarism, which I will scrupulously avoid. To summarize into a few words, Jesus was not using the exile calendar, but the Moses’ calendar, which would have fit well with His agenda of a “new Moses” with “new covenants”

I realize this is not the best I have given or can give, but I have a rather tight schedule this week. My apologies.




Thank you for challenging me to this debate. It certainly has been a fun debate and I have learned from it. I wish you the best of luck as we enter into the final rounds.

Contradiction 1: Jesus’ Genealogies

My opponent has not only contradicted himself, but has proved my whole point in this contradiction.

My opponent has failed to answer the problem of the legal lineage. According to Jewish law, the mother’s lineage is totally irrelevant in selecting the legal lineage for the son. It is the male that selects the legal lineage:

Numbers 1:18, “And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head.” (Emphasis mine)

Until my opponent answers this question, the argument from genealogies does not stand. As a result, there is only one genealogy per child – the father’s genealogy. Contrary to what my opponent stated, it is absolutely impossible for Jesus to be a descendant of David twice over.

Next, my opponent failed to respond to the fact that Luke makes Mary a descendant of Aaron – not David, by having her a cousin of Elizabeth who was a descendant of Aaron on both her father’s side (which would be Mary’s father) and Elizabeth’s mother. Therefore, Mary too is a descendant of Aaron.

What about adoption? Does adoption solve the problem? My opponent stated, “But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son.” No, in fact it only adds to it. In Jewish law, adoption is irrelevant in determining legal genealogy. It is only by the biological father.. As Penina Taylor notes [1]:

If Jesus was not a product of Joseph's seed, then Messiah could not be of the Royal House of David, since in Judaism the mother gives one the "Jewish soul" and the father the "tribal lineage." If Jesus was the product of the seed of another being, then according to Jewish Halacha (law, literally “the way to walk”), Joseph could be a caretaker father, even if he could "adopt" Jesus, that would not give him tribal lineage, and so he could not be an heir to the throne of David. Unless Joseph is physically the father of Jesus, he (Jesus) cannot inherit the genealogical line of Joseph. Adoption, which is a legal procedure, does not allow one to inherit genealogical birthrights.”

Finally, there are Scriptural verses to prove this:

Numbers 36:7, “The hereditary property of the Israelites will thus not be transferred from one tribe to another, and each person among the Israelites will remain attached to the hereditary property of his father's tribe.”

So, adoption does nothing to change the status of a child. For example, if a child from the tribe of Judah is adopted by a Cohen, he is not a Cohen, he is still from Judah and a descendant of David.

Solomon’s lineage is forever promised:

1Chronicles 22:9-10 – (9) Behold a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace from all his enemies around about, for Solomon will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. (10) He shall build a House in My Name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a Father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.

This proves beyond all doubt that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon. Emphasis is mine in that verse. My opponent has completely ignored those points.

Conclusion: My opponent’s attempt at reconciling the verses have failed for several reasons:

1) Because Mary is a cousin of Elizabeth, who is of the tribe of Aaron, she too is from the tribe of Levi – not Judah;

2) Adoption does not change the status of a person’s lineage;

3) If the curse of Jeconiah is invalid by the adoption, then so is the legal right to the throne (you can’t have it both ways);

4) Mary’s lineage is invalid via Nathan and not Solomon.

My contradiction still stands.

Contradiction 2: The Last Supper and Crucifixion Dates

My opponent dropped his explanation and has conceded to my rebuttal and admitted that his explanation failed. He then quoted Dr. Humphrey for an explanation which, unfortunately also, begs the question; namely, why would Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the pre-exilic calendar if it was no longer in use - especially because Matthew was writing to the Jews, it stands to reason that Matthew would use the official Jewish calendar at that time.

If it were true that there were multiple calendars at Jesus’ time, the Jews were unified in selecting the date of the holiday. [2]

Numbers 28:16-17 (Exodus 12:18) On the fourteenth day of the first month is the Lord's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast, seven days shall unleavened days be eaten.

So, no matter what calendar you are using, the 14th day of the 1st month is Passover.


1) The Jewish holiday date stays the same from year to year;

2) There is no evidence for multiple calendars – and my opponent’s quoting a scholar’s text is an appeal to authority. Nowhere in his argument does he prove that there are multiple calendars; and

3) It stands to reason that Matthew would be using the official Jewish calendar at the time of the event because he was writing to Jewish people.

Debate Round No. 3


I will like to thank Microsuck for this debate. I will note that he has dropped one contradiction already. He promised, “I will respond to the final contradiction in the next round as I am out of space...” Still no response.

I. Genealogies
In seeking to prove his point, my opponent has unfortunately dropped on his own sword. Let me explain. I will quote two of his statements side by side to show that while he is trying to prove a contradiction, he makes a contradiction.

“...According to Jewish law, the mother’s lineage is totally irrelevant in selecting the legal lineage for the son...”
“...Mary a descendant of Aaron – not David, by having her a cousin of Elizabeth who was a descendant of Aaron on both her father’s side (which would be Mary’s father) and Elizabeth’s mother. Therefore, Mary too is a descendant of Aaron...” (Emphasis mine. There is a non sequitur in that Mary is not the descendant of Aaron. Even if it were so, Aaron would not have been the sole ancestor.)

I had to control myself not to burst out laughing when I spotted this. Besides which, I will address the actual arguments even though his arguments commit suicide.

I have quoted in the previous round that Matthew makes Jesus the legal heir and Luke makes Jesus the biological heir. It appears that my opponent has ignored this. He answers slightly my answer to adoption, but as I will now show, it is a suicidal argument as well.

a. Adoption
Firstly, by Con’s own admission, “...the mother gives one the "Jewish soul”...” In other words, the mother gives the biological lineage, or “Jewishness.” From this we can see already that Con’s earlier statements are blatantly false and contradictory. It means that I need not reply further. However, that will not prove my point sufficiently for the average reader, and I want to prove it. To do so, I will have to answer the header point of adoption.

“Strictly speaking,... any descendent of David would be considered of the 'royal' family, because it was defined by the ancestor--not the current holder (or non-holder) of the throne. So, for example, in the case in 2 Sam 21, the children of Saul and his concubine Rizpah were of 'Saul and his bloody house', but--as children of a concubine--they would never be in the line of succession.”[1] (Emphasis original)

So it is clear from this that not only is your quote wrong on this point, it is also wrong on every other point as well.

b. Mary’s tribe
I will, even though I have clearly debunked all my opponent’s seeming contradiction, make a point about Mary’s tribe.

“The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.
One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:
"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"” (Ibid) (Emphasis original)

"According to the later law, where there were no sons, daughters inherited, and with the express purpose of preventing a man’s name from being lost to his family (Nu. 27:4), but such daughters must marry only into the family of the tribe of their father (Nu. 36:6). In v. 22 it is stated that these conditions were fulfilled in the case of Eleazar and doubtless the verse was added to show why Eleazar was also counted among the fathers’ houses though he was known to have had no sons.— Curtis, E. L., & Madsen, A. A. (1910). A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Chronicles. Series title in part also at head of t.-p. (265). New York: C. Scribner's Sons.” (Ibid) (Emphasis original)

So it can be clearly seen from this, that in addition to the blatantly false claims you quoted, there is actually Biblical as well as historical support for the fact that Mary was of the seed of David.
It is also very clear that the promise to Solomon was a conditional promise, as 1 Ch. 28:7 shows. “I will establish his kingdom forever if he continues strong in keeping my commandments and my rules, as he is today.” Solomon did not continue strong. (Emphasis mine)

It is also apparent that the Scriptures never refer to the return of “The house of Solomon” but “The House of David.”

Jesus is the descendent of David twice over as the evidence shows and as Con has actually helped my case very much. The Messiah need not be a descendant of Solomon, which Jesus was, according to the evidence.

II. Dates
I will only briefly respond to this as I am running out of space. Con has only affirmed my statements about different calendars. He has resorted to arguing with a source, which, however, does not even prove his point. As I will show, Con has only reaffirmed my statements. To see why, we will ask one question. The 14th day of the month of which calender? The Scriptures have no answer to this, so we must use other historical evidence.

What does the evidence tell us?
Well, the evidence is unanimously in favor of Humphrey’s solution. To dismiss it in spite of the evidence is not being skeptical at all, but thick-headed (No offence). Con has provided no explanation of how dates must be exilic in origin. He has only asserted that point. He has provided no counter to Humphrey's explanation of the dates.

Con dropped an argument of his own but innocently accuses me of changing my explanation. He provided no explanation for why he dropped the argument, while I provided explanation for my behaviour. The Jewish holidays are always the same for a certain calendar. Changing calendars would change dates. Con does not seem to notice this.

In general conclusion, no contradiction has ever withstood the evidence I have presented. One was dropped, one was suicidal, and one sidetracked everything.


All being said, I am thankful that this debate happened. If it had not, I would probably have not had gone much into historical details surrounding the Scriptures as I much prefer science.


As per the rules of this debate, I am not allowed to respond to my opponent's arguments in this round. Thank you for this debate and I wish you the best of luck. Voters, I turn this over to you.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
IntellectualHonesty 1:38--The truth is, its always been a war for intellectual honesty against religion. Science is just an extremely effective expression of intellectual honesty. Math is another expression of honesty. Expressing and advocating intellectual honesty includes understandings vs beliefs. We dont believe water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, we understand it is. 2 +2 = 4, you understand that, your beliefs wont change that fact. Rotation, revolution and evolution are like simple math problems, they are understandings, and denying them wont make your god anymore real :)
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
Nothing like a single unbiased and well-justified vote deciding a debate.
Posted by Ron-Paul 3 years ago

S&G: Con had a few more mistakes than pro.

Sources: One, con's sources were a little more reliable, and con's sources outnumbered pro's sources 8 to 4.
Posted by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
I need some sleep. I will post RFD around noon tomorrow.
Posted by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
I've read most of this thing, so I'll vote on this tomorrow. Can't let this great debate end as a tie!
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
@DeFool, completely answered in the last round.
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
I am reading this debate carefully, and have not finished. Please forgive me if this is answered later.

I note that both genealogies of Jesus essentially remove him from consideration as Messiah, since they prove that he was not a descendant of David: Both trace his ancestry from David to Joseph. However, Jesus was not the son of Joseph - unless we are to disregard the virgin birth as unserious. In order to have been demonstrated as the descendant of David, and to maintain the virgin birth legend, we would need Mary, not Joseph, to have been the final link in the two lineages.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
I will post 2 or so hours before end. I have to be in bed by the end, so...bear with me.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
As per request not seen on this page, I will wait till the last possible moment before posting.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
fascinating, I'll have to think this through. I might take some time to reply...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 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: RFD in comments.