The Instigator
ScottyDouglas
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The Bible is right! Part 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,556 times Debate No: 24235
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (79)
Votes (7)

 

ScottyDouglas

Pro

Resolved: The Bible is right!
Part 2

In a recent debate I stated the Bible was right. Though I was over flooded with contradictions and was unable to reply properly to all of them. So in this debate I will allow my opponent to choose three contradictions(only three) to focus on(except the one below.) My opponent can choose any three contradictions in the Bible. This will be the topic. My opponent propses the three contradictions and I must provide reasonable answers to retract the contradiction. If I am unable Con wins. If I am able to dispose of all three contradictions then Pro wins.

Note: The only suspected contradiction that is unusable here is the entire Exodus and Slavery in Egypt. Pro is not conceding to it not being real but is claiming it to far in the past to determine if archeaology is correct. Hence that no evidence is not proof of that the event did not take place. Therefore this issue is unable to be negated properly from either side..

Rules:
1. Must stay on topic. (Three chosen contradictions)
2. Must be respectful.
3. Must provide resources.
4. If any round is forfeited by debator then that is automatic loss.
5. Winner is the debator would negates the best solution.

Rounds:
1. Terms/Agreement/Con Provides 3 Contradictions
2. Explanation/Rebuttal
3. Rebuttals
4. Conclusions

I thank any who accepts and do not forget to provide 3 contradictions in Round 1.
Good Luck!
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate this. Because we cannot determine if the Bible is correct based upoon contradictions (or the lack thereof), I will request to change the resolution to "Resolved: The Bible contains no true genuine contradictions." If you agree, that will be fine with me. If not, the we will keep the resolution as it is.

WHAT IS A CONTRADICTION?

A contradiction is two or more propositions which are logically incompatible with one another. [1]

==Opening Arguments==


1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?

Luke 2 reports that Jesus' birth happened the during the reign of Qurinius:

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."

This phrase is revealing because we know Quirinius was govenor of Syria in 6 CE. We also know that it was around 6 CE when this took place. [2] Matthew, on the other hand, puts it at a very different date: 6 BCE:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

We know from Josephus and various sources throughout that time that Herod the king was king until his death in 6 BCE. [3] Therefore, Matthew puts him at a later date at 4-6 BCE; a hole decade earlier.

2. THE INTERLINERSHIP OF THE NATIVITY

After the events in Matthew, the boy Jesus escapes to Egypt to escape Herod's rampage. On the other hand, Luke leaves out this story and takes Mary, Joseph, and newborn Jesus back to Nazarreth where they stayed: And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him. This event in bold only takes 40 days. Not enough time to escape to Egypt and go back and stay in a house!


3. THE DEATH OF JUDAS

My final example comes from the gospels once again. This time, they can't seem to make up their mind on how Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, died.

Matthew 27:3-5, "When Judas, his [i.e., Jesus] betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priest and elders, saying, 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.' They said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself."

vs.

Acts 1:18, "Now this man [Judas] bought a field [wait, I thought that was the high priest! Didn't he return the money? Never mind!] with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowles gushed out."

So there are at least 2 contradictions to bring up here. However, the term says that I can bring a maximum of three. Therefore, I will drop the contradiction concerning what happened to the money. That's not the point. The point is, how did Judas die. He could not have died by both! [4]




Footnotes, and bibliography

1. "Contradiction." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford University, 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 June 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu... >.

2. Carrier, Richard. "The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th Ed., 2011)." The Date of the Nativity in Luke. The Secular Web, 2011. Web. 12 June 2012. <http://www.infidels.org... >.

3. There is much historical evidence for the knowledge that King Herod died in 4 B.C.E. See the Nelson KJV Study Bible on that portion of the chapter.


4. Some Christian apologists have responded by maintaining that it was both, that he hung himself but the rope snapped. There are too many absurdities and too many problems to take such an explanation seriously. I will give a detailed rebuttal in the next round if that is what my opponent is going to us.
Debate Round No. 1
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I Thank my opponent for this Debate! I hope to provide much more detail in this one.

I would also like to start by saying I enjoy these debates because it teaches anyone who reads it. And provides multiple points of view. This is very helpful in life and much of our technology has flurished because of someone's point of view. Questioning the King James Bible is a real way of finding the most valuable truths within it. I thank my opponent again for this chance. I will get to work!

1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?

5-4BC

Contradictions in Matthew and Mark of Jesus's birth. Is this a contradiction though? I got ONE issue with this contradiction:

1. Technically it is still a historical error and before this is resolved the correct dates for history must be 100% verified. It is widely known to be errors in dating calenders. We do not even know if we are in the year 2012, it is assumed, by expert calculations, that we are in 2012 but it is not 100% assurd we are.

Ok lets take a breif summary and ask some questions.
Cyrenius was a Roman official in the time of Augustus of Rome and Herod of Judea. He was in charge of Roman military matters in Syria, which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on 2 different occasions: 6-4 BCE and 6-9 CE. The consensus among Christians is that he was born in 4 BCE, during Cyrenius' first term. And all Christian scholars, even Fundamentalists, agree that Cyrenius was governor twice. This we know as fact.

Luke's story mentions that the taxation was under Augustus Caesar, and he says nothing of Herod! And Augustus was known Ruler throughout the land of Judea, Rome, and Greece. KJV-R (Webster) Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. I will mention that Matthew and Mark have differnent styles and are for different meanings. Mark was in more of a Greek/Roman style and was under the view as the land was ruled under Augustus not Herod.

Even though Judea was a vessel state it was always under the rule of Augustus and the Romans. This only clarifies that fact in Luke. There was a Jesus, and he was born around 4 BCE, and yes, Cyrenius was governor at that time. Also it should be noted that Cyrenius was under Augustus's leadership(to rule a land he must have been loved) and even though Herod was King, he ultimately was under neath Cyrenius and finally Augustus.

My opponent needs to provide why it was a contradiction for Luke to view Augustus as ruler rather than Herod the Great? And why Cyrenius would not be governor during Jesus's birth in 4BC? And why a world-wide decree could not have come out during 4BC? Also considering a world-wide consenus, wouldn't that vast project take along time(also including limited traveling?)Maybe 10-12 years like in 6ad. 6AD was the end of the vast project of going and counting every single person, animal, land, and tax, it would take along time too complete would it not?
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. THE INTERLINERSHIP OF THE NATIVITY

In this contradiction my opponent provides no clear cut contradiction or verses. I maybe wrong. I think my opponent should define his reasoning here. I am taking it my opponent is suspecting that Jesus went to Egypt and grew strong in knowledge and went back to Nazareth in 40 days. This seems impossible. I think my opponent should provide why these events he is refering have to be within 40 days. Otherwise this is no contradiction and will be given to Pro! Some scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines.

3. THE DEATH OF JUDAS

This is the easiest one of my opponents three contradicitons. This is simple lets pull up the scripture:

Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went away and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."

It's rather easy to reconcile these:

First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before. In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks. Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established.

First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead.

Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' death. But Matthew does not state death as being a result.

The Greek word is APAGCHO. Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb." Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself," but it explicitly adds, "and died". Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.

The potter's field was purchased by Judas [Acts 1:18]

The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests [Matt 27:6,7]

Perhaps here, the following maxim holds -- "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton. http://www.bringyou.to...

Contradiction resolved. Goes to Pro!

I thank my opponent and send back his way>

Sources:

KJV Bible-Revised

^ Spong, John Shelby. Jesus for the non-religious. HarperCollins. 2007. ISBN 0-06-076207-1 ^
Brown, R.E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Doubleday, NY. 1993.

Page 549 ^ Bromiley, Geoffrey W, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. 1995. ISBN 0-8028-3785-9.

Page 655 ^ Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted. HarperCollins. 2009. ISBN 0-06-117393-2
Microsuck

Con

Thank you, pro, for your rebuttals. I am attempting a slightly different format and I want to clarify a few things. A [bracket] with a number symbolizes a footnote whereas a (#) with a number symbolizes a bibliographic reference.

1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?

I have cited a contradiction between Matthew and Luke discussing what year Jesus was born. Obviously he could not have been born in the year 6 BCE and 6 CE.

My opponent is incorrect in stating that I brought up a historical error. I brought up a clear contradiction between two authors which state that Jesus was born either before 4 BCE or after 4 BCE. An example of this type of contradiction is akin to say that one author stated that it was in the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the other stating that it is during the time when Bloomberg was governor of New York! Huh? Wrong dates!

My opponent attempts to play semantics by stating that we don’t know for sure we are in 2012. When we say that we are in the year 2012, we mean that it is the method by which we use to keep time. In our keeping of time, we are in the year 2012.[1]

So, how do we know for certain that Herod the King died in 4 BCE? Well, we can say that because Josephus recorded the execution of 42 people who attempted a revolt against Idumean. Josephus recorded an eclipse of the moon that occurred the night of this execution which allows for astronomical calculations which sets the date of the executions around March 13th, 4 BCE. Because Herod died a few days later, we can be confident that he died in the second half of March 4 BCE. To put one more nail in the coffin, we know that during the last years of Herod’s reign, the governors of Syria were C. Sentius Saturinius and Quintilius Varus. (1)

Was Qurinius Governor Twice?

My opponent wiggles out of the contradiction by arguing that “all Christian scholars, even Fundamentalists, agree that Cyrenius (sic) was governor twice. We know this as a fact.” 1) Please bring up historical evidence for this; 2) Please cite SECULAR historians about this known “fact”; and 3) This doesn’t resolve the fact that we know for certain that the census happened in 6 CE. (2)

2. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NATIVITY

My opponent is correct, perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by the contradiction here. In this round, I’ll clarify what I mean.

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory chronologies[2] of the birth of Jesus. This cannot be reconciled.

Matthew starts off on the wrong foot by placing the hometown in Bethlehem (Mt. 1:24-2:1) whereas Luke gives a long journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2). Luke records that after Jesus was born; Jesus was taken to the temple, circumcised, and then immediately returned to Nazareth (Luke 3). This whole process of becoming clean and circumcising Jesus takes only 40 days! (3)

So to summarize, here is a chart (4):

Matthew's Chronology

Bethlehem

-

Egypt

-

Nazareth

1:24-2:1

2:13-16

2:21-23

Luke's Chronology

Nazareth

-

Bethlehem

-

Jerusalem

-

Nazareth

1:26-27

2:1-4

2:22

2:39

3. HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

I'm out of room to fully respond.



[1] Just a sidebar note, several different religions and cultures do count time different. For example, in Jewish time, it is the year 5772 (http://judaism.about.com... ) and in the Chinese year it is past the year 4000 (http://en.wikipedia.org... ).

[2] Note, I have changed from interlinership to chronology for purpose of clarification.


Bibliography

1. Tobin, Paul. On Herod and Quirinius. The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity. [Online] [Cited: June 2012, 16.] http://rejectionofpascalswager.net....

2. Carrier, Richard. The Date of the Nativity in Luke. The Secular Web. [Online] 2011. [Cited: June 16, 2012.] http://www.infidels.org....

3. Birth and the First Month of Life . Judaism 101. [Online] [Cited: June 2012, 15.] See also the Nelson KJV Study Bible on Luke 2 and 3.. http://www.jewfaq.org....

4. Tobin, Paul. The "Return" to Nazareth. The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Gude to Christianity. [Online] [Cited: June 15, 2012.]


Debate Round No. 2
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his well though-out rebuttal. I will clarify my position.

1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?

First I like to say that all my opponent says is this is a contradiction with no proof to validate his position but a recorded document that took place in 6AD. I do not deny this. I deny for the impossibility of a past event(6BC-2BC) along the same lines.

The Biblical census was probably implemented by Herod at the command of Rome to coincide with their decree that all peoples should take an oath of allegiance to Augustus which took place.

And, in spite of the methodological and background problems, we DO HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an empire-wide Augustian registration--literary, archeological, iconographic. To summarize this section on the 'the missing census of 7/5 BC': I HAVE affirmative evidence and good arguments for such a census--

Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself:

"While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added).

This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus.

We KNOW Augustus instituted a 14-year census-cycle for EGYPT in 10/9 BC...(SourceBook II, p. 388)...Not only does this give us more confirmation that Augustus was a "countin' sorta guy'" but it may reflect a local execution of a 'worldwide decree' of Augustus.

To assert that Augustus did not make such a decree is an affirmative historical statement. And, "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.)

To argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though).

Yes in fact the census happened in 6AD but I think I have shown many census happened under Roman rule. This gives credit to me because it would have been quite possible for there to be a census in 6BC unitl 4BC. A census is very difficult esp. in those times. It would take long years to fulfill it. We know today that until something is legally complete it is not offically recorded. I in fact say that a world-wide census could have started in 4BC and not offically ended until 4-6AD. On another hand as well there could have been two census's and the Bible is only talking about the one in 6-4BC.

Was Qurinius Governor Twice?

As I have shown Quirinius was a highly respected man all the way to Augustus himself. And now I will show you a blankness in the history of Syria from 4BC-1BC.

25 – 23 BC Marcus Terentius Varro
23 – 13 BC Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
13/12 – 10/9 BC Marcus Titius
10/9 – 7/6 BC Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 – 1 BC Unknown ---Im suggesting Quirinius***Possible
[1] 1 BC – 4 Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 12 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

So who was in charge as the assessor of property in Judea during the first census? Just as the Bible had said all along, Quirinius.

And as for Quirinius being the governor of Syria during this census, it is worth noting that the Bible never calls him the governor, at least the New King James Version doesn't. It says he was governing in Syria. And we know that Quirinius was indeed governing in some capacity in this region at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Resolved by Probability: Goes to Pro!

2. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NATIVITY

My opponent is wrong. His depiction of both stories are very flawed and no wonder it is assumed a contradiciton. We assume the events in Matthew are before Luke or at the same time but they are not. The Bible is not in chronological order or mirrored as some may think. The NT has many stories and some are the same and some account different things. These different accounts are not contradictions just different parts of the same story.

I will give you a timeline also to follow:

=Luke: KJV-R (Webster) Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.7 And she brought forth her firstborn son.=

My opponent cited that in Matthew Jesus was born in Bethlehem and in Mark in Nazareth, he is incorrect. We see Joesph leaves Nazareth and goes to Judea to be registered. Jesus is not born until they are in Bethlehem. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in both accounts my opponent is wrong.

=KJV-R (Webster) Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.=

We see Jesus is purified within 40 days as foretold. Again my opponent is wrong. Then we go to Matthew were after these 40 days Jesus must leave unto Egpyt.

=KJV-R (Webster) Matthew 2:1 Now, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.=

We see Jesus is already born in Bethlehem and Herod is king.

=KJV-R (Webster) Matthew 2:12 And being warned by God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.13 Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. =

We see here they prepare and set out into Egypt as foretold.

=KJV-R (Webster) Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken from the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.=

We see they flee into Egypt to escape Herod. We can also see that it was atleast two years before they came back because Herod kills all male children under two years of age. After such they come back and settle in Nazareth also as was said,"Jesus would be a Nazarine.

Resolved: Goes to Pro!

3. HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

My opponent maybe had little room here but could have gave us something. This in my book is a none response and could be looked at as submission. Though rights have it that you can rebuttal this in following rounds.

Resolved: Goes to Pro!

I thank my opponent. Pro has resolved all three. I await my opponents concession!
I turn it back over to Con....

Resources:
KJV-Revised
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://christianthinktank.com... http://www.biblicalchronology.com... http://christianbookshelf.org... http://www.biblicalchronology.com...
Microsuck

Con

Thank you, pro. I must say, I am extremely disappointed in your conduct. First, there are so many inaccuracies in your post; I don’t even know where to begin. I will start with contradiction 3 that I couldn’t respond to in the last round.

3. HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

Hanging

Matthew 27:3-5, "When Judas, his [i.e., Jesus] betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priest and elders, saying, 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.' They said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself."

Falling head long
Acts 1:18, "Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowles gushed out."

Obviously these two statements cannot be reconciled. It is impossible for one to die by both hanging and falling headlong (whatever that means). In my commentary, I brought up a possible second problem with this. I stated that I dropped the contradiction concerning what happened to the money to keep in with the 3 contradiction limit.

First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before. In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke (sic) before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks. Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established.”

Answering Christianity points out 4 issues with this “attempt” at harmonizing the gospels (Smith):

1. Judas never dropped from a high place, the passage does not record any mountain cliffs. In order to make this harmonization attempt work, you will have to add to the Bible.

2. Matthew states that Judas returned the silver, and hanged himself. Acts says that he bought the field and “fell headlong”, showing that he could not have fell from a cliff. Acts implies that Judas was thrown ahead, and the impact was so hard that his bowels burst open.

3. There is no reference to a cliff.

4. If Judas fell from the ropes to the rocks below, he never fell headlong! How can you fall headlong from hanging? This is ridiculous, the legs crashed to the ground first, Judas never fell headlong.

Based upon these 4 inconvenient facts, my opponent’s harmonization attempt fails.

Now, I will rebut the previous round.

1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?A census before 6 CE?

My opponent has failed to even address this argument. There are so many factual errors in my opponent’s argument that it is virtually impossible to know where to even begin.

My opponent’s evidence for a census prior to 6 CE does not compute. For one thing, we know that the province of Judea was NOT under direct Roman control before that date. (Carrier) Moreover, because Quirinius is the first Roman governor to control Judea, we would indeed expect a census to occur at that time because it was the nature of Roman imperialism (Carrier).

Richard Carrier further notes:

Not only is a census before the annexation of a Judaean province against all probability and sense, it lacks all evidence of any kind. It is a purely groundless and ad hoc conjecture.” (Carrier)

To argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though).

Uh, I wasn’t arguing that. I was arguing that Luke and Matthew give two contradictory dates for the nativity in Luke.

The final nail in the coffin for my opponent’s ad hoc attempt is the fact that he admits that it was in 2 B.C.E. We know that Herod was dead in 2 BCE and hence the contradiction stands.

Was Qurinius TWICE Governor?

My opponent brings up zero evidence for the idea that he was governor twice. Although we can’t know for certain, the best guess is not Qurinius; rather it is Lucius Calpurnius Piso which is based upon an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus. [1]

My opponent’s account is ad hoc and has utterly been refuted. Moreover, my opponent has not refuted the evidence I provided to show that “Quirinius was legate (or governor) of Syria between Volusius Saturninus and Caecilius Creticus Silonus, which makes his tenure last for six years, from 6 to 12 CE. These dates are therefore consistent with Josephus' reckoning. (Tobin)

I am out of time.



[1] Found online at http://www.askelm.com...

Bibliography

Carrier, Richard. The Date of the Nativity in Luke. 2011. Web. 2012 June 20. <http://www.infidels.org... >.

Smith, Abdullah. The Death of Judas. n.d. 2012 June 15. <http://www.answering-christianity.com... >.

Tobin, Paul. On Herod and Quirinius. n.d. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net... >.

Debate Round No. 3
ScottyDouglas

Pro

Thank you again, Con.

My opponent skips contradiction #2 altogether last round and that leaves me defenceless in his final post if he chooses to bring it back up. I have responded to all three contradictions every round so I must ask that my opponent not bring contradiction #2 back up in the last round for fairness.

1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?A census before 6 CE?

Con said, :"There are so many factual errors in my opponent's argument that it is virtually impossible to know where to even begin.":

There is no factual evidence period, evidence he has provided is on or after 6AD. It is equally tenable to suggest that a global census took place as ordered by Augustus during Quirinius' governorship and the reign of Herod before the birth of Christ.

The only evidence for or against the census I'm suggesting rests only in the Bible not historical records(because there is no record from 4BC TO 1BC as I have stated before).

My opponent says."My opponent's evidence for a census prior to 6 CE does not compute."

Really, it does not compute? I gave instances of census's in Egypt and many in the Roman empire prior to 6AD. My opponent does not deny this he just doesn't compute it. He claims that the Romans only tax themselves. Well if this was correct then why was Egypt being taxed?

There is evidence for the taking of a census every fourteen years in Egypt, the series possibly going back to A.D. 6. Decree's and taxation was enforced in Egypt from Rome in atleast 9BC. A papyrus from Egypt dated to 104AD requiring people to return to their homes for a census has sometimes been cited as evidence of a requirement to travel back to homelands. We see that census's were around long before 6AD and were adopted by Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Roman empire and Cesar Augustus conducted many census's before 6AD and the one in 6AD was not the first census as my opponent and circular historians suggest. I mean it is pretty ridiculous to claim this when there is evidence of prior census's and decree's. What else is nonsense here is to claim that Judea was the only vessel state not to have census's and to be taxed. Or that king Herod was not a Roman himself and was not paying taxes back to Rome (I note my opponent did not deny this at all).

My opponent states,"The final nail in the coffin for my opponent's ad hoc attempt is the fact that he admits that it was in 2 B.C.E. We know that Herod was dead in 2 BCE and hence the contradiction stands.":

This was only validating my stance that many census's went out way before 6AD. My opponents stance was that 6AD was the first decree and census and that therefore contradicts the Bible but he fails to deny the census in 2BC which contradicts his whole claim.

Lets go over exactly what I discussed earlier.

:"My opponent brings up zero evidence for the idea that he was governor twice. Although we can't know for certain, the best guess is not Qurinius":

We both have stated there is no record of who was governor in 4BC-1BC. So how does my opponent know? Really is this not the same thing I am doing suggesting he was governor from the evidence I have provided? My claim is not that far-fetched at all. If it is possible (which it most certainly is) then this whole argument is not a contradiction at all. The Roman Empire was one of the ancient world's most literate cultures, but many works by its most widely read historians are lost.

This is all in Wikipedia and I will leave the links:

"One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships."

Quirinius was very powerful military and governmental leader for Rome. In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus. (Consul was the highest elected office of the Roman Republic and an appointive office under the Empire). He led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 - 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. For this victory, he was awarded a triumph. Being of senatorial rank he outranked all military tribunes. This means he held a rank large enough to be placed governor of Syria during 4BC. Lets remember that Syria's large and prosperous population made Syria one of the most important of the Roman provinces.

It would have been under great importance for someone experienced and qualified to govern Syria.
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent claims Lucius Calpurnius Piso was governor which is based upon an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus. He may have also been proconsul of Asia and legate of Syria, but all of this is disputed and my opponent admits as such.
To establish this as a contradiction my opponent must show us who was governor of Syria in 4BC. Also he must provide us with proof that Rome had no census's prior to 6AD. If he can not establish these foundations of his contradiction then he fails.

Resolved: Goes to Pro!

3. HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

Hanging = Matthew 27:5, "And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself(no death mentioned)."
Falling head long = Acts 1:18, "Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowles gushed out."

Obviously these two statements can not be put together at all. It is possible for one to hang themselves and fail then later on fall headlong (which means to fall head first). Doesn't this happen alot today? People commit suicide and fail then later succeed? Is my opponent saying it is impossible?
My opponent goes on to say:
:"1. Judas never dropped from a high place, the passage does not record any mountain cliffs. In order to make this harmonization attempt work, you will have to add to the Bible.:"

My sir, I do not have to add to the Bible what is strange is you are. My opponent is adding to the Bible that both stories are the same incident.

As I have explained before they are not. I will give you a example:

Lets say that my friend and I witnessed a man commit a terrible act and did so 'for hire' and was paid. We both saw him do the act and get paid for it. Right after I witnessed him go give the money back and hang himself because he felt guilty but he did not die from it. That is what I would record about that man, He gave the money back and tried to commit suicide. (Lets note that I have already shown another instance in the Bible that had a hanging and also that gave death as the result. In Matthew it does not). My friend on the other hand later on witnessed the same man come back and get his money from the people because he did not die. The pharisees had already bought the field for the man and now it was his. He went to his purchsed field and went and jumped off a cliff and kill himself causing his guts to spew out and him falling headlong. My friend would record that he bought a field and suceeded in killing himself and the detail why.

It is just dishonest to say that these stories have to be the same incident. My opponent has failed either way to prove that Matthew and Mark are in fact talking about the same incident here.

Resolved: Goes to Pro

Conclusion is my opponent can not win for the fact is he must have proven that it is impossible for his contradictions in the Bible to have took place. All I had to do was provide a plausible theory that could have took place and I have for each.

I thank my opponent!~Vote Pro!
Microsuck

Con

Because this is the final round and I argued in the previous round, I will use this round for conclusions only. I first wish to point out that my opponent has broken the rules of conduct by arguing in the final round.

Why vote Con?

Conduct

My opponent has set up this debate from the start to win. He has shown horrifying conduct throughout this debate and has set up false resolutions and has given me a false (and impossible) Burden of Proof.

First, he has stated in the opening round, "You can use any contradictions EXCEPT..." which were the ones he cannot explain. Then, he expects me to concede the entire debate to him in the third round before I even had a chance to refute my arguments.



S/G

Spelling and grammar should be tied.

Arguments

I believe that I have successfully shown that the Bible is not right and contains contradictions in the previous rounds. Moreover, he has not attempted to refute most of what I stated.

Sources

I have used sources throughout all arguing rounds.

As such, I urge a vote for the negative. Again, I am not forfeiting this debate, rather I wish to withhold all arguments because this is the final round and I argued in the first round.
Debate Round No. 4
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Knologist_Prime 5 years ago
Knologist_Prime
Microsuck said; "@KP, the problem is that doesn't resolve my arguments. It can't explain the 10 year discrepancy between Matthew and Luke on the nativity of the birth. It would be like one of the "eye-witnesses" saying that 9-11 happened yesterday."

I understand what you are looking. In among the writings of the Gospels that record the time of Jesus birth, there IS a timeline that is not mentioned, but when reading all the accounts, a timeline definitely appears. For instance, the time at Jesus birth, the astrologers, did not meet Joseph's family on that night. The astrologers where recorded in the East, possible Babylon, or in that general area, when they said they saw the 'star' while in their area. They said the 'star' guided them day and night to travel that long distance on foot, to see the new King. The only star that shines though our atmosphere is the Sun. Where did that 'special star' guide the astrologers to? It wasn't to Joseph's family, but to Herod, an enemy of the Christ. It makes no sense for that 'star' to have been sent from God. Why would God have anything to do with harming his Son and why would he use astrologers to guide them to an enemy who wanted to kill Jesus? The only person with the power to also make a 'supernatural star' like that, is God's enemy, Satan. Another timeline evidence is the Hebrew words for Jesus at the time of his birth and the time when the astrologers met Joseph's family. The first word is "infant/baby", in Hebrew that word means 12 to 18 months and younger. Then the word "child", that word is used for around 2 years old and up. When the astrologers finally meet Joseph's family, it was when Jesus was a child, or a little more than 2 years old. Remember, Herod gave orders to kill every male child 2 years and younger because he didn't want a rival king. So the timeline is there, readers must us their God given gift of, thinking to discern things. I hoped this helped.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Yes.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
For quotes, it would be <blockquote>The quote</blockquote>
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
<Quote>I'm still learning proper usage myself. I have not been typing on a computer that much to be concerned about it<Qoute>
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
No problem. I have learned HTML and do some web development so I do know HTML fairly well. =D
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Thanks Mirco =]
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
If you are trying to do HTML, the correct code is,

<font color="blue">This is some text!</font>
though DDO doesn't support text colors
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
[color=blue] I could have done better. I debate to many debates to do well in any. I think I should lay off for awhile.[/color]
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
I normally don't care about BC/BCE; CE/AD though I normally use the secuar counting.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Yeah. CE and BCE are an attempt to remove religion from all areas of our life, despite the fact that BC and AD were calculated to branch off from the birth of Christ (despite the fact that the monk who tried was off by about three to six years).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: First, I'm giving Pro conduct because assertions that he loses conduct for claiming victory are ridiculous. Many debaters do that. So it's a counter to those. However, I simply didn't think Pro responded well enough to Con's contentions. There are good responses to them and Pro didn't even use the best responses out there to refute Con's points. Also, spelling and grammar could have used much improvement from both sides. Sources tied since Con's sources were biased, like Pro's.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: For Pro's constant declarations of victory, his arguing in the last round, and his behavior in the comments. Arguments: Pro's last round argument must be disregarded. Pro never fully defended his own arguments, and his attacking arguments were countered and never returned to. Sources: Pro used wiki way too much, and did not prove the necessary info he needed to. Con proved way more with his sources. And as a side note to pro, you really need to calm down and accept defeat. Learn to.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro arguing in the last round, plus all of Con's last round arguments are disregarded. The contradiction regarding the date of the nativity is sufficient to prove that the Bible is contradictory, and Pro was unable to defend against it. Pro also relied much too heavily on Wikipedia. Finally, Pro's spelling and grammar leaves a great deal to be desired.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Another votebomb from Arizonan.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: On nativity chronology, Pro failed to address the mutually exclusive narratives in Luke and Matthew which argue for different routes over the time leading up to and after Jesus' birth which Con gave Biblical quotations for. On Juda's death, Pro argued around it by claiming hanging doesn't necessarily result in death. This misinterprets the point. Con showed that Judas couldn't have bought a field with the 30 pieces of silver AND threw it away out of guilt. S/G to Con for better organization.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 5 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
ScottyDouglasMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Too much sophistry on Con's part