The Instigator
Nathaniel.Braswell
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheWORDisLIFE
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

The Christian birth story of Jesus is contradictory with other information in the bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheWORDisLIFE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 75707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

Nathaniel.Braswell

Con

I am greatly looking forward to this debate!

Burdens:
In the first Pro speech, the speaker will first accept and than lay down his arguments on why he believes the Christian birth story of Jesus Christ is contradictory with other parts of the Christian bible.

Likewise, I will argue that this story is not contradictory. The reason I limited it to the birth of Jesus Christ was because it would be too broad of a debate to discuss the entire bible.

Rules:

Please remain ethical- I created this debate for an intelligent discussion, not a contest to see who could pointlessly mudsling the most.

Only bring up external links with additional information if you are running out of characters...I would appreciate you posting as much of the argument in the text.

Finally, have fun! I look forward to debating this controversial issue.
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro


I accept and I thank Nathaniel.Braswell for hosting this debate, good luck to you Nathaniel. I will be using the KJV 1611 w/Apocrypha.


CON, I ask if you can provide scriptural evidence for all of your points. So, if you say Joseph is not the biological father or the step father of Christ, I’d like to see scriptural proof of your points, thank you CON.


The Christian doctrine of how Christ was born is a misconception. Let's examine the birth of Christ.


Matthew 1:1-16


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Hebrews 2:16-17


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


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


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


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


Precept for Hebrews 2:17


Deuteronomy 18:18


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


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


1 Corinthians 15:39-40


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


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


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


Romans 1:3


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


Galatians 4:4


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


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


Precept to “when the fulness of the time was come


Wisdom of Solomon 7:2


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


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


John 7:42


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


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


Acts 13:23


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


according to his promise” The precept to this is Isaiah 11:1.


Isaiah 11:1


[1] And there shall come forth a rod out of the stemme of Iesse, and a branch shal grow out of his rootes.


2 Timothy 2:8


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


Acts 2:30


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


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


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


John 6:42


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


John 1:45


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


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


Matthew 13:55


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


Matthew 1:25


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


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


Luke 2:48


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


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


1 John 4:3


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


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


Debate Round No. 1
Nathaniel.Braswell

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate! I will start off with providing the evidence that you asked for. It seems like this debate has turned into a debate surrounding Jesus's true heritage, likely because PRO chose to do that since he had already completed a debate on Joseph's relation to Jesus. In fact, all of his arguments were copied and pasted from that debate. If you want, you can verify here: http://www.debate.org...

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (NIV)

Matthew 1:23: ""The virgin shall be with child, and will give birth to a son, and they shall call him Immanuel; which means, 'God with us.'" (NIV)

Both of these verses indicate that Jesus was not born of a father and mother, but of a virgin and the Holy Spirit. Pro raised some points on why this couldn't be, and why the Bible contradicts itself, so lets look at those. In order to keep my character count under the limit I have organized the arguments that Pro discussed:

1. --Jesus is said to be the son of David, or of the seed of David, and of the seed of Man, thus he had to have been born from a mother AND a father--
Pro used Matthew 1:1-16, Hebrews 2:16-17, Romans 1:3, Wisdom of Solomon 7:2, (A book that is not a part of the Protestant Bible) (1) John 7:42, Acts 13: 23, 2 Timothy 2: 8, and Acts 2:30. Let's first discuss the word seed. According to to two different sources: "In the Biblical vernacular the word seed (Classical Greek: sperma) has the basic meaning of tiny grains of plants, already fertilized and ready to bring forth new plants. E.g. mustard seed, the smallest seed of the garden plants in Galilee; grains of corn harvested for food or sowing-seed. In the same way the descendants of a person are his seed (Classical Greek: sperma), his offspring. Of course men and women belong to this offspring and not just men. So Mary was part of David"s offspring and her lineage is to be found in Luke 3:23-31. And that was the biological line from Jesus, being the son of Mary, to David." (2) (3) It becomes very clear that the translation for seed doesn't imply male: it implies descendant. If Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, she still has seed in her body...since seed is necessary for a baby to be born. Picture it this way: I am related, through my mother, to Queen Elizabeth 1 of England (not directly related but related nonetheless.) My dad used his seed to make my mom pregnant, however just because his seed didn't have Queen Elizabeth's genes in it, doesn't mean I'm not still related to Queen Elizabeth. For a son to be a "descendant" of someone else, he can inherit that blood from EITHER his mother or his father. We already know that Mary was a direct descendant of David through his son Nathan, thus Jesus was of the seed of David. It actually doesn't stop there. it is crucial to realize that Joseph is a direct descendant of the ancient Judaic King Coniah, whose lineage was cursed because of his rebellion against God. In Jeremiah 22:24 and 30, it says: As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;Thus saith the LORD; no man of his [Coniah] seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." Because Joseph was a directed descendant of Coniah, none of his offspring would be qualified to sit on David's throne. Since, according to scripture, Jesus will one day ascend to David's throne, it can be deducted that Jesus was not a blood relative to Joseph.

2. --Matthew's genealogy is superfluous-- This is an argument I have seen quite a bit. While Joseph was not biologically related to Jesus, the two were legally related in the eyes of Rome. Matthew, as a tax collector, understood the importance of keeping legal records. The account the disciple chronicles not only documents Jesus' legal lineage, but simultaneously displays Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and helps legitimize the virgin birth. Many scholars currently believe that Matthew wrote to the Jews in particular to show how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament's messianic prophecies. Specifically, Matthew used Joseph's parentage to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin, which fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Matthew does this through a logical deduction about Joseph and Coniah, which was discussed earlier. Simply, Matthew had his reasons for recording the pedigree of a non-biological parent.

3. --Jesus was like Moses and unlike Angels, thus he had to have been born from a mother and a father-- For this Pro used Hebrews 2: 16-17 and Deutoronomy 18: 18. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. Specifically in these verses it is critical to look at context. In Deutoronomy 18: 14, it says, ""For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so." We learn from this that God is telling his people to not participate in fortune-telling. Then he provides in verse 15 a reason why: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." Basically God is telling his people that there is no need for fortune-telling because he will make sure that at any given moment, Israel has at least one prophet. This is consistent with the fact that up to King Saul and King David, there was a long series of prophets that ALL FIT THE QUALIFICATIONS laid down in Deutoronomy 18:18. Thus, we know:

Even if Jesus was being mentioned in this verse, there were many other prophets who fit the same qualifications and who spoke the word of God.

Even if the above point is incorrect...my opponent is stretching the words "like me (Moses)" If the word "like" implies that the two mentioned people have the same family structure, than where is the bright line of where the similarities stop? Does Jesus have to speak the same language to be "like" Moses? Does Jesus have to live in the same area to be "like Moses? What is the bright line? A much more simple explanation arises out of context...the context of the verse is exclusively the act of "speaking the Word of God." It would make sense if the words "like me" were meant to mean anybody who spoke the Word of God, as Moses did.

4. @TheWordisLife brought up many more verses that "prove" Joseph had to have been the true father of Jesus, and I will do my best to respond to those now. Because I am running out of characters very quickly, here is a link to a professional and effective summary of several of the arguments I am trying to make. You will find more detail here under "Benson Commentary": http://biblehub.com...

Luke 2:48: Explained in link, but Joseph was both Jesus' legal father and was responsible for bringing the child up. He still played the role of a father. At the time the verse was written Jesus was around 12 years old, which likely meant Jesus was referring to Joseph as his father, since who gave birth to him didn't really matter at that point. Joseph was his fatherly guardian. Same with Matthew 13:55, John 6:42, and John 1:45. Another VERY IMPORTANT point is that the word for son as mentioned in all of these verses does NOT mean son in the Gospels' original language: Greek. In fact the word for son simply meant anyone that was sharing the same nature as their father. Read more about the discrepancies between languages here: http://biblehub.com... and http://www.biblestudytools.com.... (Notice part d. of the 2nd link says "in a wider sense." Thus when our English bibles say "son" we can't take that completely literally as a true "son." (Just like in Luke 3: 23 when it says Joseph is the son of Heli when in reality it has been confirmed that Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli.) (4)

1 John 4:3

Being in the flesh does not mean he had to have come from man. Atheists believe that the first man came from an ape...and while he was in the flesh he most certainly did not come from man. You are discounting the possibility of miracles, which is not what this debate is about. We are assuming in this debate that miracles can happen since we are in the Bible.

Wisdom of Solomon:

This is not in the protestant Bible, its in the Apocrypha...the resolution says the Bible. (5) It makes sense that my opponent would bring up this verse though because the other debate that he copied and pasted these arguments from included the apocrypha. I do not accept that we are debating the apocrypha since I am not as familiar with it. The bible in the resolution is assumed to be the protestant bible since I am not catholic. We are not debating a catholic form of the bible.

In quick summary: these so called contradictions, even though they are all focused on Joseph for the convenience of the Pro speaker, must be examined with the background of context and translation errors. Half of these alleged "inconsistencies" alone are explained by the fact that son doesn't have to mean direct sons and seed simply means descendant. I look forward to my opponent's response.

(1) http://bible.ccim.org...
(2) http://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com...
(3) https://books.google.com...
(4) https://answersingenesis.org...
(5) http://web.archive.org...
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (NIV)

Matthew 1:23: ""The virgin shall be with child, and will give birth to a son, and they shall call him Immanuel; which means, 'God with us.'" (NIV)

Virgin just means an unmarried woman of marriageable age. Virgin is almah in Hebrew and according to the Strong's Concordance it means, "[1] virgin, [2] young woman of marriageable age [3] maid or newly married." Therefore, the word almah does not always mean virgin (woman who has never had sexual intercourse). Matthew 1:23 is quoted from Isaiah 7:14, therefore, the word “virgin” has the same meaning as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14.

So Mary was part of David"s offspring and her lineage is to be found in Luke 3:23-31. And that was the biological line from Jesus, being the son of Mary, to David.

Both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David. Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of both Joseph and Christ and Luke 3:23-38 gives the genealogy of Mary and Christ. Everyone has 2 genealogies because everyone has a father & mother.

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

{The parenthesis were added later to the Scriptures.} “Ioseph, which was the sonne of Heli,” – Let’s go back to Matthew 1:16.

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

So who was Joseph’s father? Jacob; now this is not talking about the Jacob you read about in Genesis. Joseph’s dad’s name was also Jacob. But there is a problem here. Luke 3:23 says, “the sonne of Heli,” and Matthew 1:16 says, “Iacob begat Ioseph”. I have a little red bible and Heli reads, Heli6 Son-in-law. So Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli because he was married to Heli’s daughter, Mary.

Why would Joseph be mentioned in the genealogy of Christ?

(2) (3) It becomes very clear that the translation for seed doesn't imply male: it implies descendant.

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

So again seed means sperm. A descendant is a person, plant, or animal that is descended from a particular ancestor.

Copulation - sexual intercourse.

A woman does not have “seed”, a woman has eggs. The seed fertilizes the egg and a child begins to develop.

So if you want to say that the “seed does not imply male: it implies descendant” it’s still saying the same thing, just in a different way because a descendant is someone who is genetically related to someone else. The keyword in “genetically” is gene. Gene - a unit of heredity that is transferred from a parent to offspring and is held to determine some characteristic of the offspring. Christ descended from Joseph’s seed or sperm, therefore He is related to Joseph by blood.

“In Jeremiah 22:24 and 30, it says: As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;Thus saith the LORD; no man of his [Coniah] seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." Because Joseph was a directed descendant of Coniah, none of his offspring would be qualified to sit on David's throne. Since, according to scripture, Jesus will one day ascend to David's throne, it can be deducted that Jesus was not a blood relative to Joseph.

This does not mean that none of Jehoiakim’s seed would be ruling at all, if that was the case, Israel would have no savior.

Matthew 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Iechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begate Zorobabel.

1 Chronicles 3:16-17 [16] And the sonnes of Ioakim: Ieconiah his sonne, Zedekiah his sonne. [17] And the sonnes of Ieconiah, Assir, Salathiel his sonne,

So Jechonias had 2 sons, Assir and Salathiel and out of those 2 Christ came through Salathiel.

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

So nobody descending from Joakim would be on the throne; that’s not saying that there isn’t going to be a king. This is what a lot of Christians don’t understand and they will come to verses such as this one to say Christ didn’t come from Joseph’s seed because Joseph’s line was cursed.

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

the land that thou abhorrest, shalbe forsaken of both her kings.” – So neither Kingdom, Judah nor Israel, would have a king when Christ was born….there would be no king from Israel when Christ was born….that’s what it is saying.

So Joakim had sons (1 Chronicles 3:16) but they didn’t sit on the throne.

2 Samuel 7:12 -14

[12] And when thy dayes be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleepe with thy fathers, I will set vp thy seede after thee, which shall proceede out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdome.

What is seed? Sperm. This is where a Christian will say, “this is talking about Solomon” David’s son Solomon, but watch this!

[13] Hee shall build an house for my Name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdome for euer.

What is the word that lets you know it’s not talking about Solomon? Foreverbecause Solomon’s throne was not “forever”.

Luke 1:33 And hee shall reigne ouer the house of Iacob for euer, and of his kingdome there shall be no end.

This is talking about Christ. It says, “and of his kingdome there shall be no end.” What does no end mean? It means it will last forever, there is no end to His kingdom. So 2 Samuel 7:13 is talking about Christ.

“While Joseph was not biologically related to Jesus, the two were legally related in the eyes of Rome.

Do you have the Scripture for this?

Remember as I stated in R1, show proof of your points using the Scriptures. If you make a statement and don’t back it up with the Bible, it is more than likely your own private interpretation. The Bible can interpret it self, if you know how to read it precept upon precept – Isaiah 28:10.

“Then he provides in verse 15 a reason why: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him."

In Deut 18:15, of course it may seem that this could be any prophet from Israel, but you have to read Deut 18:18 very carefully to see who it is speaking of.

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them vp a Prophet from among their brethren, like vnto thee, and will put my wordes in his mouth, and hee shall speake vnto them all that I shall command him.

The LORD did not put HIS words into every prophet’s mouth. Who was the only prophet that was exactly like The Most High God? Jesus Christ. Of course Moses spoke what God told him to speak, but Moses also disobey TMH God in Numbers 20:8-11. Christ spoke everything that the LORD told Him to speak. The LORD put HIS words into the mouth of Christ and Christ spoke them. So Deut 18:18 is talking about Christ. It is also saying that Christ is going to be risen up just as Moses, through a father and mother and He was also going to speak what God told Him to speak, just as Moses spoke what The Most High God told him to speak, except Christ did not disobey the commandments of God.

“Does Jesus have to speak the same language to be "like" Moses?

Moses was an Israelite (tribe: Levi – Ex 2:1-10) and Jesus was an Israelite (tribe: Judah – Heb 7:14), therefore, they spoke the same language.

“Because I am running out of characters very quickly, here is a link to a professional and effective summary of several of the arguments I am trying to make. You will find more detail here under "Benson Commentary": http://biblehub.com......

This is what Christians don’t understand about the Bible. When it says Jesus was born of a virgin, it does not mean that He was born of a woman that never had sex. When the Bible says Christ was born of the Holy Ghost, it does not mean that a Spirit had sex with Mary because the Holy Ghost (spirit) is simply the Laws – Acts 7:51-53. The number one thing that Christians don’t understand is the birth of Christ because the Bible is not in order that is why to get the understanding of the Scriptures, we must read precept upon precept.

1 John 4:3

“Being in the flesh does not mean he had to have come from man.”

So if He didn’t come from a man that had human flesh, where did He come from? The Bible tells us that He did not take on Him the nature of angels, He took on Him the seed of Abraham – Hebrews 2:16, and again “seed” is sperm as you had defined it to mean “sperma” in Greek.

“You are discounting the possibility of miracles, which is not what this debate is about. We are assuming in this debate that miracles can happen since we are in the Bible.

Miracles do happen, but the Bible is not a miracle, it is the Word of God. The topic of this debate is: The Christian birth story of Jesus is contradictory with other information in the bible. The Christian doctrine or imagination, does contradict what the Bible says about the Birth of Christ because Christians don’t believe Christ had an earthly father.

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

So there is the flesh of men, the flesh of beasts, fishes and of birds. So if Christ did not come from the flesh of a man, then how was He in the flesh of man?

Wisdom of Solomon:

“This is not in the protestant Bible, its in the Apocrypha...the resolution says the Bible.”

The Apocrypha does nothing but quote the OT & NT and gives additional history on the real Israelites. The Apocrypha is also in my Holy Bible KJV 1611, therefore, the Apocrypha is part of the Holy Bible.

Thank you CON, I await your response.

Debate Round No. 2
Nathaniel.Braswell

Con

Nathaniel.Braswell forfeited this round.
TheWORDisLIFE

Pro

CON, I appreciate the opportunity to attempt to debate this talking matter. Good luck to you CON in your future debates.

Unfortunately CON ff the last round, vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
Vote by Adam.densmore removed. (5 points in favor of con)

Account not qualified to vote.

Airmax1227
debate.org Moderator
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 2 years ago
TheWORDisLIFE
@Nathaniel.Braswell

You had to make a fake account to win this debate? That'a against DDO regulations.
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
due to some pressing school assignments I was forced to concede. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 2 years ago
TheWORDisLIFE
Alright. Good luck to you :)
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
I won't continue to comment since we are now debating for real :)
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 2 years ago
TheWORDisLIFE
@Nathaniel.Braswell

Acts 2:29-30
[29] Men and brethren, let me freely speake vnto you of the Patriarch Dauid, that he is both dead & buried, and his sepulchre is with vs vnto this day:

The Apostles are speaking to the Israelites about David

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

This verse is talking about Christ coming from the seed of David, the sperm of David. The Apostles said that Christ would be raised from the loins (genitles; penis; sperm) of David to sit on his throne, as The Most High promised David in Psalms 132:11.

" Thus, the promise was being made with David, and the loines that were mentioned are David's "loines". Meaning: one of David's direct descendants would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."

Exactly, Joseph in Christ's genealogy is a direct descendant of David.
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
See the response for the Timothy verse: the same arguments apply.

1. The word seed doesn't mean the descendants are male. It just means they are descendants.

2. According to the flesh is modifying Jesus, not Jesus's "father." I don't think there is any debate on whether or not Jesus is male, so even if Jesus's direct biological ancestor isn't male, the actual subject of the verse himself still meet the qualifications. We can't assume the verse was imposing qualifications on someone that it doesn't even mention, aka Jesus's guardian/ parent.

3. According to the flesh also doesn't have to mean "relating to a male". In fact it takes on quite a few different meanings throughout the Bible. According to biblehub, a source I have used quite a bit and found to be very credible, "According to the flesh."The word is here used as equivalent to "in His human nature, in that lower bodily organisation which He shares with us men." I urge you to read all about it here: http://biblehub.com...

Sorry for so many responses to your comment! The character limit can be very restricting at times. :)
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
In response to the Deuteronomy verse:

Context is INCREDIBLY important.

1. With all respect, you are kind of making a mountain out of a molehill. When God says, "like me (Moses)," we can't assume that the people or person he is talking about is limited to Jesus. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this verse is simply referring to future prophets: all of whom fit the criteria of "speaking the words of God." After all, the definition of a prophet is only someone who speaks the words of God. Lets look at the context. This verse was written in the context of the instruction to not participate in fortune-telling or soothsaying (verse 14): "For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so." Then the Lord explains what he will provide in place of the soothsayers in verse 15: The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." (NASV) Basically, the Lord is telling his people to not participate in sorcery and oracles because he will provide prophets. It is now obvious that really the "prophet" that is being discussed is actually many people. The reason it is singular was because at any given time, there was only one major prophet...Thus israel always had "a" prophet.

2. Even if this isn't true, and Jesus is included in the list of prophets, you are still exaggerating the words "like me." For instance, the prophet Rahab was a woman, meaning she wasn't like Moses, however that didn't disqualify her from being a prophet. Put simply, "like me" simply referred to the part of Moses that spoke the words of God. Not gender, not genealogy, not the number of biological parents you had.

Thus we can't really draw any ties to Joseph from this verse.
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
In response to the Timothy verse:

First, look at the previous comments that nothing in those verses disqualifies Mary...the word seed is once again modifying David and not Christ's guardian or biological parent. Thus, a female, if of the lineage of David, could perfectly fit the qualifications laid down in Timothy. If you want to discuss the genealogy in Luke that proves Mary to be of David's seed than let me know, because there is much to be said about that as well.

Second, not to beat a dead horse, but I'll copy a direct quote from contradictingbiblecontradictions.com, a source that, from the little bit of research I did, seems to be fairly credible, "In the Biblical vernacular the word seed (Classical Greek: sperma) has the basic meaning of tiny grains of plants, already fertilized and ready to bring forth new plants. E.g. mustard seed, the smallest seed of the garden plants in Galilee; grains of corn harvested for food or sowing-seed. In the same way the descendants of a person are his seed (Classical Greek: sperma), his offspring. Of course men and women belong to this offspring and not just men. So Mary was part of David"s offspring and her lineage is to be found in Luke 3:23-31. And that was the biological line from Jesus, being the son of Mary, to David."

I hope you get the idea :P
Posted by Nathaniel.Braswell 2 years ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
To summarize the arguments in the last comment:

1. The verse says David's direct descendant will bring up Christ. The way the verse is worded does not say that the person bringing up Christ has to have loines himself, just that he/she is a direct descendant. Perhaps using a different version of the Bible will help clear this up (NASV): "And so, because he (David) was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne..." Perhaps looking at another translation will help even more (NIV): "30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah...etc." As can be seen, there is nothing about Christ's guardian having "loines;" the only qualification is being a direct descendant of Christ.
2. Mary is a direct descendant of Christ. (Luke 3: 23-28)
3. The pronouns he and his all relate to David and not to Christ's guardian. Looking at other translations will help clear that up.
4. Nothing similar to Joseph's name or anything that hints at Joseph's lifestyle is mentioned at all.

If you have more questions let me know :) Really it gets down to the translations. King James translation is still in a bit of Old English that we aren't used to speaking in, and so it can often be beneficial to look at some other translations to shed light on the issues. Next comment I will address the next verse.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Nathaniel.BraswellTheWORDisLIFETied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.