The Instigator
ReformedArsenal
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Man-is-good
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,462 times Debate No: 16535
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

ReformedArsenal

Pro

This debate is reserved for Man-is-good, please do not accept unless you are him.

[Terms]
The New Testament - The 27 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 New Testament as contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the 1st Century, 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 Proceedure]
In the first round, Con must present any contradictions they believe are insurmountable. Please number them for clarity of response (Contradiction A, B, C, etc).

In the following round, 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).

In Round 3 I will respond to his challenges or new contradictions. In round 3, Con may only respond to my answers.

In 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 ESVonline.org) 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 esv.to/verse reference and you will get a link. For example. esv.to/john3:16 will link to John 3:16

[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.
Man-is-good

Con

Thank you for writing this debate. I am honored that you created a debate especially for me.

I. Contention I: It is interesting that of all the writers of the Gospels, only Mark and Luke mention the "virgin birth".More over, this conflicts with:
Galations 4: 4
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
Romans 1: 13
concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Both of these do not mention Christ's "virgin birth", which is, at itself, interesting. If the Bible was to truthfuly recount the life of the founder of its own sect, why would it exclude such a remarkable deatil of his life that would surely presage his divine nature (and that of the religion)?

II. Contention II: The date of Jesus' birth
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, (Matthew 2:1)
Whereas, it is stated that:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (Luke 2.1-2.4)

There appears to be great confusion over the historical setting of Jesus' birth. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is depicted as being born in the time of Quintillus (220 – April 270), compared to Herod (73 or 74 BCE, died 4 BCE) (both dates are given from Wikipeda).

These are two of the argumets that I will give. The fact that these contradictions revolve around the nature of Jesus Chist, the founder of the Christin faith, should prove that the resolution is false.

(Note: In no way, am I suggesting that the Bible is not holy or wrong. I am merely responding to the Pro's resolution).

Debate Round No. 1
ReformedArsenal

Pro

Man-is-good, it is my pleasure to debate this with you. I look forward to having this debate, and trust that you understand that I will pull no punches. ;)

Contention 1) This contention breaks into two sub-points
C1.a) Only Mark and Luke mention the Virgin birth, so it is in conflict with John and Matthew which do not mention the virgin birth.
C1.b) Paul in Galatians writes that Jesus was born of a woman under the law, while in Romans he writes that he was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. While neither mention that he is born of a virgin.

Refutations of Contention 1)
C1.a) This contention simply is not correct. John does not mention the Virgin Birth explicitly, he does not talk about Jesus' birth at all. While we do not know why John did not include this information, he does not say that Jesus was NOT born of a virgin... this is interesting indeed... but not a contradiction. Matthew on the other hand, DOES reference the Virgin Birth, he jut doesn't use the word Virgin. "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:18) We see that Matthew makes a point to indicate that Joseph and Mary had never been together sexually, and then again to point out that this child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Also, to head off a future question (and hopefully save Con some time and character usage): Matthew records Jesus LEGAL genealogy through the ancestry of Joseph (up through Solomon then then to David). Luke records Jesus BIOLOGICAL genealogy through the ancestry of Mary (up through Nathan and then to David). This accounts for the differences between the two genealogies.
C1.b) As shown before, not mentioning the virgin birth is not a contradiction to the virgin birth... it is simply an interesting question. Also, the two passages that you cite are easily explainable. Most scholars see the phrase "Born of a woman" in Galatians as an allusion to the Virgin Birth. Why would Paul need to say that he was born of a woman, how else would he be born? Rather, it is out of the ordinary to indicate maternal lineage because women held no legal rights of inheritance or land ownership, they couldn't even be witnesses in court... so to call it out specifically has significance. In regard to Paul's use of the phrase "seed of David according to the flesh," we saw previously that Mary (as well as Joseph) were both descended from David, so he was indeed born of the lineage of David through Mary's lineage.

Contention 2)
My opponent indicates an apparent contradiction in the dating schema between Matthew and Luke, identifying the reign of Herod the Great (Where Matthew places the birth) and the reign of Quintillus (Where Luke places the birth) which were hundreds of years apart

Refutations of Contention 2)
I believe that my opponent has made a mistake in a few areas. The Bible does not indicate that Jesus was born during the time of Quintillus... it indicates that he was born during the time of Quirinius. According to Wikipedia [A] Quirinius lived c. 51 BC - AD 21, well within both the reign of Herod the Great (c. 73-74 BC- 4 BC) and the birth range of Jesus (c. 7-2 BC). Quintillus was Emperor of Rome, Quirinius was a governor of Syria. Furthermore, the Census of Quirinius is a historically attested fact by Josephus [B].

This is a common mistake as the names are very similar, however as it is a mistake it is not a legitimate contradiction.

Sources
[A] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[B] Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII.Chapter 1.Section 1 - http://www.ccel.org...
[C] All quoted Scripture is from the ESV Bible, which can be found at http://www.esvbible.org...
Man-is-good

Con

I am honored that you managed to deflect both of my contentions. In a sense, I wanted to see how you would respond to my own argument.

But first:
New contentions:
1. One of the more harder things to explain was the exact words that Jesus spoke before his death (his final words):
According to Matthew: "About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?" 27: 46
This is interesting since what Jesus says is roughly translated as "My God, my god, why have you forsaken me?" I do not know why the Son of God would say such a thing, since: he was, in the name of the Lord,a practicer and a man who not walked upon water, gave a coin in a fish, and especially knew and gladly accepted his death. What could have convinced Jeuss to consider this? (The Bible does not give an explanation of this, I believe). The mystery is only compounded by the differring records of what he said. In Luke 23: 46, Jesus cried: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."(The gospel of Luke goes on to tell that: and having said this, he gave up the ghost (or, in one translation, he breathed his last. That is to say he died after that...) In John 19:30, Jesus tasted the vinegar and said "It is finished", and died.
Argument against traditional theories offered:
1. The first offer is puzzling. The Gospels already hint to us that:The First Prediction – Mark 8:31
“He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed,and rise after three days.”
The Second Prediction – Mark 9:31
“He was teaching his disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death, he will rise.”
The Third Prediction – Mark 10:33-34
“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles who will mock him, spit upon him, scourge him, and put him to death, but after three days he will rise.”
None of this are truly necessary, but they display the fact that the death of the Son of Man was forseen. Jesus however does display some knowledge of his own death when he says, "whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to
be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. (give his life=death...)
(Many have advocated that these are merely the addition of church interprations into the gospels. For the sake of an argument, I would not consider this since I will place trust into the Bible as my sole source of authority.
If the Son of Man appeared to know his own death, and that, according to Mark, seemed predestined (which was already given in his passion predictions), why would he feel that he has been forsaken by God? It goes against the close relationship between the Son of Man and god who, as Romans puts it (I am quoting my last argument)"concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" was the son of god himself.,,,

Contention II: Christ's Ascension
    • Matthew makes the whole scene very dramatic (28:1-9). Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James went to the tomb, which was closed. At that time there was a strong earthquake. An angle of the Lord came from the sky, his face like lightening and his robe as white as snow, moved the stone, sat on it, and spoke to the women. He showed them the place where Jesus’ body was and said that he had risen, and that they were to inform the disciples quickly. The fact that they also met Jesus on the way is no longer connected to the visit to the tomb.

    • Mark (16:1-8) says that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices to anoint Jesus. On the way they were wondering how they would move the stone from the tomb, when they saw that it was already opened and that a young man in a long white garment sat inside. He told them not to be afraid, for Jesus, whom they sought, had risen from the dead. They were to tell the disciples. But the women fled in panic; "neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." "Neither" implies two women, but Mark stated the names of three women!

    • Luke (24:1-6) only mentions "women" (not mentioned by name), who went to the open tomb and found it empty. While they stood there sadly, two men in "shining garments" said to them: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen."

  • John (20:1-2) describes things differently. According to him, only Mary Magdalene went to the grave early on the first day of the week and found the stone already removed. In a panic, she ran to Simon Peter and the other apostles, telling them that "they" had taken Jesus away to an unknown place.

It seems that the story of Jesus' ascension is in conflict. I hope CON will, again--as I expect, to do a good job in explaining the differences. In Mattthew, it is an angel who alerts of Jesus' resurrection, while in Mark a man does so (it is not known if he was a holy being or not--therefore I suggest that both CON and I consider him as a man instead), whereas in Luke there are two men, and in John Mary Magdalene, who finds "the stone already removed", and Jesus gone. It seems that the stories here do not go together. (I hope that the summaries of the ascensions are accurate.)

Mini contradictions that I would like to point out:
1.
    • In John 10:30, Jesus said, "I and my father are one."

    • In John 14:28, Jesus said, "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

From a modern viewpoint, in John 10:30, Jesus is equating himself with god. But later, in the same passage of the Gospel, he says that "for my Father is greater than I". How could, logically speaking, he be equal and still inferior to his Father? (This is, probably, a common complaint against the doctrine of Trinity). Perhaps, he was speaking out of reverence for the Father, but then what did he mean when he said, "I and my father are one." then...

Possible counter-arguments:
1. Imagine this as a logical sequence:
Whatever is equal to another is the same.
Whatever is greater than another is not the same (as the other one).
Therefore, one that is equal to the other cannot be greater than the other.
2. The reverenc of Jesus who, to the Pharisees, quotes the scriptures and once said, "God is not the God of the Dead, but of the living." This is more convincing, but this would discredit the earlier statement. In John 10: 30, Jesus says he is "one" or equal to "his father"--implicitly god. If one were to respect another, and regard him as greater, how would he consider him equal to him then? (Ex. a boy has a teacher whom he adores as a superior. Yet, would the boy consider himself equal to the teacher whom he regards as superior?) The two statements are rather incompatible. I am interested in how you would answer this.

Second Mini-contradiction:

2. Jairus' daughter

Mark 5:22-23 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name...And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death...
Luke 8:41-42 And, behold, there came a man named Jairus...and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would come into his house: For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying...

This is interesting. "The point of death" refers to the daughter being close to death, almost dead. However in Luke, it says "she lay a dying". In Luke, it is unclear whether the girl is slowly withering or at what point she is close to death.

Is there a difference between "dying" or "near death"? I say, in a way, yes.I will draw the image of:

a man who is running on the road vs. a man who is near the end of the road (and is still running)

Are these two images compatible? I hope that CON would answer this adequately.

(I will also evaluate CON's argument in the next round.)

Debate Round No. 2
ReformedArsenal

Pro

My opponent has again postd challenging texts, and I applaud him for the time taken to post these questions.

Contention 1) Again, this is broken into several sub-points
C1.a) My opponent sees a contradiction in Christ exclaiming "My God, MyGod, why haev you forsaken me?" He clamis that this exclamation goes against the fact that Christ knew and gladly accepted his impending death.
C1.b) My opponent identifies apparent contradictions in the narrative accounts of Christ's death.

Refutations of Contention 1)
C1.a) This is a profound mystery that many Christians have pondered for nearly two millenea. However, I do not believe that it is contrary to what the Gospels reveal about the relationship between Christ and the Father. Before I launch into a full refutation, I would like to point out that this is not a contradiction persay. No where has my opponent identified a text (nor does one exist) that says that Jesus would not suffer, be in pain, exclaim that pain, be forsaken by the Father, and cry out in anguish at that forsakenness. In fact I would suggest the opposite.

There are two primary ways to explain this phenomena. In reality, I think it is probably a combination of the two. The first is that the Father turned away from Christ and removed His loving presence in exchange for his wrath. "In some sense Jesus had to be cut off from the favor and fellowship with the Father that had been his eternally." [B] God pouring out his wrath onto Jesus for the sake (in the place) of sinners is a staple of the majority of Attonemnt theories (Penal Substitution and Propitiary Satisfaction namely). It is possible that Jesus was experiencing the pain of this wrath and was genuinely distraut at being God forsaken. The second is that this exclaimation was a cry of victory affirming his status as God's Messiah. The exclaimation is a quote from Psalm 22:1. For those who do not know, Psal 22:1 is the most explicitly Messianic Psalm in the whole Psalter. It also bears striking parallels to the death of Jesus. One author notes "It reads like it was wrtten by someone standing near the cross" [A] Any Jew familliar with this Psalm would have thought of it immediately when they heard Jesus cry out the opening words of it... this was one last proclaimation that he was the promised Messiah, indeed it is possible that this proclaimation (although not recorded in Luke) is what prompted the so-called Good Thief to recognize Jesus and trust him for salvation (Luke 23:40-43).

C1.b) My opponent identifies that the various accounts appear contradictory. However, when someone looks closely, they are not. It is quite easy to harmonize these accounts. For example both Matthew and Mark indicates that right before he died he cried out in a loud voice. Matthew and Mark don't indicate WHAT he cried out in this loud voice. However, Luke indicates that after he cried out in a loud voice he died. These three accounts line up perfectly. The only account that possibly gives pause is John's who states that he sai "It is finished." then bowed his head and gave up his spirit. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that other things were not said after he said "It is finished." Nor does Luke say that there was nothing said between Jesus exclaiming "Father into your hands I commit my spirit!" He only indicates that said that prior to his death. Consider the following analogy of the theoretical death of a father surrounded by his family.

10:00am - The family arrives, minus the eldest son John
10:40am - John arrives
10:45am - The father sits up in bed and tells his family that he loves them all but that they should not be sad
10:47am - the father pulls John close and said "Take care of them son, they're your responsibility now"
10:48am - Overcome with emotion, John leaves the room to compose himself
10:50am - the father cries out "I see Jesus, I'm going home"
10:52am - the father dies

Now, lets pretend that four individuals are telling the story. His wife, the doctor, his youngest daughter, and the eldest son John

The mother might say "We got there shortly before he died. And before he died he sat up in bed and told us that he loves us but not to be sad."

While the doctor might say "The family arrived at around 10:00am. I was in the other room waiting for them to call me in until I heard him shout something so I rushed in. I pronounced him dead at 10:52am"

The daughter may not remember all the details, so she speaks in vague terms. "We got there in the morning, and we were with him until he died. What I do remember is how even right before he died he was crying out to Jesus."

While John only has vivid memories of his father charging him with the care of the family and says "I got there late, but I made it in time for him to pull me close. The last thing he said to me was 'Take care of them son, they're your responsibility now,' and then he died."

We see from this example that different perspectives yield different stories. However, the stories do not contradict each other, nor are they false simply because they are not identical. If anything, the various accounts give us a fuller understanding of what actually happened.

Contention 2)
Con identifies potential contradictions in the timeline and account of the resurrection story.

Refutations of Contention 2)
My opponent makes several assumptions that are not explicit in the text. He identifies that in Matthew that the earthquake that rolled the stone aside happened while the women were present. However, this is not what the text says. It simply says the women went to see the tomb. There was an earthquake and the stone was rolled aside. While I can see how a reader might assume the women were present when this happened, however the text does not make this clear. When we look at the other texts which are explicit, they inform the ambiguous text rather than contradict it.

My opponent also seeks to show contradiction between who the women told and when they told them. A brief point about neither" implying two women... the word neither here doesn't mean "neither women," it is saying that they fled in panic, and didn't say anything to anyone. It's a poor translation fom an older usage. The word in Greek is καὶ (kai) which simply means "and" so the appropriate modern translation would be "they fled from the toom, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Now, the question of "they didn't say anything to anyone." We are forced to contend with what the author meant. Both Matthew and Mark say the fled with fear. This is another case of various perspectives yeilding different yet compatible accounts. In Mark, we see the women flee the tomb and tell no one. However, the story ends with them fleeing the tomb. In Matthew we see them flee the tomb, but the story continues past where Mark stops. Before they tell anyone, the meet Jesus and he tells them to go tell the disciples, and they do. This is similar to the exampel above where the eldest son John stops his story before the end because he left. Mark simply stops the story before they recieved instruction to spread the news. For the sake of space I shall approach the next two aspects of this quickly. The discrepancy in numbers is again a case of different ephasis and perspective. If there are three women, there are also two. If the author identifies two women, that doesn't mean there weren't three present it just means the others were not significant in the Author's mind.

Due to space constraints, I will treat the remainder of contention 2 in round 3 as well as the mini-contradictions.

Sources
[A] Charles L. Quarles,
[B] Michael J. Wilkins,
[C] All quoted Scripture is from the ESV Bible, which can be found at http://www.esvbible.org...
Man-is-good

Con

Man-is-good forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ReformedArsenal

Pro

Continuation of Refutation of Contention 2)

Another aspect of the resurrection story that my opponent is calling into question is the sequencing. We must acknowledge the limitations of eye witness accounts here, as none of the Gospel writers were eye witness acounts themselves. They are recounting the story from different perspectives, likely having spoken with various people directly involved. When different witnesses retell the same story, they emphasise things in different places. This accounts for why one Gospel says they left with fear, while another may say they left with joy. One Gospel writer was capturing the emotions of one of the women who felt joy, the other was capturing the emotions of one of the women who was overcome with fear. We would not call this a contradiction if two different news articles quoting two different witnesses reported different emotional responses, why would we treat this source differently?

When John says "Mary came back and told us about it" he is not excluding that other women were with them. He is simply highlighting that it was Mary Magdalene who spoke to them when the group of women returned.When the other Gospels leave out the portion of the story where Peter and John return to the tomb to find it empty, they are not saying it didn't happen... rather they are just not talking about it. Allow me to propose a timeline that harmonizes the accounts.

-The group of women return to the tomb to prepare Jesus' body for proper burial
-While the women were traveling to the tomb there was an earthquake and the angel rolled the stone away
-When the women arive, they encounter an angelic being who informs them that Jesus has risen from the dead
-The women leave the tomb, and on their way back to the place the disciples and Jesus' followers were gathered, they encounter Jesus who instructs them to return to the disciples and tell them of the resurrection
-Mary and the other women return to the disciples and inform them
-Peter and John return to the tomb to find it empty

This incorporates all of the components of the resurrection story in the correct order. We must remember that just because one account leaves a detail out, or refers to it in a slightly different way, does not mean it is contradictory. Just a different perspective.

This also accounts for the various descriptions of the messengers who informed the women of the resurrection. Mark records one Angel, Matthew says two, while Luke says it is two men in dazzling apparel. This is quite simple to explain, There were two angels who had taken the form of men. Mark and Matthew both explain that they were angels, while Luke stays with the descriptors likely given to him by the witnesses. If there are two angels, there is also one angel.

Mini-Contraditions

1) This is pointing to the difference between an ontological (existential) statement, and a functional (economic) statment.

The first statement is describing the way that things exist. Jesus and the Father are of one nature and unified in a unique and powerful way. The second statement is describing the relationship that the Father and Jesus have, one of functional subordination.

Consider this: If I say that my boss is my superior, does that mean he is more human than I am? Am I somehow less human than he? Of course not... I am not making a statement of onotology, I am making a statement about how our interactions work in the workplace. This is the same thing.

2) This is a contradiction to point at. My opponent says "a man who is running on the road vs. a man who is near the end of the road (and is still running).

While the statements place emphasis on different aspects of the situation, they in no way contradiction each other. The man who is running on the road near the end of the road, is still running on the road.Just like Jairus's daughter who was at the point of death, was still in the process of dying.

I would like to thank my opponent for this lively debate, as well as gently remind him that according to the rules of the debate established in round 1, he is not allowed to post rebuttals or new arguments in round 4. Doing so will result in an immediate loss and the voters should vote 7 points to Pro.

Thank you for reading.


Man-is-good

Con

Thank you for this lively debate. I hope that voters will not be biased in this topic. It is truly an interesting topic of semantics and logic for theology and the study of the bible. Thank you and have a good day.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Reasons for voting decision: ReformedArsenal demonstrated the coherence of the trinitarian doctrine. I believe Man-is-good forfeiture dramatically effected the structure of his arguments strength. It seems as if two perspectives as reported by two different sources are being conflated together to mean a contradiction. This is a non-sequitur. A policeman may receive two varying reports of the same situation. Yet, merely because these statements aren't entirely accurate doesn't imply that the situation reported is false.

Attacks against argument:
1. The debate was not about the coherence of the concept of trinity, and was only focused on such a thing in a minor section. (sadly, you seem to make it seem as if it is an important part of the debate)
2. The whole reports and policemen and the fact that statements are entirely accurate:
--contradiction (especially seemingly direct) decreases significantly the credibility of the situation
and whether or not if it was rightly reported or even considered
3. You seem to imply that PRO used better sources. We both relied on the Bible, which in a way makes us equal.
4. You forget that only a true scholar, or a least a strong-willed man, can discern the puzzles behind these contradictions. Can every man who goes to the store, buys a bible, be a student of theology or a studier of Greek or Latin language? The sad part is that religion introduces biases and sometimes even advantages for its own followers. I did the best as I could. You, DimmitriC not only went on much of debates, made a few inaccurate statements (which, if you want, I can reveal later on), and used them on this debate.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
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.
This is from PRO's opening argument. Read it carefully. I abided by this by not giving any new arguments or rebuttals in the argument, SkepticsAskHere. Please choose a different reason for your vote...I often wonder at how people don't read. Did you read the opening argument, SkepticsAskHere? If you did, then it wouldn't be too much of a reason for me to do so...
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
then didn't debate in his last

Read PRO's argument. I am not allowed to discuss any new arguments in the last round. Please DO NOT use that as an excuse for giving Pro more points. All I did was to conclude the debate by addressing the voters.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Jar, please don't make me report you for harassment. If you don't stop, I will be forced to. You have gone through nearly all of my debates and vote bombed them... grow up.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
At least he is honest.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Jar, you are a horrible human being.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
ReformedArsenal demonstrated the coherence of the trinitarian doctrine. I believe Man-is-good forfeiture dramatically effected the structure of his arguments strength. It seems as if two perspectives as reported by two different sources are being conflated together to mean a contradiction. This is a non-sequitur. A policeman may receive two varying reports of the same situation. Yet, merely because these statements aren't entirely accurate doesn't imply that the situation reported is false.

There are many problems I have with this concept. I want you to know that you focused, in this argument, overwhelmingly on the lesser parts of the debate than the whole. It is the same as if a boy reading Lord of the Flies focused on only word instead of the paragraphs on the same page.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Where are the voters? I want to see votes!
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Vote vote vote.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Sorry. I will only respond to your own refutations.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
ReformedArsenalMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited one round and then didn't debate in his last
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ReformedArsenalMan-is-goodTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Another extremely solid performance by REformedArsenal. Man-is-good started off solid, but at the end could not maintain his objections, forfeited and then could not close. No contest, 3:1 Pro.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
ReformedArsenalMan-is-goodTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Reformed did a wonderful job of adequately explaining how the contradictions were not contradictions at all. I appreciated Man-is-good for not being a jerk (as many atheists are wont to do discussing these matters), but conduct points to Arsenal since Man-is-good forfeited a round.
Vote Placed by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
ReformedArsenalMan-is-goodTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter votebomb. Also, I genuinely think that Pro won.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
ReformedArsenalMan-is-goodTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ReformedArsenal demonstrated the coherence of the trinitarian doctrine. I believe Man-is-good forfeiture dramatically effected the structure of his arguments strength. It seems as if two perspectives as reported by two different sources are being conflated together to mean a contradiction. This is a non-sequitur. A policeman may receive two varying reports of the same situation. Yet, merely because these statements aren't entirely accurate doesn't imply that the situation reported is false.