The Instigator
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Raistlin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The doctrine of Marys perpetual virginity is reasonable based on scripture and historical evidence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 64411
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

dsjpk5

Pro

I want to thank Raistlin for choosing our debate topic. This should be an interesting and fun discussion. Since we both believe the Bible is the word of God, we won't have to debate the existence of God, or the reliability of the Bible.

My opponent may start his argument now if he wants, or just accept the debate now. If he chooses to start now, he cannot post an argument in the last round.
Raistlin

Con

Thank you for creating this interesting debate. I'll save my argument for round 4. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
dsjpk5

Pro

Before I begin to offer scripture and historical evidence to.support my
claims, I think it's best if I explain the premise I'll be using to
interpret scripture.

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY

To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once:

Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old
book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin
to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the
author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was
in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase:

I never said you stole money.

Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may
be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote
that meant

I never said you stole money... He said it. Or...

I never SAID you stole money... But I sure thought it. Or...

I never said YOU stole money... I said she stole it. Or...

I never said you STOLE money... I said you borrowed it. Or...

I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car.

Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You
have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for
different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at
different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on
to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later?

Development of doctrine.

Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the
implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians
recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until
some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the
difference between development versus departure is this... Is the
teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one
expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller
and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't
expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip.
Development versus departure.

Biblical Support for Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

"Consider: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, "You are going to have such adorable kids!" Everybody laughs, but the bride gapes in astonishment and says, "How shall this be?" At that point, you would begin to notice something unusual about your friend. Because, for a woman who is betrothed to be married, there are only a limited number of explanations for such a reaction. Either nobody has ever explained the birds and the bees to her, and she genuinely has no idea how babies are made and what she"s about to sign on for with her husband-to-be " or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.

The astonishing thing about Mary is that she"s astonished. For she,
too, is a woman betrothed. She knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son. Notice that the angel does not say, "You are pregnant." He says, "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk 1:31,emphasis added). This is a promise that has been made to other women in
Jewish history such as Sarah, Hannah, and the Shunammite woman (cf. Gen 18; 1 Sam 1; and 2 Kgs 4). All of them understand the promise to mean,
"You and your husband will conceive a child." So why should the same
promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry " unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?"[1]

"Another passage used to support the doctrine of perpetual virginity is
of the sayings of Jesus on the cross, i.e. the pair of commands first
to his mother "Woman, behold your son!" and then to his disciple
"Behold, thy mother!" in John 19:26-27.[54][55][101] The Gospel of John then states that "from that hour the disciple took her unto his own
home". Since the time of the Church Fathers this statement has been
used to reason that after the death of Jesus there was no one else in
the immediate family to look after Mary, and she had to be entrusted to
the disciple given that she had no other children." [2]

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

The first document I offer is one that's called the Protoevangelium of James. It's not a book of the Bible, but it does offer some insight as to how Mary and Joseph's marriage should be understood. According to this, Joseph was an older widower who was put in charge of being Mary's guardian.:

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, "Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?" And they said to the high priest, "You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do." . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, "Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, "You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord." [3]

I now turn it over to my opponent. Good luck!

Sources:
1.https://www.catholicculture.org...
2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
3 http://www.catholic.com...
Raistlin

Con

I would like to thank pro for giving a very interesting defense of the proposition, as well as an explanation of his beliefs. In order to clarify the resolution, I will quote briefly from the catechism, a document stating the beliefs of the Catholic Church. "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man... and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the 'Ever-virgin.'" [1] There are no scriptural problems, and the scripture even supports, Mary conceiving as a virgin, but there is no scriptural evidence at all that Mary remained a virgin after the conception of Jesus.

But before we dive in to the scriptures, I would like to take a brief moment to address the main points of pro's argument. Pro gives an interesting anecdote about the interpretation of certain ambiguous statements in a book. The punch line, whilst not explicitly stated, is simple: the Catholic Church offers the most clear and correct interpretation of scripture (if this is not the case, please clarify). Why? The Catholic faith was founded by those who knew the apostles that wrote the New Testament, so therefore it possesses greater knowledge on what is meant by vague Bible verses. However, it is simply not true that because the Catholic Church claims the lineage of St. Peter, it possesses any mechanism of interpretation not available to Protestants or members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or any other denomination. In other words, everyone has access to the same evidence and sources.

I will now clarify my standards for interpretation of difficult scripture. Firstly, an interpretation must not contradict any other Bible passage. Secondly, the interpretation must match reality (sorry, creationists) and conform to historical evidence. Thirdly, no unnecessary assumptions may be made. Allow me to give a concrete example. One of the most difficult pieces of scripture to interpret is
1 Timothy 2:12. In this passage, Paul states that a women should not "teach or assume authority over a man." Yet Deborah, a women, was the leader of Israel for many years, and Paul himself praised Priscilla, another women, for instructing Apollos, a famous evangelist, in Acts 18:26. Clearly, this statement cannot be taken at simple face value. Rather, one must first examine the Greek text. The first thing one notices is that the word for authority is not the ordinary "exousia" but the seldom used word "authentein." Why is this significant? Because "authentein" doesn't mean righteous, Godly authority but rather dominance, often of a sexually dominating nature. The combination of sexual domination and teaching is indicative of the hetairai, a class of intellectual prostitutes common in Ancient Greece, who both taught and practiced their secondary occupation. In other words, Paul is condemning this behaviour, not teaching or leading, as un-Christian. [2] This example illustrates a simple rule: interpret the Bible in light of itself and historical sources. This is the most logical way to interpret the scriptures, not trusting in one fallible human being to always give the right answer.

With this method in mind, let's now turn to Mary's perpetual virginity. The passage my opponent slightly but significantly misquotes is Luke 1:34. My opponent quotes Mary as merely saying "How shall this be?" but the full quote is "How shall this be since I am a virgin?" Clearly, Mary has interpreted the comment to mean that she will conceive before consummating her marriage. In all the examples pro cited, the woman was already married rather than being just betrothed. Mary did not say "How shall this be, as I will remain a virgin forever?" but cited her current virginity. Also, I would like examples of other women in that culture that decided to remain a virgin in marriage, as this seems very odd to me. I have never heard of any evidence suggesting it common for persons of that culture to abstain from sex during marriage.

Now, let's look at the Biblical evidence against Perpetual Virginity. In Matthew 1:24-25 the Bible states, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." To "know" someone is a euphemism for having sex with said person, so this clearly implies Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus' birth, debunking Mary's perpetual virginity. We also know, thanks to Mark 6:3, that Jesus had at least six siblings, again debunking perpetual virginity. Scripture clearly teaches Mary didn't remain a virgin.

Good luck next round to pro! Thanks again for the interesting debate, and I look forward to next round.

Sources

1- http://stgabrielparish.ca...
2- http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his charitable nature. It's nice
to know two peoplled can disagree agreeably. Unfortunately, I am not
able to be as complimentary towards his argument from last round.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS:

My opponent didn't respond to two of my main arguments from last round. This resulted in them being "dropped". Specifically, they were:

1. The one concerning the sripture passage about Jesus leaving his
mother in the care of John (instead of a family member) and,

2. The piece of historical evidence named the Protoevangelium of James.

Written in 145 a.d., this document says that Mary was a consecrated
virgin, and Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to be Mary's guardian. And of course, in those days, the only way a man and woman could live together is if they were married.

According to Debate.org, a "drop" is "An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round." [4]

With this in mind, both of those arguments are now to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate.

Previously Con said:

" There are no scriptural problems,
and the scripture even supports, Mary conceiving as a virgin, but there
is no scriptural evidence at all that Mary remained a virgin after the
conception of Jesus."

My response:

It's not accurate to say there's no scriptural evidence supporting the
doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. I just provided some last
round.

Con said:

"But before we dive in to the scriptures, I would like to take a brief
moment to address the main points of pro's argument. Pro gives an
interesting anecdote about the interpretation of certain ambiguous
statements in a book. The punch line, whilst not explicitly stated, is
simple: the Catholic Church offers the most clear and correct
interpretation of scripture (if this is not the case, please clarify).
Why? The Catholic faith was founded by those who knew the apostles that
wrote the New Testament, so therefore it possesses greater knowledge on
what is meant by vague Bible verses. However, it is simply not true
that because the Catholic Church claims the lineage of St. Peter, it
possesses any mechanism of interpretation not available to Protestants
or members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or any other denomination.
In other words, everyone has access to the same evidence and sources."

My response:

Although it's true that everyone has access to the same historical
evidence, it remains to be seen if my opponent is going to take
advantage of such evidence. So far in this debate, only I have done so.

Con went on to say:

"I will now clarify my standards for interpretation of difficult
scripture." He then explained the importance of looking at the
original languages of the Bible in order to interpret it correctly. I,
Pro, have no problem with that.

Con then said:

"This example illustrates a simple rule: interpret the Bible in
light of itself and historical sources. This is the most logical way to
interpret the scriptures, not trusting in one fallible human being to
always give the right answer."

My response:

Again, that's a good idea. I just hope that at some point my opponent
will take his own advice and consider some historical sources. And of
course, if there was an infallible man, then we should listen to him as
well. But that's a different debate for a different time.

Con stated:

With this method in mind, let's now turn to Mary's perpetual virginity.
The passage my opponent slightly but significantly misquotes is Luke
1:34. My opponent quotes Mary as merely saying "How shall this be?" but
the full quote is "How shall this be since I am a virgin?" Clearly,
Mary has interpreted the comment to mean that she will conceive before
consummating her marriage."

My response:

There's no reason to believe Mary thought that. She was already
married, and certainly knew how babies came about. The angel didn't
say she was pregnant already, so if Mary and Joseph were planning on
having a traditional marriage, there would be no reason to ask how she
was going to become pregnant.

Con said:

"In all the examples pro cited, the woman was
already married rather than being just betrothed. Mary did not say "How
shall this be, as I will remain a virgin forever?" but cited her
current virginity."

My response:

Even IF Mary was only engaged, the angel didn't say she was already
pregnant. He said she was GOING TO BE pregnant. But the fact of the matter is:

MARY WAS ALREADY MARRIED:

"For those who are not convinced "betrothed" equals "married" for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the "annunciation" of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph"s discovery of Mary"s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still "betrothed." Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was "with child," he determined he would "send her away privately" (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Further, the angel then tells Joseph:

Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the
angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

Notice, Joseph took Mary "his wife," indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be "betrothed." "Betrothed" is obviously much more than "engaged."

Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to
Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar
Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be "betrothed" (see Luke 2:5)." [5]

Con asked:

Also, I would like examples of other women in that
culture that decided to remain a virgin in marriage, as this seems very
odd to me. I have never heard of any evidence suggesting it common for
persons of that culture to abstain from sex during marriage.

My response:

Such a thing would be rare in this culture too, but that doesn't mean
it doesn't ever happen. It was rare in those days for God to become
man, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen one time.

Con said:

"Now, let's look at the Biblical evidence against Perpetual Virginity.
In Matthew 1:24-25 the Bible states, "Then Joseph being raised from
sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him
his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
son: and he called his name Jesus." To "know" someone is a euphemism
for having sex with said person, so this clearly implies Joseph had sex
with Mary after Jesus' birth,"

My response:

That is not accurate. I can give you several examples from the Bible
where the word "until" does NOT imply something happened after a
certain point in time.

For example:

"2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until)
the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)

1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of
scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should
stop teaching after Paul comes?)

1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all
his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ"s reign will end? By
no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob
forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")" [6]

So we can easily see that there's a distinct biblical pattern where
"until" only refers to the tome BEFORE the "until", not AFTER it.

Con said:

"We
also know, thanks to Mark 6:3, that Jesus had at least six siblings,
again debunking perpetual virginity."

My response:

If we look at the parallel passage in Matthew 13:55, we get some light
shed on the subject. In it we see:

"Matthew 13:55 -- Jesus at Nazareth

-- carpenter"s son

-- mother named Mary

-- brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas

-- sisters "with us"

Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion

"Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

This "Mary" is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph
mentioned in Matt 13:55.

Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection

"After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary
Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb."

This "other Mary" certainly corresponds to the mother of James and
Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus." [7]

So now that Con's arguments have been refuted, let's move on to:

More biblical evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary:

"Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In
Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the
angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of
the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will
be called holy, the Son of God."

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said
to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty
to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration." [5]

More Historical Evidence on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Hilary of Poitiers:

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary"s sons and not those taken from Joseph"s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26"27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354])." [8]

Sources:
4.http://www.debate.org...
5.
http://www.catholic.com...
6.http://www.catholic.com...
7. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...
8. http://www.catholic.com...
Raistlin

Con

My opponent has made a lengthy argument with many interesting points. Before we get to those, I will first deal with the dropped arguments that I didn't have space for last time. As a side note, the citation made by my opponent was not created by anyone with official DDO credentials and can therefore be considered at best advisory.

In John, the disciples "took (Mary) into their own home." There are a number of reasons for this. Namely, with considerable persecution going on, it only made sense to stick together, as there is power in numbers. It is also possible that Jesus' siblings were among the disciples, neutralizing my opponent's point.

Secondly, the Protoevangelium of James is unreliable. It was not written by James at all [1] and is apocryphal, and was written more than 110 years after Jesus' death.

Next, we must address my opponent dropping arguments. My opponent has not cited a single historical example of a "virgin marriage" in Jewish culture and has therefore failed to answer a simple question: if Mary were planning a "virgin marriage", which, as far as my opponent has shown, never happened in Jewish culture, why wasn't this more clearly stated? Indeed, for a doctrine so integral to the faith according to Catholicism, it is remarkable that the only evidence is at best speculative and at worst utterly inaccurate, but certainly not clear cut. We need historical evidence that this was practiced!

Alrighty, now for the big point of pro's argument: Mary was already married. This is technically true, though not in the modern sense of the term marriage. Marriage in the Jewish culture was arranged by the parents, and as soon as the bride price was paid, the couple was considered married, though the ceremony and consummation wouldn't take place for about a year. [2] Therefore, Mary and Joseph were technically married, but the more accurate term would be "betrothed" or "engaged." In this context, the translation of "divorce" is more accurately translated "set her aside," and pro's objection to the normal translation is moot. "Taking his wife" basically means enacting the marriage ceremony. The confusion of the wording has been resolved by historical context, rendering this argument moot.

Now, let's look at pro's interpretation of until. He cites examples of the word used in different contexts and mistakenly concludes that is the only way in which the word is used. There is a big difference in using the word until in "until the day she died" and "until Jesus was born," and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference. One use of until is in an indefinite context and one is in a definite context. Clearly, pro has falsely concluded that the word until is used in only one context, which is false.

Now, pro claims that "Mary" in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother. However, the text explicitly says she is. "Isn't (Jesus) the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"- Matthew 13:55. As you can see by reading the verse, the Mary is clearly Jesus' mother.

With none of my points refuted, we now turn to pro's case. Claiming that Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit" is misleading. The language used is that of procreation, not necessarily marriage. In any case, this has nothing to do with her virginity.

Finally, you quote another commentator claiming that Jesus' entrusting of his mother's safety to his disciple proves his siblings weren't of Mary. This is also a non sequitur as the passage is clearly metaphorical.

In conclusion, pro's points are based on poor interpretation, whilst mine have not been refuted. As pro has the BOP, it's not looking too good for him.

Sources

1- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
2- http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 3
dsjpk5

Pro

Last round, my opponent made a couple of mistakes, and misunderstood me on a couple of occasions. I will now take this opportunity to clear up any confusion he may still have concerning my claims:

ON THE SUBJECT OF DROPPED ARGUMENTS:

Con said the reason why he didn't respond to all of my arguments is
because, "I didn't have space..." This is not accurate. As he was
told when he accepted the debate, the character limit is 10,000
characters per round. On the other hand, in the argument he posted, he only used 4906 characters. [9] I know this because I copied and pasted his argument and took it to nebensatz.com. It's an online character calculator. So for him to say he ran out of space is
completely false. Notice I am not calling my opponent a liar. That's
something the voters will have to decide when voting on conduct points.

I also noticed that Con questioned me quoting my debate.org source. I find this to be rather odd, but am willing to quote another source on
the issue of dropped arguments. I notice from Con's sources that he
has no problem with the credibility of Wikipedia.org. With that in
mind, let me quote from them on the subject of dropped arguments: "An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. " [10] Basically, it's too late for Con to try to rebut the
arguments the dropped. They are to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate. It is because of this fact that I don't have to respond to his attempts at a rebuttal now on those arguments. I've already won when it comes to debating those points.

Con said:

"In John, the disciples "took (Mary) into their own home." There are a
number of reasons for this. Namely, with considerable persecution going
on, it only made sense to stick together, as there is power in numbers.
It is also possible that Jesus' siblings were among the disciples,
neutralizing my opponent's point."

My response:

I would like Con to share with me which Bible translation he is using.
I only ask this because after going to biblehub.com and searching all
21 Bible translations there, NONE of them rendered John 19:27 as "their own home". EVERY SINGLE ONE referred to one disciple (the Apostle John) taking Mary into HIS home. [11]. The reason this is significant is because if Mary had other children, it would have been their duty to take care of their presumably widowed mother, and Jesus would have known this. The fact that Jesus put someone else in charge of taking care of his mother is very telling.

On the historical evidence supporting Mary's perpetual virginity, Con
said:

"Secondly, the Protoevangelium of James is unreliable. It was not
written by James at all [1] and is apocryphal, and was written more
than 110 years after Jesus' death."

My response:

The author is irrelevant. We.don't know who the author of the book of
Hebrews is, but I bet my opponent trusts what is written there. As for
it not being part of the Bible, that doesn't mean that it's contents
aren't historically correct. My history book from high school isn't
part of the Bible either, but I still trust it when it tells me Julius
Caesar crossed the Rubicon. And the book of Genesis was written
billions of years after the creation event, but I bet my opponent
trusts the historical claims it makes when it says God created the
universe. With that in mind, with all due respect, Con's arguments
fall flat.

Con said:

"Next, we must address my opponent dropping arguments."

My response:

Again, my opponent has claimed something that is not true. I responded to EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT of his as soon as I had an opportunity. But
don't take my word for it, check out my arguments and see for yourself. Again, notice I am not calling my opponent a liar. I guess he just overlooked something.

Con continues:

"My opponent has
not cited a single historical example of a "virgin marriage" in Jewish
culture and has therefore failed to answer a simple question: if Mary
were planning a "virgin marriage", which, as far as my opponent has
shown, never happened in Jewish culture, why wasn't this more clearly
stated?"

My response:

As I said in the previous round, just because something is rare, it
doesn't follow that it never happened. We only know of God becoming a man once too, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I already
said that last round.

Con said:

"Indeed, for a doctrine so integral to the faith according to
Catholicism,it is remarkable that the only evidence is at best
speculative and at worst utterly inaccurate, but certainly not clear
cut. We need historical evidence that this was practiced!"

My response:

Who said it is "so integral"? Not me, and not the Church. And I did
give you historical evidence (Protoevangelium of James).

Con said:

"Alrighty, now for the big point of pro's argument: Mary was already
married. This is technically true, though not in the modern sense of
the term marriage. Marriage in the Jewish culture was arranged by the
parents, and as soon as the bride price was paid, the couple was
considered married, though the ceremony and consummation wouldn't take
place for about a year. [2] Therefore, Mary and Joseph were technically
married, but the more accurate term would be "betrothed" or "engaged."
In this context, the translation of "divorce" is more accurately
translated "set her aside,.."

My response:

Again, as I've said in previous rounds, whether they were married or
engaged is irrelevant. The angel told Mary she WOULD become pregnant. He didn't say she WAS pregnant. If Mary and Joseph were planning on having a typical marriage, she wouldn't have asked the question "How can this be?"

CON'S CONFUSION:

Con said:

"Now, let's look at pro's interpretation of until. He cites examples of
the word used in different contexts and mistakenly concludes that is
the only way in which the word is used. There is a big difference in
using the word until in "until the day she died" and "until Jesus was
born," and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference. One
use of until is in an indefinite context and one is in a definite
context. Clearly, pro has falsely concluded that the word until is used
in only one context, which is false."

My response:

Con mistakenly thinks that the word "until" is only used in one
context. I do not. What I am saying is that since the Bible uses
"until" on several occasions to.ONLY refer to what happens BEFORE an event, we shouldn't be so quick to assume what happened after. The context, in this specific case, is irrelevant. We simply don't know
for sure.

MORE CONFUSION BY CON:

Con said:

"Now, pro claims that "Mary" in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother."

My response:

That's not accurate. What I was saying is that those two men weren't
Jesus's biological brothers. As I clearly showed from Matthew 27:55,
there were three women named Mary at the cross... the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Mary "the mother of James and Joseph". This shows that James and Joseph weren't biological brothers of Jesus, but rather cousins or kinsmen of some kind.

Con surprisingly said:

"With none of my points refuted, we now turn to pro's case. Claiming
that Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit" is misleading. The
language used is that of procreation, not necessarily marriage. In any
case, this has nothing to do with her virginity."

My response:

Since whem does the Bible promote the procreation of a child by two
people who aren't spouses? Can you give me one example? I can give you an example where God condemns such actions: Abraham. Abraham had a child (Ishmael) with someone other than his spouse, and God was not happy. So much so that he didn't give the same blessing to Ishmael that He.gave to Isaac.(Generis 17:21).

Finally, Con said:

"Finally, you quote another commentator claiming that Jesus' entrusting
of his mother's safety to his disciple proves his siblings weren't of
Mary. This is also a non sequitur as the passage is clearly
metaphorical."

My response:

With all due respect, since my opponent offers no evidence that it's
metaphorical, his claim should be rejected as baseless.

More historical evidence:

"Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] "Virgin" is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]). " [12]

Sources:
9.http://www.nebensatz.com...
10.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)
11. http://biblehub.com...
12. http://www.catholic.com...
Raistlin

Con

Firstly, I would like to apologize for waiting a round to respond to two of my opponent's arguments. As a new member of DDO and someone unused to the formal format, I was not aware of any particular rules regarding when an argument should be answered until pro kindly informed me. Therefore, as this is primarily an error in conduct, I would like all voters (unless something crazy happens next round) to give pro the point for "better conduct," as he clearly understands debate etiquette better than I.

However, there are a few points of etiquette to point out before we rebut pro's arguments. Pro, in an attempt to gain sourcing superiority, implied that he is only using Wikipedia since I"(have) no problem with the credibility of Wikipedia.org." However, he was the first to cite Wikipedia, in the second round. I am glad to clear up this confusion.

I will now drop these subjects and focus exclusively on pro's arguments. Pro seems convinced that it is OK to trust a document that, despite falsely claiming to be written by James and being from the wrong time period, is just as reliable as a history textbook, Hebrews, or Genesis. The reason why you can trust a history textbook is because of its reliable sources. To give an example, the AP World History textbook at my school is used because of its reliable and numerous sources. As I have already shown, the Protoevangelium of James isn't even truthful about its authorship. Trying to compare it to books like Hebrews, which we know was written by an early disciple, and Genesis, written by Moses, is preposterous. [1] In short, pro's feeble rebuttal accomplishes nothing because it fails to give reliability to the book. His analogies are unrepresentative.

Now, let's turn to the passage in John. To avoid any confusion, I will directly quote John 19:26-27. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "'Woman,[a] here is your son,' 27 and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."
Jesus clearly skipped past his aforementioned brothers in doing his, but it was his right as firstborn to entrust his mother to whomever he deemed necessary. [2] At this time, John was best equipped to provide for Mary's spiritual needs. He was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and lived the longest, both contributing to the decision. To sum up, there was a perfectly legitimate reason for Jesus' decision that didn't involve lack of siblings.

When I stated that pro "dropped arguments," I used the term more liberally than my opponent. Essentially, I stated that whilst my opponent did acknowledge the existence of the argument, he failed to provide the necessary evidence to keep his case afloat. Pro's entire case hinges on Mary's continued virginity even after Jesus' birth. As this is not once explicitly stated in scripture, unlike God becoming flesh, and there are no examples pro can come up with of this ever being done in Jewish culture, it is not reasonable to believe this to be the case. This is truly an argument for which pro has and can have no response, as he is unable to come up with the examples requested.

As the catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states the doctrine to be true [3], it is clearly important. I stated this previously.

Pro again falls back on his beloved "How shall this be" verse, again failing to note the reasoning of Mary-"since I am a virgin?" As I have previously argued, due to the phrasing of this reply Mary clearly interpreted the angel's decree as if she would be pregnant very soon, ie before the wedding ceremony.

After I claimed last round that Pro attempted to show that the Mary in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother, pro stated that that isn't in fact the case. I am grateful that he conceded the point, though it seemed as though this was in fact that which needed to be demonstrated. The verse clearly and explicitly states that Jesus had brothers. As pro has conceded that the mentioned Mary is Jesus' mother, his point about other Marys in other parts of the Bible is completely irrelevant.

Now, let's talk about procreation. Pro asked me to give an example of when procreation was encouraged between non-married persons, and I am happy to oblige. In Genesis 38, Onan was ordered to produce children with his brother's wife. When he "spilled his seed" to prevent this, God killed him. So clearly, in certain special circumstances, it's ok for no married persons to procreate, and I certainly hope pro will concur that Jesus' birth is a special circumstance.

Next, pro claimed that "as (I) provided no evidence that (John 19:26-27) is metaphorical, (my) claim should be dismissed as baseless." Really? Let's look at the definition of a metaphor. Google immediately gives "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." So, is Jesus telling Mary that John is his son metaphorical or not? If not, pro has lost, as I have proven Mary had a second son. But thankfully for him, Mary is not John's literal mother. Pro should thank me for taking it as a metaphor.

Pro then proceeds to quote Christians not from the time of Christ who claim Mary was an eternal virgin. These quotes contain no evidence and instead merely confirm a fact: the Catholic Church believes in Mary's perpetual virginity. Both of these quotes were from at least a century after the Virgin Birth.

As the burden of proof falls on pro, he has thus far failed. Good luck to him in our final round!

Sources

1- http://www.everystudent.com...
2- http://ichthys.com...
3- http://www.accracatholic.org...
Debate Round No. 4
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for a very fun and interesting
debate.. I appreciate him choosing this debate subject.

DEBATE RESOLUTION

Before I begin my final round, I think it's best if I take a moment to
remind everyone what the resolution is, and what it's not. I will
capitalize for emphasis:

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is REASONABLE based on
scripture AND historical evidence. The resolution is NOT: "I can prove
without a shadow of a doubt Mary was ever-virgin." The question before us is, could a reasonable person come to believe in this doctrine considering scripture readings and the overall consensus of the early Church? I think we've seen the answer is "Yes".

CON ADMITS HIS ERROR

I appreciate my opponent forfeiting a conduct point and asking the
voters to vote for me. Admitting when you're wrong is never easy.
Unfortunately, I noticed you made another error when it comes to what I said. When I pointed out that you used Wikipedia, I didn't say
Wikipedia couldn't be trusted. I simply knew you would accept me using it since you too had used it.

CON'S FLIP FLOP

Originally, Con denigrated the historical evidence (Protoevangelium of
James) for three reasons:

1. We don't know who the author was.
2. It's not part of the Bible.
3. It was written long after the events happened.

HOWEVER, once I refuted those arguments, he changed his tune, and now is solely focusing on the author issue. But again, we have no idea who wrote Hebrews also.

MORE FLIP FLOPS FROM CON

ORIGINALLY, in round four, Con tried to say that after the
crucifixion, Mary lived with a number of people (including her alleged
other children). He even said her other children were possibly
disciples. BUT NOW, He admits he was wrong to claim that Mary lived with anyone other than John. He even NOW doubts if.her alleged otherchildren were disciples. Regardless, nothing changes the fact that it would've been scandalous to put anyone other than her children in charge of her IF they existed... And Jesus knew it.

Last round, Con said:
"When I stated that pro "dropped arguments," I used the term more
liberally than my opponent. Essentially, I stated that whilst my
opponent did acknowledge the existence of the argument, he failed to
provide the necessary evidence to keep his case afloat. Pro's entire
case hinges on Mary's continued virginity even after Jesus' birth. As
this is not once explicitly stated in scripture, unlike God becoming
flesh, and there are no examples pro can come up with of this ever
being done in Jewish culture, it is not reasonable to believe this to
be the case. "

My response:

MARY WASN'T THE ONLY TEMPLE VIRGIN

Despite the fact that I illustrated how just because something is rare,
it doesn't follow that it didn't happen, Com still for some reason
insists I give him evidence of other people who lived the life Mary is
described as having in the Protoevangelium of James. Not wanting to
disappoint, I am happy to oblige him:

"There are, however, three Scriptural accounts that are used by
Catholics to demonstrate that there were special women who ministered at the Temple complex.

Exodus 38:8 mentions women who "watch (צָבָא) at the door of the
tabernacle."

The second is in 1 Samuel:

"Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all
Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door
of the tabernacle:" (1 Samuel 2:22, D-R)

In both of the verses above, Hebrew verb for "watch" and "waited" is
the same. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא, which is the same verb used to
described the liturgical activity of the Levites (see Num 4:23; 8:24).
This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate,
which relates that these women "observabant" at the temple doors "
another liturgical reading.

The third and final reference to these liturgical females is in 2
Maccabees:

And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to {High
Priest} Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the
windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made
supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)

Here are virgins that are shut up. In the Greek it is "^5;O85; ^8;P50;
_4;^5;`4;^0;_4;_5;^9;_3;`3;`4;_9;_3; `4;Q82;_7; `0;^5;`1;_2;^1;_7;`9;_7;" or "the shut up ones of the virgins." In
this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of
Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who
had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest
and address him. It"s rather ridiculous to think that young girls would
have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these
virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear
that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be
featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple
at this moment of crisis.

There is further testimony of temple virgins in the traditions of the
Jews. In the Mishnah, it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated
virgins who wove the veil of the Temple:

"The veil of the Temple was a palm-length in width. It was woven with
seventy-two smooth stitches each made of twenty-four threads. The
length was of forty cubits and the width of twenty cubits. Eighty-two
virgins wove it. Two veils were made each year and three hundred
priests were needed to carry it to the pool" (Mishna Shekalim 8, 5-6)."
[14]

For their protection, a temple virgin may need a guardian. Of course, the only way back then for a man and woman to live together back then was to be married.

Last round Con said:
"Pro again falls back on his beloved "How shall this be" verse, again
failing to note the reasoning of Mary-"since I am a virgin?" As I have
previously argued, due to the phrasing of this reply Mary clearly
interpreted the angel's decree as if she would be pregnant very soon,
ie before the wedding ceremony."

My response:

Again, Mary was betrothed, and knew where babies came from. Therefore, someone telling her she would have a child wouldn't have surprised her IF she was planning on having kids.

Last round Con said:

"After I claimed last round that Pro attempted to show that the Mary in
Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother, pro stated that that isn't in fact
the case. I am grateful that he conceded the point, though it seemed as
though this was in fact that which needed to be demonstrated. The verse
clearly and explicitly states that Jesus had brothers. As pro has
conceded that the mentioned Mary is Jesus' mother, his point about
other Marys in other parts of the Bible is completely irrelevant."

My response:

BROTHER DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN SIBLING:

"Lot, for example, is called Abraham"s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even
though, being the son of Haran, Abraham"s brother (Gen. 11:26"28), he
was actually Abraham"s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only
daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These
"brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21"22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to
close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7;
Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King
Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13"14). " [15]

Also, My reference to the other Marys was not irrelevant. The other
Mary was named the mother of James and Joseph, so clearly they weren't the children of the Virgin Mary.

ON ONAN

I think a distinction needs to be made here. Onan was supposed to
provide a first born son. Joseph was under no such situation.

CON HELPS MY CASE

My opponent mentions how the Bible calls the Apostle John Mary's "son",
but.how he is NOT her biological son. But hat makes my case for me.
This shows that sometimes the Bible uses "son" to mean something else other than biological male child.

Last round, concerning historical quotes, Con said:

"Pro then proceeds to quote Christians not from the time of Christ who
claim Mary was an eternal virgin. These quotes contain no evidence and
instead merely confirm a fact: the Catholic Church believes in Mary's
perpetual virginity. Both of these quotes were from at least a century
after the Virgin Birth."

My response:

The quotes are absolutely historical evidence of what the very first Christians believed. And remember, those who lived closer to the time of the Apostles can be trusted more to understand what they taught. It baffles me Con tires to argue against these quotes based on them being from 100 years after the resurrection. I say that because MANY of the doctrines Con believe we're never believed by any Christian for 1,500 years after the resurrection. The doctrines of Sola Scripptura, Faith Alone, Eternal Security, and the Rapture are just a few.

IT'S NOT JUST A CATHOLIC THING

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity was accepted by the founders of Protestantism as well. Keep in mind, these people denied the authority of the Church, and said all doctrines must come from the Bible.alone, and yet still accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."

Notice, this quote is from 1539,... some 22 years after he began the Protestant reformation in 1517.

John Calvin:
Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

"[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}" [16]

SUMMARY OF DEBATE

1. My opponent conceded he dropped some of my arguments, and has told the voters to vote for me on conduct points. So conduct points should go to me (Pro).

2. This means some of my arguments are unchallenged, and therefore presumed true. Also, the resolution called for historical evidence to be.provided, but Con has failed to do so. While on the other hand, I have refuted all of my opponent's, and provided historical evidence. So argument points should go to me.

Again, thanks Con for such an interesting debate!

Sources:
14. http://taylormarshall.com...
15.http://www.catholic.com...
16. http://www.freerepublic.com...
Raistlin

Con

I would like to thank pro for this fascinating debate. To clarify, I never made the claim that you trusted Wikepedia; I said " Pro, in an attempt to gain sourcing superiority, implied that he is only using Wikipedia since I'(have) no problem with the credibility of Wikipedia.org.'"

Now, I would like to provide something that is long overdue: the definition of "reasonable." "Reasonable: Based on good sense." [1] This is from the Oxford dictionary, so I am sure my opponent will accept its validity.

So, this means that the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity must be based on good sense. Is this the case? Clearly, if the doctrine is correct, Mary must have intended to remain a virgin throughout marriage. Pro has (finally) attempted to provide historical examples of these "virgin marriages." He claims that Mary planned to be a temple virgin. Whilst there are well documented examples of these temple virgins, there is a major hole in his case. His argument for why these virgins were actually married is that "a temple virgin may need a guardian. Of course, the only way back then for a man and woman to live together back then was to be married." This flimsy case is based on speculation, and has no source attached. Guessing that someone "may need a guardian" and then speculating that the guardian would be her husband simply holds no water as far as evidence goes. The reason why no source was given is that these virgins were virgins in the strictest sense of the word: they were unmarried. Therefore, pro has failed to provide a single historical example of any woman in Jewish culture that was married yet remained a virgin. Why is this a problem? If I claim that my cremated dog had two hearts, you wouldn't believe me because there is no dog with two hearts. As Mary's virgin marriage is not explicitly stated in any canonical book of the Bible, and no historical examples of it exist, it is not reasonable to believe in this doctrine. This is perhaps the most powerful argument against the doctrine.

Now, my opponent claims the Protoevangelium of James is reliable. As I have previously demonstrated, the book claims to be written by James and is not, claims to be from Jesus' time and is not, and is not part of the Bible FOR THOSE REASONS. I have not flip-flopped at all on this issue. Pro has not rebutted my arguments at all. The crux of the matter is simple: the book makes multiple historical claims that are demonstrably false in a dishonest manner and therefore cannot be trusted. Pro has failed to demonstrate the veracity of this book and has failed to rebut my evidence of its unreliability. Hebrews makes no demonstrably false claims as to its authorship, so his argument is a poor analogy.

Now, lets look again at the passage from John. Whilst I provided a reliable source to back my argument that Jesus' decision was not only permitted but legitimate, pro provides no such evidence when he claims "it would've been scandalous" for Jesus to entrust Mary to John. Therefore, his claim should be rejected as baseless.

I have already talked extensively about the "but how shall this be, since I am a virgin?" verse, so I won't go over it again. Pro makes no substantial claims about it this round, and I know you have already read what I have to say on the subject.

Now, let's look again at Matthew 13:55. Pro claims that brother can mean "brethren" or "kinsmen." Pro cites Deuteronomy 23:7 uses the word brother, but it doesn't. "Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country." Similarly, the verses from Nehemiah and Jeremiah do not use the word brother. Now, let's look at the other examples. In Genesis 14:14, Lot is referred to as "kinsman," not brother. In Genesis 29:15, the word "relative" is used. I do not know if all of these misleading examples were included with knowledge of their actual content or not, but I will assume that it is simply a massive error. I would encourage anyone quoting the Bible to actually read the relevant passage before posting a misquote in the internet. I prefer not to make ad hominem attacks. Note that in Matthew 13:55, the word brother is explicitly used. Pro has failed in a spectacular way to address this verse.

Finally, let's look at a major problem with many of pro's arguments. Pro has cited several Christians as believing in Mary's perpetual virginity. I am looking not for what Christians long after the time of Christ believed but what the truth is. Citing primary sources is always preferable to citing the views of persons who often have no more evidence than we do. Many early church fathers, such as Tertullian, Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus, rejected the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. [2] However, this by no means proves that the Doctrine is false. Unlike a Catholic, I do not base my beliefs on what others, such as the Pope or even Martin Luther, believe, but what the facts state. There is an inherently vicious psychological dependency involved when one abandons thinking for themselves and instead accepts another's views without evidence.

Summary

1. Conduct- I have conceded this point to pro.
2. Sources- Pro cited the Protoevangelium of James, which I have shown to be unreliable. Pro has repeatedly and viciously misquoted the Bible, as I have shown in this argument. Therefore, this point should go to me.
3. Better Arguments- I have demonstrated the Bible doesn't support the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, and documents Jesus having siblings. I have also explained that, since no Jewish "Virgin Marriage" was ever recorded, it is unreasonable to assume that Mary was engaged in a "Virgin Marriage." Therefore, I have rebutted the resolution and have better arguments.

Again, thank you very much for this interesting the debate. I would be interested in engaging with you in another topic sometime, and I wish you the best of luck in the future.

Sources

1- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
2- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
You too.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I would like to thank my opponent for taking on such a difficult subject! Good luck to you in the future!
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
And I don't have a problem with you responding to my arguments. Just be sure not to be so quick to accuse someone of "grossly misquoting" when you know you haven't thoroughly researched it.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Whrn you misquoted scripture, I checked 17 translations, but when you have a question about mine, you check one, and accuse me of grossly misquoting the Bible
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
As you are a Catholic, I hope you will accept the validity of the New American Bible, featured on the Vatican website [1] and created solely by Catholics. [2] Genesis 14:14- "4 A fugitive came and brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was camping at the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, a kinsman of Eshcol and Aner; these were in league with Abram." I'm afraid the Vatican itself disagrees with your point. I didn't want to make an argument in the comments, but you posted your argument in the last round, giving you no chance to reply to my rebuttal. To avoid this, please don't post new arguments in the last round.

Sources

1- http://www.vatican.va...
2- http://www.usccb.org...
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Jeremiah 34:9 King James version: That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.

Again, you said I "viciously" misquoted scripture, but failed to check one if the most common and popular translators. As I've shown in my last few comments here, EVERY SINGLE VERSE I said used the word "brother" DID
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I used the King James version. I also disagree with your take on the NIV. It's scholarship is questionable. And I did provide a source for the quotes.
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
I didn't see any translation in which brother was used, but perhaps I am mistaken. I used NIV, one of the most reliable ones. There is no way to determine the veracity of your claim without a source, which I provided in the argument.
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
What translation are you using?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I've just proven you were wrong to say I misquoted scripture. Both those verses use "brother" in certain translations. Proving the Bible uses the term liberally
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Toviyah 2 years ago
Toviyah
dsjpk5RaistlinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Was a close debate. Conduct was fine, sources were fine, S&G fine. Arguments do go to pro, but it was close. They go to pro because I think Con could have spent more time responding to Pro's arguments, especially in the first few rounds. I think they were sort of skimmed-over. Con did make their own arguments - that's fine. But if Pro's arguments largely go unobjected to, the BOP is fulfilled for Pro. As a result, a couple of Pro's arguments weren't sufficiently rebutted. In terms of the rest, both debaters made good points and so were largely tied; it is thus Con's lack of thoroughness, if you will, that tilted the scales towards the Pro side. Not to mention, Pro made some sound and well argued points. So, the arguments go to Pro. Good job to both debaters though.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dsjpk5RaistlinTied
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: Close debate, Pro had more sources so that point goes to Pro and as for the arguments that also goes to Pro on the basis that there were two key arguments that were dropped by Con and Con didn't show that the Biblical evidence brought forth by Pro were either unreasonable or incorrect, which he did not do. With that being said the arguments points will thus go to Pro as well.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
dsjpk5RaistlinTied
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: This was a very good debate! Pro used more sources and made a compelling case for the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Con's job was to show that this doctrine was unreasonable based on scripture and historical evidence, which he was unable to do. Arguments go to Pro.