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

The existence of the Judeo-Christian God is impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,873 times Debate No: 17903
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)





Resolved: It is impossible for the Judeo-Christian God to exist.


1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

The attributes of Od will be the same found within the Bible; as well the definition.

If circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.

Good luck! :-)

Through this debate, I will prove that it is impossible for the Judeo-Christian God to exist because:
-His attributes contradict itself;
-Problem of non-belief;
-Argument of Evil;
-Problem of Biblical contradictions.
Report this Argument

Note that scripture does qualify as sources.


I accept the challange. I'm delighted to be facing you again Kohai, and I wish you the best of luck. I await your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, David, for accepting my challenge. I wish to have a rational discussion. I am an atheist and here to explain why. We, of course, are discussing the Judeo-Christian God--that of the Bible.

C1) Problem of God's Contradictory attributes

As mentioned before, we will be discussing that of the Biblical God.

C1.1) Immutable v. All loving

(P1) If God exists, then he [a] is immutable.
(P2) If God exists, then he is all loving.
(P3) An immutable being cannot be affected by events.
(P4) To be all-lloving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.
(C1) Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving.
(C2) Therefore, God does not exist.

To be affected is to be changed in some way. Therefore, P3 must be true by definition. The concept of love that is relevant of the Judeo-Christian God is agape, which is the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of others. If events were called on for some sacrifice on God's part, then, to be loving in the relevant sense, he must go ahead and perform the sacrifice. Since that requires being affected, the truth of p4 is absolute.

C1.2) Just v. Mercy

(P1) If God exists, then he is just.
(P2) If God exists, then he is merciful.
(P3) Just is getting exactly what you deserve. [1]
(P4) Mercy is getting less than what you deserve. [2]
(P5) It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the same severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
(C1) Hence, it is impossible for an all-just God to be an all-merciful judge.
(C2) Thus God does not exist.

| Conclusion |

Based on God's attributes that are defined in the Bible, I have shown how they are incompatible with one another and thus the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist.

C2) Problem of Biblical Contradictions

(P1) If God inspired the Bible, then it is free from contradictions because he is not a liar.
(P2) If there are contradictions in the Bible, then by definition, God would be a liar or non existant.
(P3) There are contradictions in the Bible.
(P4) Therefore, God does not exist.

A contradiction is a logical incompatibility with two or more opposint statements [3]. Throught the Bible, God is defined as not being able to lie; nor is he able to sin [b]. Thus if he inspired the Bible with contradictions, he would have to be a liar in some form or another.

C1.2) Who was Joseph's father?

A. Jacob
"And Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, whom was born of Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)
B. Heli
"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about 30 years of age, being (as it was supposed), the son of Joseph, the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23)

I ask again, who was Joseph's father/Jesus' grandfather?

You may say that Luke gives Mary's genaeology and Matthew gives John's; however, by CARM's own admitance, there are severe difficulties with that hypothesis [4]. In addition, both clearly state the liniage is from Joseph.

C1.2) Who killed Saul?

A. Saul committed suicide.

“Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.” (1 Samuel 31:4-6)

“Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his amourrbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.” (1 Chronicles 10:4)

B. an Amalekite killed him

And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him. (2 Samuel 1:8-10)

*Note: I have not been able to find where the Amalekite was lying. It is important to note that the Amalekite is talking to David in this verse.

C. The Philistines

“The Philistines had slain Saul.” (2 Samuel 21:12)

D. God did!

“So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.” (1 Chronicles 10:14)

What we see is a case of 4 people killing Saul! Please tell me, who killed Saul?

| Conclusion |

I have shown 2 major contradictions and thus the Biblical God is false.

| Summary |
  1. God's contradictory attributes
    1. Immutable v. All-loving
    2. Just v. Mercy.
  2. Biblical Contradictions.
    1. Who was Joseph's father?
    2. Who killed Saul?

Resolution affirmed. It is impossible for the Judeo-Christian God, that defined in the Bible, to exist. Back to you.


a. Following the tradition, and for simplicity, I will be using the male personal pronoun for God. My apologies to anyone who finds that linguistics practice offensive.
b. See Titus 1:2; and Hebrews 6:18




I'm glad to be facing Kohai on aanother topic, especially one in which I find great joy discussing. Note that my opponent shoulders the burden of proof as he is claiming the existence of the Christian God is impossible. Please excuse my very candid and straightforward responses. I had a term paper for class due so I went straight to the point :)Now onto evaluating his arguments.


Premise 4 is blatantly false. What if there were a being which, at the outset, provided every possible good for every creature. This being would be all-loving, but it doesn’t require that it have the ability to change. My opponent's

But if there is one counter-example to 4, then 4 is wrong. Hence, 4 is wrong.


Premise 5 is wrong, because the Christian God exercised both his mercy and his justice in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, atoned for our sins by being a sacrifice; hence, God’s justice was exercised. But Jesus Christ, God incarnate, God’s only son, also was the one who offered himself as a sacrifice. This is an exercise in God’s perfect love. Maybe this is a problem for other monotheistic religions, but not for Christianity. Mercy and justice meet on the cross.


P1 is false, because though God may inspire men to write what he wants, that doesn’t mean that he will inspire every word they write. This is why, for example, some Christians believe the Bible is only absolutely true in regards to the most important doctrines of salvation, and not in areas of science or history. So from here it does not follow that God does not exist.

P2 is false, for the same reason. Moreover, I’d argue that P3 is false, and that there are not contradictions in the Bible. Two important things to remember with regards to supposed Bible contradictions. First, dealing with these has to be ad hoc. Since we can’t prove across the board that all the supposed contradictions are merely apparent, we have to deal with them one by one. So we just have to take one at a time. Second, all we have to do is provide a logically possible explanation; it doesn’t even have to be particularly plausible. It just has to be possible, so that there is no necessary contradiction..

Who was Joseph's Father?

It's important to have a background knowledge of the way genealogies work during these times.

First, the genealogical lists would have been known by the Jews during Jesus' lifetime. David A. Duncan notes, "The easiest way for a Jewish enemy to discredit Jesus, was to show that he was not a son of David, and this could only be done by showing the genealogical records to either be wrong, or contradictory."[1]

I'd also like to refer my opponent to the 1st source and take a look at the maps that dismiss the claims of there being a contradiction.

There is more that can be said but I'm pressed with time and I'll wait until my opponent responds

Who Killed Saul?

With regards to Saul, the first interpretation A, that Saul committed suicide, is the correct way of understanding straightforwardly. B only refers to what the Amalekite said happened. If he were to actually quote the verses in C, then he would know that they only say the Philistines struck down Saul (which they did, if you look at 1 Sam 31:3), not killed him immediately. They critically injured him with arrows and he would have died whether he committed suicide or not. D doesn’t prove anything. We can interpret this as saying that God allowed Saul to die as punishment. This supposed “contradiction” is incredibly lame, and it’s easily done away with. There is no logical contradiction if we interpret it in this way.

I denied pemises in each of my opponent's arguments and demonstrated how they're plagued with falsity, therefore lending the entire argument unsound. I've shown that most of the apparent contradictions can be resolved and there are possible explanations that alleviate the claim of a contradiction. So far my opponent has not shown that it's impossible for the Christian God to exist.


[2] See for a further breakdown of the lineage

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for being so understanding as to the fact that I am away on vacation as I write this debate. Anyway, on to the debate!


My opponent challenges premise 4. However, we are talking about the Judeo-Christian God; not god in general. If we were talking about god in general, I would go along with this.

Remember, the scriptures clearly state that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to change. God's name, as discribed, means "Self-sufficient."


I am glad my opponent brought up Jesus on the cross. I wish to remind my opponent that Jesus did not deserve his death on the cross and therefore it is not justice.

Hypothetical argument:

What if there was a judge that was supposedly all-just and all-merciful and person X comited rape and murder. This person is sentenced to death because of the Judge's justice. However, he is all-merciful so he sends person Y, who is the judge's son, to pay the punishment for him. Is that just?

Please watch the video to the right. It goes much more in depth for this.

God says that everyone will die for his own sins, yet Jesus did not sin so isn't that contradictory?

This argument is the strongest point.


Actually, I may remind you that the Bible says that "ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God" thus p1 stands.

"Lack of opponent by the Jews"

I may remind you that the gospels were written LONG after the events were discribed. Therefore, it is likely that the Jews may have dismissed his claim although are not-recorded in the Bible.

Just because you are from David does not mean you are Messiah.

Joseph's Father/Jesus' Grandfather

I want my opponent to give me his best reason why there is no contradiction rather than rebutting a ton of different websites. I will break down source 1.

Source 1, from my opponent, gives the explanation that was originally attributed to Africanus.

This begs the question, why do these "brothers" have different fathers? This explanation is strange, unrealistic, and without any scriptural evidence.

Africanus himself did not provide ANY proof of this. Africanus himself stated "This may or may not be the truth of the matter; but in my opinion and that of every fair minded person no one else could give a clearer exposition, and we must content ourselves with it even if it is unconfirmed, as we are not in a position to suggest a better or truer one. In any case the gospel record is true."

Who killed Saul?/Tyre and Ezekial

I will go along with this. However, I wish to present a stronger argument that I wish I'd have used insted. I have not seen a single apologist that gave a sufficent explanation.

Ezekiel 26:7-14
For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God.

This is a failed prophcy for many reasons:
  1. The city was rebuilt [a];
  2. Alexander, not Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the city. [1]

a. Please see Matthew where Jesus visited Tyre.

| Summary |

  1. God's contradictory attributes
    1. Immutable v. All-loving
    2. Just v. Mercy.
  2. Biblical Contradictions.
    1. Who was Joseph's father?
    2. Who killed Saul?
      Exekial's failed prophcy. (to replace 2)

| Conclusion |

I want my opponent to give EVIDENCE for all of his hypothesis in the 1st contradiction. Please don't say "Here, rebut this" and give me a source. Thus, I would like the conduct point to go to me.

Thank you and back to you.




A scriptural basis of immutability is found in Malachi 3:6 (NASB). It reads, "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O son of Jacob, are not consumed." James 1:17 (NASB) states, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." God says He doesn't change and He is immutable but in what sense is this true?

It appears my opponent is holding to a stronger and radical sense of immutability, namely, absolute immutability where God cannot be affected by events. Pro writes, "to be affected is to be changed in some way. Therefore, P3 must be true by definition."

So we return to my original question: In what sense is God immutable and what does that entail? God is immutable with regards to his character and/or nature. So does God change? In a sense God experiences change. For example after creation, God obtains an awareness of tense or the passage of time.[1] For God to change it means he changes extrinsically. Contradiction puts it perfectly, "Change need not be ontologically positive or negative, there can be such thing as neutral change. Suppose I paint my red wall blue. My wall has changed, but this change does not add or detract to its being, it is neutral. In the same way, God's creation of the universe need not be construed as implying a deficiency on his part" [2]

Take for example God becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ. All of God's attributes such as goodness, love, and power remain intact. All God does is add the attributes of "becoming incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth."[3] Note God doesn't lose anything from his nature or attributes. These do not change; they remain intact. Christian Philosopher Paul Copan notes, "As Historical theologian Jaroslav Pelikan has shown, God's immutability in Scripture, contrary to certain theological portrayals, refers to his promise keeping covenant faithfulness and reliable character."[4] Moreover, Christian philosopher and theologian William lane Craig lends an excellent clarification of this point. He writes, "Rejection of radical immutability nonetheless leaves it open for us to affirm that God is immutable in the biblical sense of being constant and unchangeable in his character. Moreover, he is immutable in his existence (necessity, aseity, eternity) and his being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent" (emphasis mine).[5] So it seems as if the 3rd premise is shaky and false. Moreover, it seems as if my opponent's view of "change" is somewhat ambiguous. What type of change are we speaking of? I've already mentioned God can change in a neutral sense.

It also seems as if Pro is conflating Divine Immutability and Divine Impassibility. If God is immutable, that is, "God is constant in his character and virtue; that God is not fickle; and that God will remain true to his promises,"[6] then why is it that God can be affected by our actions? God can be affected by what we do such as in Genesis 6:6 where God was "grieved in His heart." Does this undermine God's power in anyway? No, he strikes a balance between the two; God is not entirely indifferent to his creation, yet he is not affected so much that he is at the mercy of his creation. He strikes a relational balance between the two as being a personal God.

It seems as if premise 3 is false. God's immutability entails his character and necessary attributes remain the same, and God can be affected by events in a neutral sense and by his relation to creation.


Remember I denied premise 5. What's so contradictory about a judge sentencing someone to what he deserves but offering him a pardon from it? [7] Human beings are in a position where they have a debt that they cannot pay alone. Christ's death on the cross satisfies that debt, and God not only becomes the judge but the justifier. Copan writes, "The reason the innocent Jesus can take our punishment is that forgiveness is actually through the 'agreement' or willing participation between (a) the offenders, (b) the offended, and (c) the willing (or surrogate)-namely, us, God, and the Son of God." [8] Kevin Lewis adds, "Christ is God incarnate; Christ is the offended party. That's why He's the only one that can pay for sins. Only God can do this because he's the offended party. Only the person you've offended can forgive you of your sins and bear that burden."[9] So once again, Christ has become that perfect sacrifice of both mercy and justice. We are sentenced to what we deserve, but we are given a pardon to accept. My opponents video fails to realize that a 3rd party is added to the mix. That makes no sense. In this case, the offended party, namely, God comes and takes care of the issue.

"God says that everyone will die for his own sins, yet Jesus did not sin so isn't that contradictory?"

No, it's not. Everyone dies as a result of sin. However, Jesus gave his life away.

Recall I denied premise 1, 2, and even 3. Each of these premises are controversial. Recall I mentioned that some Christians hold to varying degrees of inspiration and its interpretation.What is the doctrine of inspiration? Well first it is that Scripture is "God breathed" and "God's authoritative self revelation." [10] But since I hold to a conservatively high view of Divine Inspiration, I will drop the charge against the first premise and I will focus my attention on the 3rd premise. Keep in mind the two points I made: 1)dealing with the contradictions will be ad hoc, since we cannot prove all these contradictions are merely apparent unless we deal with each individually 2) all I must do is provide a logically possible explanation to show that there is no necessary contradiction.

Who was Josephs father?
The gospels were written within the first century which was well in the lifetime of opponents of Christianity. It was important for the Jews to see the genealogies to verify whether Jesus was the Messiah. So as the site mentioned, all the Jews had to do was show the records to be wrong or contradictory and Christianity would have never gotten far with the claims of Christ.

Furthermore, Theologian John Macarthur notes in his Bible Commentary that "the two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy and Matthew's version represents Joseph's…Joseph was 'the son of Heli' by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named here in verse 23 as the representative of Mary's generation."[11] John Lightfoot also agrees in his commentary saying, "[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ."[12] So Eli/Heli is Mary's father and the genealogy here is being traced through her line and Matthew traces the genealogy through Joseph, hence his real father being Jacob.[13]

Also using "son" has a variety of uses such as genealogical abridgment or used "to describe kinship without sonship." For example, "Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15); yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13)."[14]

The importance of Jesus being a descendant of David was because of prophecy that pertained to the Messiah in Jeremiah 23:5-6. So the claim was never that because you are a descendent of David therefore you are the messiah. This is obviously one signal out of MANY that points to messiahship.

Tyre and Ezekiel

Due to space I will respond to this in the closing round.

In conclusion, I've denied premise 3 of the Immutable argument and premise 5 of the just v mercy argument. I've shown both arguments are therefore unsound and I've given a reconciliation to the apparent contradiction with Josephs father.

Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent only had 48 characters left in the last round, I will grant him the opportunity to respond to my failed prophecy contention in the final round.

I thank my opponent for this awesome opportunity to debate. I have learned a lot.


I feel like I should have better defended p3. By p3 I am referring to the fact that a self-sufficent G-d cannot be effected by people loving or hating him. In other words, he cannot let his creation control his emotions which is what we see in the Judeo-Christian "god."

Sorry for not being clearer. I will drop this contention.


"Remember I denied premise 5. What's so contradictory about a judge sentencing someone to what he deserves but offering him a pardon from it?"

A lot. I again encourage you to watch the video.

I wish to reveal the sins of Jesus.

Sin 1: Jesus took from and changed the Torah!

forgive me if this doesn't turn out nice. If it does not, please see this link;

Deuteronomy 13:1 "All that I command you, take care to do it; you shall not add to it, and you shall not diminish from it."

What did Jesus have to say about this?

Matthew 5:17-19

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say to youtill heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

Did he walk the talk?


Leviticus 20:10 - And a man who commits adultery with [another] man’s wife, [he] who commits adultery with the wife of his friend, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Matthew 5:27-28(KJV)
– (27) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.[See also Jn 8:3-11[5].]

In other words, a man becomes guilty of adultery even if he only thinks about desiring to be with a woman he has seen

This is what the Torah says concerning this type of desire:

Deuteronomy 21:10-11 – (10) When you go forth to a war against your enemies, and the L-rd your G-d has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive; (11) And you see among the captives a beautiful woman and desire her, you may take her as your wife;

For a man to desire a woman [ (hashaq); e.g., Gen 34:8] is not necessarily sinful. Quite to the contrary, it can be a prelude to marriage.


Since Jesus sinned multiple times (see the link), he cannot be the perfect sacrifice.


Joseph's father?

My opponent seems to be arguing (forgive me if I'm wrong) that Luke is giving Mary's geneaology and Matthew is giving Josephs. Allow me to throw this argument out of water.

Jews do not transmit birthright by the motehr. St. Jerome said, "It is not the custom of the scriptures to count women in their genealogies." Thus a genealogy traced from Mary's side is of no value in determining if Jesus is a direct descendent from David. [1]

A mother determines if the child is Jewish. The Father determines the TRIBE one is from. Mary's genaelogy is completely irrelevant to the Davidic lineage [2] [3].

Even if he was adopted by Joseph, it does not change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, the child does not become Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he does not become of the tribe of Judah. [3]


If Jesus was born of a virgin, he cannot be part of the Davidic lineage. Jesus could not be messiah no matter how my opponent twists these verses around.

1. Guignebert, Jesus: p107, 114



I'd like to stress the fact that I answered and dealt with this very objection in the last round. This is conflating divine immutability and divine impassibility. See my response in round 3, the second to last paragraph under C1.1

Essentially Pro believes it's contradictory for a judge to sentence someone for what they deserve but offering a pardon from it. I have seen the video, responded to it and shown why it fails. I wish to extend my arguments from round 3.

Note Pro's primary and only contention was that there is a "contradiction" in knowing who Joseph's father is. He writes "I want my opponent to give me his best reason why there is no contradiction." Pro originally gave two scriptures that appeared contradictory with who the father of Jacob is, and he used this to prove premise 3 of his argument. The claim rests on who Joseph's father is as this is the crutch of the matter. However, the discussion shifted into the genealogy of Jesus and whether or not it proves his messiahship, and most of what Pro said in the last round focused on this. This has nothing to do with the contention of who Joseph's father is. We are not discussing Jesus' messiahship and this is irrelevant as it does not affect who Joseph's father was. I've shown there is a logical explanation through the genealogies that shows Jacob is Joseph's father and Heli is Josephs father in law, thus dissolving "contradiction" and defeating premise 3 of his argument.

Sin 1:
In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus states he came to fulfill the law. This actually answers the entire charge that Pro levels against Jesus. What law was he fulfilling and what does it mean to fulfill the law? Dr. Grant C. Richison observes three codes of the Mosaic Law: Moral code or the commandments, spiritual code or ordinances, and the social code or law os Israel's society.[1] He comments saying, "Jesus did not come to abolish Old Testament teachings but to “fulfill them.” He fulfilled them with both His person as the Messiah and His teaching about the kingdom. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws that typified the coming antitype. He did not offer a competitive system to the Old Testament but established it." [2] If Jesus' messiahship is legitimate, Jesus is able to fulfill the law by his sacrifice on the cross as a payment and he fulfilled the old covenant and established a New covenant.

Pro adds that for someone to desire a women is not necessarily sinful, and I agree. If I'm married is it wrong to desire to be with my wife? Of course not. So it seems it matters what your desire is. Pro is equivocating lust and desire. So what type of desire is referred to in Matthew? Here Pro utterly fails to provide careful exegesis, taking into consideration the cultural practices and theological concepts involved in scripture. Pro conflates the type of desires found in Matthew and the ones cited in Deuteronomy 21:10-11. In Matthew, Christ went beyond the deontological commandment not to commit adultery. A person may follow the law and not "commit" adultery per se, but in their heart they desire to do evil and it's just as wrong as committing the act. IVP Bible commentary notes, "If you do not break the letter of the other commandments, but you want to do so in your heart, you are guilty. God judges a sinful heart, and hearts that desire what belongs to others are guilty." [3] Jesus establishes that the issue goes further because it deals with the heart: virtues and vices. Barnes Bible Commentary notes: "[Jesus] assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. He declares that they who indulge a wanton desire, that they who look on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and committed adultery in the heart." [4] Lastly, lust is considered a form of adultery and should not be equivocated with any desire in general; All lusts are desires, but not all desires are lusts.

Next, there was a particular reason why the command in Deuteronomy 21:10-11 was given. Theologian John Macarthur observes, "According to ancient war customs, a female captive became the servant of the victors. Moses was given instruction to deal in a kind of way with such issues. In the event her conquerors were captivated by her beauty and contemplated marriage with her, one month was required to elapse…"[5] Also some translations do not phrase it as a command to "take her as your wife." Instead, the NASB writes, "and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself." This isn't a command to take her but is merely noting a scenario in which a captor desires to marry a woman. There is no parallel between Deuteronomy 21:10 and Matthew. For the most part, Pro's argument was all over the place, context was completely ignored, and the argument failed to establish the contention that Jesus was a sinner.

Tyre and Ezekiel
Here is what the prophecy indicated: Nebuchadnezzar would "heap up a siege mound" against Tyre, many nations would go up against Tyre, Tyre will be a place of spreading nets, Tyre will become plunder for the nations, the city will be broken down and never rebuilt again. Keep Ezekiel 26:19 in mind, "For thus says the Lord GOD, “When I make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and the great waters cover you" (NASB).

Pro claims the prophecy fails since 1) the city was rebuilt and 2) Alexander destroyed the city instead of Nebuchadnezzar.

1)There is one prevalent theory that seeks to answer the charge that the city was rebuilt. To resolve this charge, "it would be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel's prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea."[6] Noting Ezekiel 26:19, a Jewish traveler published the following in diary, "A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea" [7]. It's worth noting that a more accurate translation of Tyre not being "rebuilt" is actually that Tyre "will be built no more" (NASB v.14). In ancient times, when a city was destroyed and rebuilt, reconstruction was almost always done over the ruins. However, with Tyre this is not the case. "Today hardly a single stone of the old Tyre is intact… Tyre has become a place 'to dry fish nets' as the prophet had predicted."[8]

2) The text actually doesn't say that only Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city. The text says that "he" would come against it, he would lay siege upon the city, and he would lay the sword against him. Yes, the focus is mainly on him but other nations are mentioned in the text as well and this is signified by the pronoun change around 26:12. The prophecy indicated that many nations would go up against Tyre and there was no strict time limit as to how long this would happen.[9] MacArthur writes, "'they' in verse 12 appears to broaden the reference to others among 'many nations'. At this point, 'they' are not only Babylonians, but also Alexander's army which later heaped debris from the ruins into the sea to advance the island stronghold."[10] Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar is responsible for laying destruction to the mainland of Tyre. It's clear that Alexander helped in fulfilling this prophecy as Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled the other elements of the prophecy.

I've shown that there are logical explanations for the apparent contradictions and therefore each "contradiction" was dissolved. Note that all I had to do was provide a logically possible explanation to show that there is no necessary contradiction. My opponent dropped his first contention as I've shown it, as well as the rest of his arguments, to be unsound.

Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
Good debate
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Sources for round 4
[1] Richison, Dr. Grant C.. "Matthew 5:17 « Bible Exposition Commentary." Bible Exposition Commentary. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2011. <;.

[2] ibid.

[3] "Matthew 5 Commentary - Do Not Covet Others Sexually -" A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2011. <;.

[4] "Matthew 5 Barnes' Notes on the Bible." Online Bible. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2011. <;.

[5]MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible commentary: unleashing God's truth, one verse at a time. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. Print.

[6]Butt, Kyle. " Apologetics Press - Tyre in Prophecy ." Homepage . N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2011. <;.

[7] ibid.

[8]McDowell, Josh. Evidence that demands a verdict: historical evidences for the Christian faith. San Bernardino, Calif.: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972. Print.

[9] See link for an image of the literary structure of "he" and "they"

[10]MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible commentary: unleashing God's truth, one verse at a time. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. Print.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
Thanks David. Hope I improved since our last debate.
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
That's fine. Good round. I'll continue working on my response once I return from working out. Cheers :)
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
I droped 1.1 cos I added a few things that are serious.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
I can read con's arguments just fine
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Aww, would it be better if I made the font size bigger? :)
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
May I suggest con change his font to be more readable.
The content is good.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
ok...I will accept
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jd6089 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Bec. he did a better job.
Vote Placed by BruteApologia 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely dismantled (1) God's contradictory attributes and (2) Biblical contradictions as they were originally put forth. Pro subsequently dropped those arguments, thus making his overall performance substantially weaker even if his new arguments were plausible. He then lazily substituted a defense of C1.2 with a link. This is a debate between Pro and Con, not the Internet vs Con. Con did fail to respond to C2 revised and had a weak first round. For that, Pro gets 1 and Con gets 4.