The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Swedishperspective
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

There are no contradictions in the Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Swedishperspective
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 60268
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I challenge people to find contradictions in the Bible. I argue that Biblical hermeneutics and logic will resolve it.

You can start first round
Swedishperspective

Con

My position is that there are a whole lot of contradictions. I will describe some major contradictions concerning some fundamental aspects of the canonical scripture, and the theology thereof.

Let me start off by describing one of the foundation tenets of the Christian faith. Christianity is ultimately centered around repentance and redemption. It is believed that we have inherited original sin from Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit and, thus, rebelled against God (Genesis 2:17). Virtually all Christian denominations agree upon this fact. Because of our innate depravity, all of us fall short in the glory of God. None of us can enter the Kingdom of heaven on the merits of our own actions. The only way to heaven is by having a relationship with Jesus Christ and by accepting him as your savior (Romans 3:23).

In Genesis 2:16-17, tt seems that God placed temptation in front of his two naive children and allowed them to be tempted by the serpent (Genesis 3: 1-7), resulting in a single mistake that would contaminate hundreds of billions with a sinful nature resulting in them descending into hell. In effect, God has deliberately sent billions of soul into eternal punishment by virtue of their sinful nature because of what one individual was responsible for (Genesis 3:3). God is viewed in Christianity as everywhere present; that he sees and knows all things: (Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21). However, here are some verses that demonstrates that God is not everywhere present: neither sees nor knows all things: (Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8). Hence, is God just inept or just not omniscient? Or if he were omniscient, how can we have free will if God knows everything that is going to happen? If God knows which act an agent is going to perform, then that act isn't free. If that is so, then God is a malevolent and evil God.

Despite the importance that Christianity attaches to justice (Proverbs 21:15, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 30:18, Psalm 37:27-29, etc.) it doesn't seem fair in anyone"s mind that all of humanity should be punished due to the action of one man. Even the Bible itself notes this as a fair principle. In Ezekiel 18:20 it says that children shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their parents. They shall be judged by the merits of their own righteousness. Eternal hell is not just. Justice entails a limitation; the crime must fit the time.

God also punishes women arguably more harshly than men. God "multiplied their sorrows" and burdened them with the plight and pain of childbirth and declared that "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) whereas God cursed Adam with having to work hard to get food from the cursed ground (Genesis 3:17).

Even though Eve was the first one to be deceived to eat from the forbidden fruit, isn't it strange that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam and not Eve, or both (Rom 5:12, 14)? That is due to the fact that Adam was the head of the household. When God was looking for them he didn't ask"Adam and Eve where are you?" He said, "Adam, where are you?" (Gen 3:9). If women transgress, this is because their husband couldn't watch their back. Women are just "suitable helpers" with no intellectual autonomy over their husbands essentially (Genesis 2:18). I can't see how this condescending attitude towards women is in any way just and fair.

The New Testament makes the assertion that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Apostle Paul stated:"If Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain, yea, and we are found false witness of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ " and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins." If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:14, 15, 17, 19, KJV)

Consequently, if the four Gospel narratives of Jesus resurrection were to conflict with one another, then how can we not regard it as a theological contradiction, not to mention historically false? In fact, all these accounts differ on some vital aspects. Sometimes is not merely discrepancies in details but discrepancies in emphasize that really matters.

For instance, Mark has a very powerful portrayal of Jesus walking to his death. He is silent the whole time. Everybody mocks him while he is on the cross, soldiers and people that passes by him alike. He finally cries out "my, God, why have you forsaken me?". You get the idea that he is in shock while he is dying a painful and humiliating death, unsure of why it is happening to him.

Contrast that with Luke's gospel. In Luke you have a completely different emphasize. When Jesus is about to be crucified he is not silent. He sees some women by the side of the rode and says to them: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children." Here Jesus is not in shock unsure of what is happening - he is concerned about these people. While he is on the cross he prays: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."While Jesus is hanging on the cross, it's not that both of the crucified people mock him - one of them mock him and the other turns to him and tells him to be quiet for Jesus has done nothing do deserve it. He then turns to Jesus and says: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." To which Jesus replies: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Here Jesus does not feel forsaken. He knows full well that he is going to paradise and he knows that this guy is coming with him. Before he dies he shouts out: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Indeed, these are very different portrayals, and it is a mistake by Christians to try to merge this gospels when in fact they have two different point of views with crucial distinctions.

One problem you will encounter with the resurrection narrative is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let"s ignore that for some inexplicable reason the other Gospels left out the "great earthquake" as part of their narratives). This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet, in Mark's Gospel it evidently happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

However, Luke 24:2 writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." The same occurs in John 20:1. No earthquake, no rolling stone. The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived, so which one is it? Since there are three accounts that contradict that of Matthew, it loses with a three-to-one vote.

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it only Mary Magdalene as told in John? Were it only Magdalene and the other Mary as is told in Matthew 28:1? Were it Magdalene, Mary and Salome as is told in Mark 16:1? Or were it three women albeit with different names (Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary) as is told in Luke 24:10? Which account is the correct one?

Did the women tell the disciples about what they had seen? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Ironically, that is also where the book ends, so how did Mark figure that the resurrection story ever got out?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (as opposed to Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as the angel on the newly moved rock predicted: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." (Matthew 28:7) This piece of information must have been of utmost importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself, that this would be the place they were going to meet during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

When the disciples got wind of this information,"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) In context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

The four accounts differ on Jesus first resurrection appearance. In Mark 16:14-15 he first appears to Mary Magdalena, albeit it"s not clear as to where that meeting actually takes place. In Matthew 28:8-9, Jesus first appears near his tomb. In Luke 24:13-15 first appears several miles from Jerusalem near Emmaus. However, in John 20:13-14, he first appears at his tomb. Which one is it? I wonder, how can these angel messages, the different locations and travels during the day be reconciled?

How many days did Jesus supposedly teach after his resurrection? Some Christians might know by heart that "He appeared to them over a period of forty days" (Acts 1:3). In the Gospel of Luke, however, it also says that he he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51). Which one is it?

Since the resurrection narrative are so clearly discordant with one another, I would challenge you, or any Christian for that matter to try to sort these ostensibly discrepant events into one coherent narrative where they all fit together. I have yet to see a Christian apologetic demonstrate the plausibility of such an undertaking, and none that I know of have so far succeeded.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

"resulting in a single mistake that would contaminate hundreds of billions with a sinful nature resulting in them descending into hell. In effect, God has deliberately sent billions of soul into eternal punishment by virtue of their sinful nature because of what one individual was responsible for"

Wrong, humanity is not doomed to hell. Because of the atonement of Jesus, we receive the chance to enter Heaven. Romans 5:12-21

Gen. 11:5 "5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. "

If God came down to see the city and the tower, that implies that he knew about it beforehand. God is also able to take manifestations (angels, men, etc.) therefore no contradiction is found.

That doesn't deal with free-will.

"Despite the importance that Christianity attaches to justice (Proverbs 21:15, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 30:18, Psalm 37:27-29, etc.) it doesn't seem fair in anyone"s mind that all of humanity should be punished due to the action of one man. Even the Bible itself notes this as a fair principle. In Ezekiel 18:20 it says that children shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their parents. They shall be judged by the merits of their own righteousness. Eternal hell is not just. Justice entails a limitation; the crime must fit the time."

We are punished because we follow the pattern of Adam's sin (Romans 3:23).

Let me start off by describing one of the foundation tenets of the Christian faith. Christianity is ultimately centered around repentance and redemption. It is believed that we have inherited original sin from Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit and, thus, rebelled against God (Genesis 2:17). Virtually all Christian denominations agree upon this fact. Because of our innate depravity, all of us fall short in the glory of God. None of us can enter the Kingdom of heaven on the merits of our own actions. The only way to heaven is by having a relationship with Jesus Christ and by accepting him as your savior (Romans 3:23).

In Genesis 2:16-17, tt seems that God placed temptation in front of his two naive children and allowed them to be tempted by the serpent (Genesis 3: 1-7), resulting in a single mistake that would contaminate hundreds of billions with a sinful nature resulting in them descending into hell. In effect, God has deliberately sent billions of soul into eternal punishment by virtue of their sinful nature because of what one individual was responsible for (Genesis 3:3). God is viewed in Christianity as everywhere present; that he sees and knows all things: (Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21). However, here are some verses that demonstrates that God is not everywhere present: neither sees nor knows all things: (Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8). Hence, is God just inept or just not omniscient? Or if he were omniscient, how can we have free will if God knows everything that is going to happen? If God knows which act an agent is going to perform, then that act isn't free. If that is so, then God is a malevolent and evil God.

Despite the importance that Christianity attaches to justice (Proverbs 21:15, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 30:18, Psalm 37:27-29, etc.) it doesn't seem fair in anyone"s mind that all of humanity should be punished due to the action of one man. Even the Bible itself notes this as a fair principle. In Ezekiel 18:20 it says that children shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their parents. They shall be judged by the merits of their own righteousness. Eternal hell is not just. Justice entails a limitation; the crime must fit the time.

God also punishes women arguably more harshly than men. God "multiplied their sorrows" and burdened them with the plight and pain of childbirth and declared that "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) whereas God cursed Adam with having to work hard to get food from the cursed ground (Genesis 3:17).

Even though Eve was the first one to be deceived to eat from the forbidden fruit, isn't it strange that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam and not Eve, or both (Rom 5:12, 14)? That is due to the fact that Adam was the head of the household. When God was looking for them he didn't ask"Adam and Eve where are you?" He said, "Adam, where are you?" (Gen 3:9). If women transgress, this is because their husband couldn't watch their back. Women are just "suitable helpers" with no intellectual autonomy over their husbands essentially (Genesis 2:18). I can't see how this condescending attitude towards women is in any way just and fair.

The New Testament makes the assertion that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Apostle Paul stated:"If Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain, yea, and we are found false witness of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ " and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins." If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:14, 15, 17, 19, KJV)"

Once again, he was making a conditional statement, no contradiction.

"Contrast that with Luke's gospel. In Luke you have a completely different emphasize. When Jesus is about to be crucified he is not silent. He sees some women by the side of the rode and says to them: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children." Here Jesus is not in shock unsure of what is happening - he is concerned about these people. While he is on the cross he prays: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."While Jesus is hanging on the cross, it's not that both of the crucified people mock him - one of them mock him and the other turns to him and tells him to be quiet for Jesus has done nothing do deserve it. He then turns to Jesus and says: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." To which Jesus replies: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.""

These are different events at different times, no contradiction.

"One problem you will encounter with the resurrection narrative is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let"s ignore that for some inexplicable reason the other Gospels left out the "great earthquake" as part of their narratives). This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence."

Matthew 28:2 does not say when the women arrived, the stone was rolled and it was open. Matthew was speaking of the cause of the earthquake before they got there. Some time passes.

"How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it only Mary Magdalene as told in John? Were it only Magdalene and the other Mary as is told in Matthew 28:1? Were it Magdalene, Mary and Salome as is told in Mark 16:1? Or were it three women albeit with different names (Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary) as is told in Luke 24:10? Which account is the correct one?"

John doesn't say Mary went alone. John was focused on Mary's perspective only.

"Did the women tell the disciples about what they had seen? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Ironically, that is also where the book ends, so how did Mark figure that the resurrection story ever got out?"

Matt. 28:8 explains the reason why.

Jesus met with his disciples at those places at different times. He met with them in Jerusalem (Luke 24), after meeting there, he met with his disciples in Galilee (John 21:1-14).

Matthew 28:16-17. Jesus made several appearances (John 20). Mark 16:14 later meets with the 11. Matt. 28:16 is by the Jews who claim he went to Galilee. Thus they went to different places at different times.

Mary sees Jesus (Mark 16:14) and then to the other women (Matt. 28:8-10). Luke 24:13-32 was an appearance to others.

Acts 1 tells of Luke 24:50-53 being described in more detail. Luke says there was 40 days between the resurrection and the time Jesus led his disciples to Bethany. This places the 40 days between Luke 24:46 and Luke 24:50. These didn't take place on the day of his Resurrection.

A simple reading of the Bible in it's context can resolve all contradictions.
Swedishperspective

Con

Wrong, humanity is not doomed to hell. Because of the atonement of Jesus, we receive the chance to enter Heaven. Romans 5:12-21"

I did not say that all of humanity is doomed to hell. It's easy to create a straw-man and then knock it down. What I said was that all of humanity was punished with a sinful nature, original sin, due to what Adam did. It is, as St. Augustine put it: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin".

This is portrayed in Romans 3:23 as we both referenced to. Before they were deceived by Lucifer, the snake, they were created perfect in God's image. Once he kicked them out from the Garden of Eden, he did that with full foreknowledge, that the descendants of Adam and Eve would inherit sinful nature and, thus, risk being descent into hell.

Yes, Jesus came down and atoned for our sins, and as long as we don't have a relationship with him and acknowledge him as our savior, we are essentially doomed to hell since none of us are worthy of heaven on the based on the merits of our own righteousness, as John 3:18 puts it.

Gen. 11:5 "5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. "

If he were omniscient, then why did he need to come down to see the tower in the first place if he knew what it was like (which would follow on the premise that he is omniscient). If the tower reached heaven, did he need to come a little closer to see it? No, it doesn't make any sense. If you are to posit that he is omniscient then it is incumbent upon you to show that there are no major contradictions surrounding his supposed omniscience, but clearly there are some.

Your reply to my presentation of when Jesus was crucified in the gospels of Luke and Mark, is not an adequate response as to why the emphasizes are so completely different in these two gospels. What do you mean when you say they are different events? They are the same events - Jesus crucifixion - portraying Jesus in two diametrically opposite state of minds. They don't fit together. How do you reckon he went from being absolute freaked out in Mark's gospel to being in a state of serenity while giving comfort to other people in Luke's gospel? Do you posit that the son of God has an extraordinary labile psyche?

"Matthew 28:2 does not say when the women arrived, the stone was rolled and it was open. Matthew was speaking of the cause of the earthquake before they got there. Some time passes."

Mathew 28:2,5. "Suddenly there was a great earthquake! For an angel of the Lord came down from heaven... Then the angel spoke to the women... ". The word "suddenly " followed by a description of what takes place at the tomb after his descent from heaven, suggests that this is an instantaneous event that the women are witnessing (then otherwise, how could we have possibly known all these specific details in such great detail). if it were, as you posit, that the women were not present at the time when the stone was rolled away, then it wouldn't make any sense to write "then the angel spoke to the women" without mentioning that some time passes by before they actually arrived at the tomb. Then it should have said "when they arrived at the tomb the angel spoke to them". I'll grant you that the story does not include much detail, but as far as what is discernible, it is much more logical to conclude that the event took place with the women being present to witness it.

When they arrived at the tomb In Mark's gospel they asked "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?". Why on earth would they ask each other something like that if there were an earthquake that had rolled away the stone just before they got there?

"John doesn't say Mary went alone. John was focused on Mary's perspective only."

True, John doesn't say that Mary Magdalene went alone. If it were the case, that the purpose was to delineate the story from Mary Magdalene's perspective alone, then it would follow - if you posit that all the other accounts are both accurate representations of what took place and are reconcilable with each other - that the other accounts in the other gospels (in which the number of witnesses at the tomb differed from in each account) have chosen to focus on the perspectives of different persons for different reasons, maybe to accentuate certain aspects of the story, one could assume.

If we, for the sake of argument, assume that John's gospel wanted to put emphasize on the meeting between Mary Magdalene and Jesus - since that is, undoubtedly, the most significant event in the story - then why was it important to mention that she went alone to the tomb? All that has accomplished is to have created even more confusion than has already been rendered by the three other conflicting gospels. Why didn't she enter the tomb (as in Mark and Luke) and, thus, didn't meet any angel inside the tomb whom - according to the other gospels - would have told her what had happened with Jesus? Since she didn't have a clue as to how the body had gone missing, she tells Simon Peter and the other disciple (and why didn't she meet the other disciples as was told in Luke and Matthew?) that the body had been STOLEN.

For this reason she was crying outside the tomb in John 20:11 because she thought that someone had stolen the body? It was not until Jesus appeared to her and explained to her what had happened (John 20:11-13) that she managed to pull herself together to go down to explain to the disciples what had happened to Jesus and to instruct them were to meet him. However, in Mark 16:9, she has a personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus and there is no record of any emotional response at all (probably because she had already been told by the angels that he had risen from the dead.) How, then, can the encounter in Mark 16:9 be the same as in John 20:11-13 when, in fact, she knew that Jesus had resurrected in Mark's account while she was oblivious about this fact in John's gospel?

Furthermore, what is the point of having Joanna in Luke's gospel and Salome in Mark's gospel if they don't contribute anything to the story at all. If all the different gospels are accurate representations of the resurrection, then it would follow that Salome, Joanna, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary all went to the tomb, though the different gospels chose to represent their perspectives differently (for some inexplicable reason). But if that were true, what would be the point of given that Joanna and Salome doesn't actually say or do anything that is at all relevant to the story?

Matthew 28:8 is not reconcilable with Mark 16:8. "The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened." is not equal to: "The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to give the disciples the angel"s message." They are direct contradictions to each other. Remember that Mark abruptly ends the chapter at Mark 16:8, hence we are not old whether or not they actually told anyone about it.

If you want to arrange Jesus"Resurrection appearances in a chronological order, then we can first infer that Jesus first appearance with his disciples would have been in Galilee, since when he met them "some doubted". If some of them doubted, then that would suggest that it would have been their first post-resurrection encounter with Jesus.

However, in Luke he first meets with two of his followers, who later told the other disciples that they had seen Jesus face to face. At precisely that moment Jesus appears before all the disciples (In Jerusalem we can infer since that was where the followers were heading). However, Luke 24:37 describes their reaction as: "But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost!" To which Jesus responds "Why are you frightened?" he asked. "Why are your hearts filled with doubt?".

You say that Jesus made several appearances. Well, which one of these two supposedly first post-resurrection appearances came first? Since both Matthew and Luke portray it as the disciples first encounter with Jesus, did he first meet them in Galilee or in Jerusalem?

When we are debating whether or not the Bible contains contradictions, I presupposed that we are not only dealing with ostensible contradictions found in scripture, but also how that scripture is interpreted by mainstream Christianity. If I were part of the Dominican order, for instance, I would have argued in favor of slavery and invoked the Bible as divine support for my belief. However, the mainstream interpretation of the Bible denounces slavery, although it is found in the bible.

Thus, my conditional statement was a criticism of the mainstream interpretation of the Bible, which I suppose you argue in favor of. If we are not including hermeneutic contradictions in our debate, then I see this debate as rather pointless since you can draw all kind of conclusions based on what the Bible says. If I were to say that slavery was condoned in the Bible, you would probably invoke the mainstream view to say that the Bible does not condone slavery, so I don't see why you dismiss my conditional statement as not being in line with this debate.

Due to lack of space I didn't have time to respond to all the arguments that my opponent made. I will hopefully have time to do that in the next rounds and to expound upon the hopeless contradictions in the story.

However, since the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that the resurrection story does not contain any contradictions, I challenge him to devote all his energy in the next round to try to merge all these different descriptions laid out in the four gospels into a coherent and chronological narrative in which all the details fit together. If you manage to construct such a narrative, in which no specific details are omitted, then I would gladly let you win this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

"If he were omniscient, then why did he need to come down to see the tower in the first place if he knew what it was like (which would follow on the premise that he is omniscient). If the tower reached heaven, did he need to come a little closer to see it? No, it doesn't make any sense. If you are to posit that he is omniscient then it is incumbent upon you to show that there are no major contradictions surrounding his supposed omniscience, but clearly there are some."

You ignored what i said about God taking manifestations.

"Your reply to my presentation of when Jesus was crucified in the gospels of Luke and Mark, is not an adequate response as to why the emphasizes are so completely different in these two gospels. What do you mean when you say they are different events? They are the same events - Jesus crucifixion - portraying Jesus in two diametrically opposite state of minds. They don't fit together. How do you reckon he went from being absolute freaked out in Mark's gospel to being in a state of serenity while giving comfort to other people in Luke's gospel? Do you posit that the son of God has an extraordinary labile psyche?"

Each Gospel speaks of the life of Jesus, but different events and retellings. Some events are omitted in some gospels.

"Mathew 28:2,5. "Suddenly there was a great earthquake! For an angel of the Lord came down from heaven... Then the angel spoke to the women... ". The word "suddenly " followed by a description of what takes place at the tomb after his descent from heaven, suggests that this is an instantaneous event that the women are witnessing (then otherwise, how could we have possibly known all these specific details in such great detail). if it were, as you posit, that the women were not present at the time when the stone was rolled away, then it wouldn't make any sense to write "then the angel spoke to the women" without mentioning that some time passes by before they actually arrived at the tomb. Then it should have said "when they arrived at the tomb the angel spoke to them". I'll grant you that the story does not include much detail, but as far as what is discernible, it is much more logical to conclude that the event took place with the women being present to witness it."

I don't know what version your reading, but the New King James version doesn't say "suddenly."

Matt. 28:1-8

"Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,[a] and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word."

"When they arrived at the tomb In Mark's gospel they asked "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?". Why on earth would they ask each other something like that if there were an earthquake that had rolled away the stone just before they got there?"

Your not being specific with your verses, so i don't really understand your point.

"True, John doesn't say that Mary Magdalene went alone. If it were the case, that the purpose was to delineate the story from Mary Magdalene's perspective alone, then it would follow - if you posit that all the other accounts are both accurate representations of what took place and are reconcilable with each other - that the other accounts in the other gospels (in which the number of witnesses at the tomb differed from in each account) have chosen to focus on the perspectives of different persons for different reasons, maybe to accentuate certain aspects of the story, one could assume."

Then it's reconciled.

"If we, for the sake of argument, assume that John's gospel wanted to put emphasize on the meeting between Mary Magdalene and Jesus - since that is, undoubtedly, the most significant event in the story - then why was it important to mention that she went alone to the tomb? All that has accomplished is to have created even more confusion than has already been rendered by the three other conflicting gospels. Why didn't she enter the tomb (as in Mark and Luke) and, thus, didn't meet any angel inside the tomb whom - according to the other gospels - would have told her what had happened with Jesus? Since she didn't have a clue as to how the body had gone missing, she tells Simon Peter and the other disciple (and why didn't she meet the other disciples as was told in Luke and Matthew?) that the body had been STOLEN."

John wanted to focus on her perspective.

"For this reason she was crying outside the tomb in John 20:11 because she thought that someone had stolen the body? It was not until Jesus appeared to her and explained to her what had happened (John 20:11-13) that she managed to pull herself together to go down to explain to the disciples what had happened to Jesus and to instruct them were to meet him. However, in Mark 16:9, she has a personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus and there is no record of any emotional response at all (probably because she had already been told by the angels that he had risen from the dead.) How, then, can the encounter in Mark 16:9 be the same as in John 20:11-13 when, in fact, she knew that Jesus had resurrected in Mark's account while she was oblivious about this fact in John's gospel?"

"what would be the point of given that Joanna and Salome doesn't actually say or do anything that is at all relevant to the story?"

That sounds like a rhetorical question.

"Matthew 28:8 is not reconcilable with Mark 16:8. "The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened." is not equal to: "The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to give the disciples the angel"s message."

They were frightened but their joy was in the fact that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

"However, in Luke he first meets with two of his followers, who later told the other disciples that they had seen Jesus face to face. At precisely that moment Jesus appears before all the disciples (In Jerusalem we can infer since that was where the followers were heading). However, Luke 24:37 describes their reaction as: "But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost!" To which Jesus responds "Why are you frightened?" he asked. "Why are your hearts filled with doubt?"

Like i said, your not being specific with your verses, so i can't really respond accurately.

I explained that it was both but at different times.
Swedishperspective

Con

To begin with, I must express my sincere disappointment and annoyance with my opponent as I have seen so far. I believe that I have raised some reasonable objections to the resurrection story. Yet, my opponent doesn't seem to have made even the slightest effort to even acknowledge the validity of some of points that I have raised. As of yet, he has treated my objections with a dismissive manner which, frankly speaking, is both tiresome to have to deal as well as rather insulting. I have made an effort to raise several important - as it seems - conflicting aspects of the resurrection story, and, hence, I do expect my opponent to give a somewhat decent and intellectually honest response, not succinct retorts that misses out on my line of argument.

I believe that it is an improper debating conduct when my opponent dismissively tries to rebuke some of my arguments with succinct and inadequate responses, as if those points raised are somehow silly, not worthy of an adequate rebuttal, while, in fact, I do believe that I got to the core of many aspects surrounding the resurrection story most of the time. The dismissive fashion with which my opponent has treated my argument is a maneuver which I often see leftists deploy when their arguments doesn't hold water: they simply ignore your arguments or treat them as if they are now worthy of an sufficient explanation, hence giving short answers, as if to indicate that the matter raised is not worthy of a decent response.

Furthermore, I do want to point out to my opponent that he doesn't need to copy my almost entire previous addresses in order to refute certain sections of my argument. It just occupies a lot text and prevents my opponent from expanding his own arguments. I am perfectly sure that those who are going to vote on this debate are going to read through whole of our debate, and, consequently, they wont miss out on anything important.

For the third time, you won't acknowledge the validity of the contention that I raised. For the third time I need to explain, that the crucifixion story told in Matthew and Luke portray the same thing: Jesus crucifixion. All right? If you haven't read the accounts that I was talking about, then here you go.
https://www.biblegateway.com... 23%3A26-43
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Your response was "each Gospel speaks of the life of Jesus, but different events and retellings. Some events are omitted in some gospels." Ok, then how does this relate to my question? I asked you twice to explain how both these events can be reconciled since I explained that the portrayals are so diametrically opposed to each other. If some parts of this story are omitted or told in a different, as you suggest, then please, can you please demonstrate this instead of just positing it without offering any evidence whatsoever to account for that?

"You ignored what I said about God taking manifestations."

I didn't ignore it since it has no bearing on my question. My question was stated quite plainly: why does God need to come down TO SEE the tower if he were omniscient. If he were omniscient, then wouldn't he already know exactly how it would look like?

Concerning the Matthew 28:2,5 chapter, I was reading from the NIV. Ok, I might have made a mistake to not cross-check with other bibles, I admit that. Still, someone had to witness it, right? If the women weren't around when the angel descended down, moved the stone and startled the guards, then how come it is portrayed so vividly, as if the women were there to actually account for all the details? It wouldn't make any sense to suggest that the women weren't there when the said events took place unless any cues suggestive of that is presented in Mark's gospel. I see no indication of that, hence the conclusion I must draw is that the story intended for the women to be present at the time, witnessing it all. I believe you have the burden of proof to prove otherwise.

Even if the NKJ version differ on some aspect, you still have the burden of proof to show any scriptural indication as to the fact that they weren't there, since it would make more sense to infer, from the text, that they were present at the time. If you can't conclusive prove your assertion, then your argument is a mere conjecture. If it is a mere conjecture, then you have not given a satisfactory proof of your assertion.

"Your not being specific with your verses, so I don't really understand your point."

I was referencing to Mark 16:3: "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?". I repeat my question: why on earth would they ask each other something like that if there had already been an earthquake which had rolled away the stone just before they got there?". You suggested before - based on nothing other than mere conjectures - that the women were not present when the angel removed the stone from the tomb from the entrance. If that were the case, then why would they then need roll away the stone? It doesn't make any sense at all.

"Then it's reconciled."

What?! I can't express with words how exasperating these type of responses are. This is not even a response to what I was saying at all. Have you even read what I said? For the manner of this debate, I won't express any profanity or anything that would express my sincere discontent with how you have debated me so far, but I will at least reiterate my line of argument so as to, perhaps, make my arguments a bit clearer for you.

I was merely suggesting, that if you posit that all four accounts of the resurrection are true, then perhaps one could make assume that there are certain aspects of the story that the different witnesses accentuate. Since you conceded, I ask, which aspects are there? Which aspects did the different gospel writers want to delineate and, hence, what role did the different witnesses play?

"John wanted to focus on her perspective."

For crying out loud, why can't you answer my questions? I asked very specific questions in the very section you purported to respond to. For the second time, why did she say that the body was STOLEN?

"That sounds like a rhetorical question."

It is not a rhetorical question! For god sake! It was a simple question that I directed to you, and the question still remains.

"They were frightened but their joy was in the fact that Jesus resurrected from the dead."

How do you know that? It plainly says that they didn't tell anyone about it in Mark 16:8. If Mark 16:8 doesn't mean what it says, then, by all means, can you enlighten us what it actually means to say? You have to use logic or scripture to prove your assertion, and obviously you can't cross-reference with the other gospels since we have not yet established that they are actually reconcilable with each other. Consequently, do you have any proof whatsoever that Mark 16:8 is wrong and that they actually told the disciples anything? If you were to find anything suggestive of that, then wouldn't that run contrary to what Mark 16:8 actually says and, thus, be a biblical contradiction?

"Like I said, your not being specific with your verses, so I can't really respond accurately."

I was referring to when he met his two followers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). When they returned to the disciples and told them about their experience with Jesus (Luke 24:36), he appeared before the disciples in Luke 24:37 -39, and it says: "They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
https://www.biblegateway.com...

"I explained that it was both but at different times."

You haven't explained anything. I have asked you two times now, how come there are two events that indicate a fist post-resurrection encounter with Jesus, both in "The great commission" told in the gospel of Matthew and the encounter with Jesus on Galilee as is told in Luke?

You have, frankly speaking, been very exasperating so far. Now, I want you to read this carefully. I have not had time to respond to all your points raised and neither have you responded to all my objections. What we can agree upon is that I see a bunch of seemingly contradictory passages in the four gospels concerning the resurrection and crucifixion of Jesus that you, apparently, don't. Since you claim there is no contradiction, we ca both agree that you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that since you have framed the proposition so as to give you the burden of proof for this debate. Hence, I want you for the next one or two rounds to illustrate the connections between the different gospels that I have failed to see.

Forget the disputes we are having about certain specific about the resurrection story. Forget about Adam and Eve, original sin and all those points that I raised in my introduction. Forget all that.

I want you to chronologically and coherently explain the resurrection event. Since each gospel gives a partial description of what occurred, I want you to assemble all the pieces and explain how the resurrection took place, from the moment when the witnesses went to the tomb to when Jesus ascended to heaven. No details shall be omitted. All details in the four gospels most cohere. I want it all covered.

If you do this satisfactory so that I won't be able to rebut your description, then I will concede that I was wrong and I will urge everyone to vote in your favor in this debate, despite your previous - in my opinion - flawed arguments and improper debating conduct. As of yet, no one that I know how has managed to pull this off. If you were to succeed with this, then I would gladly let you win this debate, despite what I think of the previous rounds.

I am eagerly waiting for your response.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Swedishperspective

Con

My opponent will have one more chance in the next round to chronologically and coherently explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

For those links, you just pointed out two verses but one is in Luke 1 and the other of the Crucifixion, so you still didn't specifically say what verses you want me to focus on.

"can you please demonstrate this instead of just positing it without offering any evidence whatsoever to account for that?"

Sure, by observing and comparing each Gospel, each one has it's own unique theme (1)

As for Mark 16:8, it explains why this is not a contradiction

Matt. 28:8

"The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to give the disciples the angel's message."

The women were scared at first and didn't tell anyone, but then rushed to deliver the message to everyone.

Like i said, there are clearly no contradictions in the Bible. You had no rebuttals for the ones i already resolved.

Sources:

1. http://www.crossway.org...
Swedishperspective

Con

My opponent has so far not at all been able to fulfill his burden of proof. He has not even made he slightest effort to do so. Since the brunt of our disagreement centers around the resurrection (as well as the crucifixion) narrative in the Bible, I gave him a task to "chronologically and coherently explain the resurrection event" given all the discrepant accounts and descriptions.

My opponent has repeatedly stated that the different accounts are reconcilable and true without offering any evidence to support that claim. Hence, I offered him a suggestion: to devote the two last rounds to settle our differences on the resurrection narrative in the Bible. I stated that in both round two and three. However, my opponent has, regrettably, ignored my offer completely. I expected a little courtesy from my opponent: either accept or decline the offer. I would have been fine with you politely declining the offer, although the offer was given for you so that you would be able to fulfill your burden of proof. However, you did not respond to me at all.

"For those links, you just pointed out two verses but one is in Luke 1 and the other of the Crucifixion, so you still didn't specifically say what verses you want me to focus on."

For heavens sake! Don't play dumb with me! I have tried to extract an explanation from you three times now as to why there are such obvious discrepancies in the crucifixion stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I have stressed that point three times now. All right? I don't know if I can state it any more plainly.

This is what I wrote: "For the third time, you won't acknowledge the validity of the contention that I raised. For the third time I need to explain, that the crucifixion story told in Matthew and Luke portray the same thing: Jesus crucifixion. All right? If you haven't read the accounts that I was talking about, then here you go."

Something went wrong when I tried to copy the bible chapters. I inadvertently copied Luke 1 when I meant to copy the CRUCIFIXION chapter. I am so terribly sorry if I confused you, sir, but I don't think you are an idiot. I think you know full well I was talking about that chapter. If you were confused about that, the normal response would have been to ask me either in the comments section or in the fourth round (which you forfeited). Why you bring that up in the last round is completely incomprehensible to me, except it is not. You just want to mess me. You don't want to answer that particular remark because you can't, and you found a ridiculous subterfuge not to.

"As for Mark 16:8, it explains why this is not a contradiction. Matt. 28:8."

"The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to give the disciples the angel's message."

You have offered no reason whatsoever as to how the different gospels can be reconciled with each other. None. Now you seem to believe that you can just merge Mark 16:8 and Matt 28:8 in order to extrapolate a new meaning. I have never seen any Christian apologetic do that. It's completely ridiculous. We have gone through these verses thoroughly.

Here are the two verses.

Matt 28:8. "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples."

Mark 16:8. "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

You can't simply arbitrarily exclude certain clauses that don't fit with the narrative and merge other clauses that do fit. Besides, how do you know your arbitrarily chosen arrangement is the right one? You have just arbitrarily ordered a few verses so as to try to show that they are consistent with one another when, in fact, they are not. At least you have not offered any proof as to why you can do that. You have essentially disproved your entire argument.

My opponent has failed miserably in trying to prove that the Bible has no inconsistencies. My opponent has stated that "by observing and comparing each Gospel, each one has it's own unique theme". He has, however, demonstrably showed that he has not been successful at describing how these supposed "unique themes" can be merged together to create a consistent and unflawed narrative.

"You had no rebuttals for the ones I already resolved."

You haven't actually resolved anything. I have raised objections that you simply don't take seriously. You haven't proved anything by simply ignoring my objections and simply laugh them off. You haven't explained and elaborated on any of your points.

Again, my opponent has not been able to straighten out the contradictions I have presented. He has also treated my points dismissively, and I'll leave you to be the judge of that.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
I think the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, but there's some physical aspect to it in a sense.
Posted by Swedishperspective 2 years ago
Swedishperspective
With science I suppose you include history with which the Bible conflicts on so many areas. However, if this debate is only to be limited to theology and the Bible alone, then it is important to me to ascertain whether or not you acknowledge that there are parts in the Bible, such as the story of Adam and Eve, that are allegorical, and other parts, such as the account of Jesus, is true, so that I know how you relate to and interpret the Bible.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
No I'm not talking about science vs the Bible, im speaking in terms of finding contradicting passages like Genesis 1 and 2,things in the text.
Posted by Swedishperspective 2 years ago
Swedishperspective
Before I start I must ask you to just explain to which extent you believe the Bible is true. I suppose you don't believe that the story of Noah's ark and Adam and Eve are literally true, meaning you can distinguish between what is meant to be read allegorically and what is meant to be taken as "truth" in the sense that it has actually happened.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
I challenge you to make a debate that has nothing to do with the book - there's wisdom everywhere, not just a book of allegories.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Truth_seekerSwedishperspectiveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly showed conflicting accounts of Jesus's resurrection. It's normal for eyewitness testimony to conflict and is actually more suspect when tey match too closely. However this doesn't change the fact that contradictions clearly occur in the bible. There are good rebuttals to Con's points but pro failed to show any and seemed to just dismiss con's argument instead of fully attacking them. I urge pro to make more of an effort in future debates. It's also better to argue as opposed to "come up with possible explanation".Also conduct for forfeited round.