The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

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...
jrardin12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,736 times Debate No: 119529
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (101)
Votes (1)

 

jrardin12

Pro

I want to begin by saying that you have used the idea that I use circular reasoning to defend the Bible. I want to assert that it is not begging the question to use the Bible to prove the Bible when it is proven to be a historically reliable document, Which I will address at some point.

Now, Back to the Old Testament and how it points to Christ when talking about the unbelievable unity that the Bible has.

As you remember, I last used Stephen's message to show how the Torah and Tanakh point to Christ. Well Acts records Peter's Sermon at Pentecost, In which he reviews for the "men of Israel" Christ's mighty works and wonders performed in their midst ("as you yourselves know"). Jesus, Peter notes, Was the One "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, " but Whom "God raised. . . Up, Loosing the pangs of death, Because it was not possible for him to be held by it. " In other words, He's saying Don't you dare deny what you saw with your own eyes-that Christ worked miracles and that He was crucified despite His innocence, But still conquered death, Which was powerless to restrain Him, Because God had always planned that He would die for our sins.
Peter quotes David from Psalm 16 that God would not let His "Holy One see decay. " Then he tells them "with confidence" that David must have been referring to Christ, Whom "he foresaw" and Whose resurrection he spoke about. "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, This Jesus whom you crucified. " Peter declares. Upon hearing this speech, The people "were cut to the heart, " and they ask Peter what they should do. He tells them to "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, " whereupon three thousand people are converted. Just as with Stephen's speech, Peter is tying together the Old Covenant and New Covenant and tracing God's salvation history.
Later, When Peter and John are on trial before the Sanhedrin for healing a crippled man, Peter tells them in no uncertain terms that the healing had benn done not in their power, But "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you crucified, Whom God raised from the dead. . . . This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, The builders, Which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, For their is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved". Knowing that the man had been healed through Peter and John, The Sanhedrin are speechless and set them free, Warning them not speak of what they had seen and heard. But boldly, The pair tells these religious leaders that they-Peter and John-take their orders from God, Not them.
All these speeches and sermons served as lessons demonstrating the unity of Scripture and God's purposeful direction of history toward the redemption of mankind.

One of my favorite stories in the Bible reinforces the unity of the Bible's message. In one of His resurrection appearances, Jesus approaches two men on the road leading to Emmaus, Some seven miles from Jerusalem. They are kept from recognizing Him, And He asks them what they are discussing. They are amazed that He hasn't heard about the things "concerning Jesus of Nazareth, " a mighty prophet whom they had hoped would redeem Israel but instead was crucified. Just that day, They tell Him, They heard Jesus had been put to death and buried three day earlier, But that morning women reported that His body was missing from the tomb and angels had told the women that Jesus was alive. After listening to the men, Jesus (Who still hadn't identified Himself to them) exclaims. "O foolish ones, And slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? ". Jesus is imparting the same lesson to them that Stephen and Peter had been preaching-that He hadn't come into the world to deliver Israel politically or militarily, But to save people from their sins.
But the most interesting part is still to come. The Scripture reads, "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself". After Jesus left, "They said to each other, 'Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked with us on the road, While he opened to us the Scriptures? '". Just imagine this scene-what could top it as the most exhilarating, Once-in-a-lifetime event? Christ, In the flesh, Back from the dead, Taking men through the Scriptures and showing them how the Old Testament points to Him on every page, Illuminating for them the unity of Scripture, Centered in God Incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth, Whom Scripture says God chose before time began to save men from their sins through His sinless life and substitutionary, Sacrificial death. Who wouldn't be blown away by the greatest biblical lesson of all time delivered by the greatest teacher ever?
As Ravi Zacharias says, "If one could only be face to face with Him from whom life comes, Whom to know means Truth and to follow means direction, How delightful would be those moments when the most confounding questions of life are raised. We are not surprised when we read in the Gospel of Luke that the men who walked on the Emmaus Road, Though unaware that they were walking with the risen Christ, Said that their hearts burned within them as He opened up the past, The present and the future to them. When they realized who He was, A light for all of history had been turned on. " Note the way Ravi frames the event: Christ "opened up the past, The present and the future to them. " Is it even possible to conceive of a more resounding affirmation of the unity of Scripture? And concerning "a light for all of history had been turned on"-what better way to describe the epiphany these men experienced, The same epiphany readers of the Bible will experience today when they come to grasp the unity and Christ-centeredness of Scripture?
Professor Oscar Cullman, One of Dr. Fuller's mentors, Led him to the realization that the key to understanding Scripture is in grasping its essential unity. Cullman, According to Dr. Larry Helyer, Taught that the Bible is about one story, Not many stories. "The unity of the Bible consists in the fact that a single redemptive history progressively unfolds from Genesis to Revelation. This story is God's self-revelation to human beings and clearly indicates his purpose and goal for all creation. " What Cullman was saying, Then, Is that "redemptive history" is just a small part of overall secular history, But "impacts forever all that transpires on the stage of world history. " It consists of certain specific events "in which God intervenes or reveals Himself in history accompanied by an explanatory word by means of an inspired spokesperson-a prophet or apostle. " That is, The historical events described in the Bible actually occured in history, But the Bible, As noted earlier, Only covers those events that are relevant to God's salvation and redemption plan for humankind.
Biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim, A Jewish convert to Christianity, Described the unity of Scripture in the context of God's progressive revelation as follows:

There is not merely harmony but also close connection between the various parts of Scripture. Each book illustrates the other, Taking up its teachings and carrying it forward. Thus the unity of Scripture is not like that of a stately building, However ingenious its plan or vast its proportions; but rather, To use a Biblical illustration, Like that of the light, Which shineth more and more unto the perfect day. We mark throughout growth in its progress, As men were able to bear fuller communications, And prepared for their reception. The law, The types, The history, The prophecies, And the promises in the Old Testament all progressively unfold and develop the same truth, Until it appears at last in its New Testament fullness. Though all testify of the same thing, Not one of them could safely be left out, Nor yet do we properly understand any one part unless we view it in its bearing and connection with the others.

Dr. Helyer says that a belief in the unity of the Bible necessarily follows from the evangelical view that presupposes the inspiration and authority of Scripture. As the Holy Spirit "superintended the process of inscripturation for both Testaments, " it's to be expected that the result would be "a unified, Coherent message. " Adds Helyer, "God does not speak out of both sides of His mouth. "

This unity in Scripture cannot be found in any other Book especially when you consider the time frame it was written in.
omar2345

Con

Continuation of Part 1.


I want to begin by saying that you have used the idea that I use circular reasoning to defend the Bible. I want to assert that it is not begging the question to use the Bible to prove the Bible when it is proven to be a historically reliable document, Which I will address at some point.
I am sure I did not claim that you were begging the question, I only claimed you were using circular logic. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular logic. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. Why not address the evidence now instead of doing it later?
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, The conclusion must be true. (Wikipedia)

As you remember, I last used Stephen's message
I don't remember but there was a lot of arguments from authority. Guessing you will still use them.

to show how the Torah and Tanakh point to Christ. Well Acts records Peter's Sermon at Pentecost, In which he reviews for the "men of Israel" Christ's mighty works and wonders performed in their midst ("as you yourselves know"). Jesus, Peter notes, Was the One "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, " but Whom "God raised. . . Up, Loosing the pangs of death, Because it was not possible for him to be held by it. " In other words, He's saying Don't you dare deny what you saw with your own eyes-that Christ worked miracles and that He was crucified despite His innocence, But still conquered death, Which was powerless to restrain Him, Because God had always planned that He would die for our sins.
Still require evidence. You haven't given anything sufficient. Remember no circular logic.

Peter quotes David from Psalm 16 that God would not let His
Still more arguments from authority.

All these speeches and sermons served as lessons demonstrating the unity of Scripture and God's purposeful direction of history toward the redemption of mankind.
Why do you care so much about this unity? I am guessing the unity is with the human the sprit and the Biblical God. Yet you haven't proven how the spirit or God exists. You have already assumed they do without giving evidence. Circular logic is not evidence if it is I say you are wrong because wrong you are.

One of my favorite stories in the Bible reinforces the unity of the Bible's message
More arguments that do not prove your God's existence or this unity to be real.

Who wouldn't be blown away by the greatest biblical lesson of all time delivered by the greatest teacher ever?
Me because you have not proven anything sufficiently.

As Ravi Zacharias says
Argument of authority.

Is it even possible to conceive of a more resounding affirmation of the unity of Scripture?
It hasn't been conceived since there is no proof of the spirit and your God therefore this loaded question is wrong.

The same epiphany readers of the Bible will experience today when they come to grasp the unity and Christ-centeredness of Scripture?
Subjective. I did not get an epiphany therefore this feeling is not universal therefore not an argument for your Religion.

Biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim, A Jewish convert to Christianity, Described the unity of Scripture in the context of God's progressive revelation as follows:
More arguments from authority.

Dr. Helyer says that a belief
More arguments from authority. At least this one is not lying about God being a belief not something that is known to be true.

This unity in Scripture cannot be found in any other Book especially when you consider the time frame it was written in.
Doesn't prove anything. Going by the definition below I am unified with several body parts. My limbs are unified. My brain is unified with my heart. Unity can be found outside the scripture even if you don't know it. If you were talking about the spirit, Your God and humans then 2 out of the 3 have yet to be proven to exist.
Unity: the state of being united or joined as a whole. (Google: Unity define)


Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

Going by the definition below I am unified with several body parts. My limbs are unified. My brain is unified with my heart.

Maybe you didn't read, But I was talking about other books compared with Scripture, Not your body. Your body wasn't put together in 400 years and carry the same message.

Let us talk about Reliability and Internal Evidence of the Bible.

Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True

The evidence for the unity of the Bible is so powerful that a firm foundation of faith can be firmly planted on it. Some people, However, Will need more and understandably so. Happily, There is additional, Substantial evidence that the Bible is historically reliable and was not forged by clever men through the ages. There is also plenty of external evidence-non-Christian-sources substantiating the existence of Jesus and archaeological evidence corroborating historical events recorded in the Bible. When compared to any other ancient document or book, By any fair measure, The Bible acquits itself objectively as more historically reliable.
As we point to the Bible as evidence for the truth of Christianity- in its prophecies, Its unity, The miracles, And in Jesus' assertion of his deity-we need to assure ourselves that the Bible itself is reliable. Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Frank Turek build their twelve point case for the truth of Christianity first by demonstrating that truth actually exists and that anything that is contradictory to truth is false. You would think that would be obvious, But in this so-called postmodern age, The very idea of truth is under attack. Next, Geisler and Turek offer proofs for the existence of a theistic God and for the possibility of miracles, And then they demonstrate that miracles performed in connection with a truth claim confirm the truth of God, Through a messenger of God.
Having established these matters, Geisler and Turek show that New Testament documents are reliable, Which I intend to demonstrate in this debate and the next. That is crucial because from there, They make the case that Jesus claimed to be God-both Old Testament and New Testament-which I showed in a debate with you, The Bible is in fact the Word of God. Finally, If the Bible is the word of God, Argue Giesler and Turek, Anything that is opposed to any biblical truth is false.
Anticipating a challenge from critics, Geisler and Turek demonstrate that their apologetic proofs are not a form of circular reasoning-sometimes called "begging the question. " They assert, "It is not begging the question to use the Bible to prove the Bible when you prove that the Bible is a historically reliable document. "
So we will examine the historical reliability of the Bible, We'll confirm that the New Testament credibly records that Jesus lived a sinless and miraculous life, That he performs miracles- including the greatest miracle of all, His resurrection from the dead, Which He predicted and which is the lynchpin of Christianity truth claims-and that the miracles he performed were not random demonstrations of His divine power, But an outworking of His message and purpose. We will also document His affirmation that the Bible is the Word of God.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Before examining the evidence itself, We must look at some developments in our culture concerning the quest for the historical Jesus and attacks on the New Testament, As well as modern trends in critical scholarship, All of which tend to undermine the public's confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible. There has been renewed interest of late in studying the historical Jesus. Was He real? If so, What was He like? Various theories have been popularized to suggest that Jesus isn't who the Bible claims He is and that the gospels are inaccurate, Unreliable, Religiously biased, And largely mythological accounts.
"Some scholars think that the Gospels are poor records, Dominated not by historical concerns, But written as religious propaganda for the purpose of communicating a particular message, " notes scholar Gary Habermas. "Many such critical surveys have sought to reinterpret the story of Jesus in manners that emphasized non-traditional roles, Viewing him as a political revolutionary, Or as a Jewish prophet, Or even as a magician. " Many of these modern inquiries are not simply challenging the traditional view of who Jesus was, But are advancing the idea of a completely new Jesus.
Perhaps the most notorious example is Dan Brown's book and the subsequent movie The DaVinci Code, Which depicts Christianity as having been founded on myths and legends. One of the book's characters, For instance, Explains, "What I mean, Is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false. " The DaVinci Code did have the effect, Intended or not, Of spreading doubts about the New Testament's authenticity and reliability. I witnessed it firsthand among friends and acquaintances.
According to apologetics professor Dr. R. B. Rudge, "The idea that the canonical Gospels are historically unreliable is a common theme that runs throughout The DaVinci Code. " The book asserts that more than 80 gospels were considered for inclusion in the New Testament, Says Rudge, And only a few made it. It portrays early Christianity as a power struggle-a time when competing Christianities were vying for prominence, And the one that prevailed at the Council of Nicea (321 AD) is the one we have today. The book suggests that until that council, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet, Not as divine. The DaVinci Code implication, Rudge explains, Is that "when we read the canonical Gospels, We are not reading the best material on Jesus rather we are merely reading the perspective of the 'winners' of the 4th century A. D. Theological battle. "
The evidence tells a different story. Christians did affirmed Jesus' deity prior to the Council of Nicea, Argues Rudge, Citing the gospels, The Pauline Epistles, The early Church fathers, And even a non-Christian source-Pliny the Younger, Who served as governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In a letter to Emperor Trajan about how to deal with Christians within his jurisdiction, Pliny wrote, "They, The Christians, Were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, When they sang in alternative versus a hymn to Christ, As to a god. " Indeed, We've already examined the scriptural evidence for Christ's deity, And it's hard to deny that the Bible, Written in the first century AD, Some 250 years prior to the Council of Nicea, Portrays Him as divine.

There Weren't Multiple Christianities

Along these lines, Lee Strobel asks New Testament historian Craig Evans, "Is it true that the earliest Christianity was a fluid melting pot of different perspectives about Jesus? " Evans replies, "It's not true at all. This is a product of a modern agenda-a politically correct, Multicultural agenda motivated by sympathy for marginalized groups. The question is: What really did happen in the first century? What are the facts? " The facts are, Says Evans, That the early Christians did have disagreements, But they weren't Christianities. There wasn't one Christianity that thought Jesus was the Messiah and another Christianity that didn't; another Christianity that thought he was divine and another Christianity that disagreed; and another Christianity that thought he died on the cross as a payment for sin and another Christianity that scoffed at that. This is nonsense. "
Evans explains that the disagreements in early Christianity concerned issues such as circumcision and whether Christians could eat meat sacrificed to idols. But these critical scholars are claiming something altogether different, He says. "They're trying to smuggle into the first century a mystical, Gnostic understanding of God and the Christian life, Even though first century Christians had never heard of these things. " Evans emphatically states that Christianity's core message, "That Jesus is the Messiah, He's God's Son, He fulfills the Scriptures, He died on the cross and thereby saved humanity, He rose from the dead-those core issues were not open for discussion. "
Evidence shows that theories that the gospels are historically unreliable are themselves fictitious. Evans agrees: "There's every reason to conclude that the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements of Jesus' teachings, Life, Death, And resurrection. They're early enough, They're rooted into the right streams that go back to Jesus and the original people, There's continuity, There's proximity, There's a verification of certain distinct points with archaeology and other documents, And there's the inner logic. That's what pulls it all together.

To be con't. . .
omar2345

Con

Maybe you didn't read, But I was talking about other books compared with Scripture, Not your body. Your body wasn't put together in 400 years and carry the same message.
Maybe you didn't realise but unity can be applied to a lot of things. My body is still unified without it being together for 400 years and still being the same so you argument falls flat. You are using unity and then using other arguments to somehow make readers think you are still talking about unity. You are not. 400 years is a length of time. Same message has nothing to do with unity. Using claims that have nothing to do with unity does not rebut my claims.


The evidence for the unity of the Bible is so powerful that a firm foundation of faith can be firmly planted on it.
Bear in mind you were supposed to give me reasons why the Bible is true not assume it to be the case. Read the title you gave before typing this in Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True. Going by the claim by your logic the Last Jedi is so powerful that a firm foundation of bad faith can be planted on it. You gave me an argument to say how The Last Jedi is a good foundation to know what to do wrong.

Happily, There is additional, Substantial evidence that the Bible is historically reliable and was not forged by clever men through the ages. There is also plenty of external evidence-non-Christian-sources substantiating the existence of Jesus and archaeological evidence corroborating historical events recorded in the Bible. When compared to any other ancient document or book, By any fair measure, The Bible acquits itself objectively as more historically reliable.
I have a very strong feeling you are just copying it from somewhere. If not then you know this paragraph was filler and yet you still added it in. Knowing full well you did not have space for your arguments yet you still thought this was required for some reason.

As we point to the Bible as evidence for the truth of Christianity- in its prophecies, Its unity, The miracles, And in Jesus' assertion of his deity-we need to assure ourselves that the Bible itself is reliable.
Miralces only happen once and no evidence has been found this occured which is from reliable sources. Prophecies come and go. I can make a prophecy the sun will rise the next day so also not an argument. Unity as mentioned above means nothing. So you might have one point miracles but no way of proving it to be the case since more then likely miracles only happen once.

You would think that would be obvious
More stronger feelings of copying.

Having established these matters, Geisler and Turek show that New Testament documents are reliable
Is this your argument? An argument of authority? You haven't given ideas or these two people are so I am going to fill in these gaps with problems with the both of them. First Turek. Just noticed he had a debate with Hitchens. From the debate: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=uDCDTaKfzXU I gathered that instead of spending the 20 minutes to make a solid argument instead tries to please the crowd. Common tactic not inherently bad but when you have 20 minutes and you clearly state you do not have enough time to give the best argument why not use the time effectively to actually use the entire time to make an argument? Later on finally gave arguments. Now I know why you were not presenting their arguments by themselves because they are debunked. I will only tackle one which is the Cosmological argument. I have debunked this before so here is a copy of what I said in the past:
Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, The universe has a cause
Theist's stretch cause to be God. Another way this falls flat is God goes against the first premise. If God existed without a cause then Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong.
(I used this from an earlier forum post that was mine) This should be enough to debunk this argument. If you have problems stick quote what I said and tell me what I did wrong. You did say: Pro for God"s existence so you agree God does exist. Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. If God does not the argument is wrong.
On to Norman Geisler. I don't see the point in discussing him. He makes similar point to Frank Turek but has less resources that I can find. Couldn't find any debates that he was apart of so I will keep to Frank. Besides I am sure they make the same arguments.

demonstrate in this debate and the next.
Make the arguments now. All I am reading is filler and lacks substance.

"It is not begging the question to use the Bible to prove the Bible when you prove that the Bible is a historically reliable document. "
Yes it is and doesn't matter if a person you like says it isn't when it is.

So we will examine the historical reliability of the Bible, We'll confirm that the New Testament credibly records that Jesus lived a sinless and miraculous life, That he performs miracles- including the greatest miracle of all, His resurrection from the dead, Which He predicted and which is the lynchpin of Christianity truth claims-and that the miracles he performed were not random demonstrations of His divine power, But an outworking of His message and purpose. We will also document His affirmation that the Bible is the Word of God.
No proof given. All of what you said were assumptions. Besides using circular logic does not mean the Bible is historically reliable. By that logic I am right because I say so.

Before examining the evidence itself
More filler. If the evidence is correct then it is. No point in giving me a history lesson.

The DaVinci Code
About something that is not relevant. Really what I wanted in a debate about the Bible.

According to apologetics professor Dr. R. B. Rudge
Am I reading a article or a documentary? This is supposed to be a debate. With your arguments yet you point to many argument of authorities as if they explain it for you which I point out they do not and you don't even if me their argument. Clear example with Geisler and Turek.

There Weren't Multiple Christianities
Lets say there wasn't. Just for arguments sake. What about now? Are you saying the different sects are not different types of Christianity?

Along these lines, Lee Strobel asks New Testament historian Craig Evans
Can you make your own arguments or are you always going to use an argument from authority?

Evidence shows that theories that the gospels are historically unreliable are themselves fictitious.
Are you making arguments for me? At least give evidence when doing so.

Evans agrees: "There's every reason to conclude that the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements of Jesus' teachings, Life, Death, And resurrection. They're early enough, They're rooted into the right streams that go back to Jesus and the original people, There's continuity, There's proximity, There's a verification of certain distinct points with archaeology and other documents, And there's the inner logic. That's what pulls it all together.
Evan disagrees. Another argument of authority.
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

Obviously you don't want details. So you can look up all the people I mentioned and they have websites were you can find out all this information.

In all reality you know God exists and willfully suppress the truth.

The information for biblical Christianity is out there.
omar2345

Con

Seems like a forfeit to me. The difference is with the debate you had with Sonofcharl even though he agreed with your faulty premises he still debunked your arguments. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I do see how Sonofcharl definitely presents his point much more clearly due to how he presented his arguments. Instead of what I do which is quote as much as I can and rebut the claims he instead brings up topics that rebut your claims without quoting every you said.


Obviously you don't want details. So you can look up all the people I mentioned and they have websites were you can find out all this information.

Instead of pointing the arguments that Frank Turek made you instead provided filler. What I wanted were arguments. Whether it be from Frank Turek or you. It is clear you had the opportunity to give me their arguments but you didn't. Evidence: Having established these matters, Geisler and Turek show that New Testament documents are reliable, Which I intend to demonstrate in this debate and the next. Instead of giving me proof that they are reliable instead you say you will but you didn't. Instead of presenting your arguments about why the New Testament is reliable you were debunking claims that I might make.

In all reality you know God exists and willfully suppress the truth.

I can say that to you about God not existing. You do not know God exists you believe. It. You do not have the information nor does the Bible. The Bible says the Earth was created in 7 days not how it happened. It did not say how God was capable of doing it instead stated what God did which is why I say Science explains things and Religion assumes how it is done.


The information for biblical Christianity is out there.

The information is also out there to show how Christianity is flawed. By you giving up you clearly state that you either are not capable of finding the information or you give up. Whichever it may be I stayed for your arguments. Pointed out flaws while you could not rebut the claims I made.

Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

I have the info, But you reject it. And you will continue to do so.
But here are the twelve points if you have more questions ask me, But don't expect short answers.
1. The truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists.
4. If God exists, Then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.
6. The New Testament is historically reliable.
7. The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus" claim to be God was miraculously confirmed.
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;
b. His sinless and miraculous life;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection
9. Therefore, Jesus was God.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore, It is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything
that is opposed to it is false).
omar2345

Con

I have the info, But you reject it. And you will continue to do so.
But here are the twelve points if you have more questions ask me, But don't expect short answers.
I point out flaws but you choose to deny it. I will only be consistent if I keep pointing out the same flaws if you are making similar arguments.

1. The truth about reality is knowable.
Depends on how you define truth and in what way it is knowable.

2. The opposite of true is false.
The opposite of false is true.
Really redundant statement.

3. It is true that the theistic God exists.
1st point define truth and tell me how which then I will point out flaws.

4. If God exists, Then miracles are possible.
That is a big if. Stick to proving God exists no point spending time on miracles when you only need to prove God's existence and also how it is Yahweh not the other countless Gods.

5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God.
No it can't. I assuming miracles only happen once. Outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. I am not going to go on faith that the Bible is true because it was written by God and that is also written in the Bible. I do not do it for anything else why would I do it for something so important like this?

6. The New Testament is historically reliable.
Would really take a long time to verify but I will only accept this if I accept the scientists to be reliable (Agenda is the truth not the pursuit of more followers into their Religion) and if it has succeeded going through peer review.

7. The New Testament says that Jesus claimed to be God.
Doesn't matter to me. Either The New Testament goes through a reliable peer review or you can prove your Biblical God exists. I highly doubt you can since you would have mentioned it in the earlier rounds.

8. Jesus" claim to be God was miraculously confirmed.
? The claim should be Jesus claiming to be God has been proven
Highly doubt it is the case but show me proof anyway.

a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;
b. His sinless and miraculous life;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection
All from The New Testament and requires for the documents to be true and for your God to exist for whatever you said here to be believed to be true.

9. Therefore, Jesus was God.
Didn't know there was a past God or Jesus stopped being God when he died. Kind of confusing but certainly not useful in proving the New Testament to be true or your God exists.

10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
New Testament has to be true and your God must also exist for this claim to be even considered.

11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
Instead of repeating myself read what I said in point 10 rebuttal.

12. Therefore, It is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything
that is opposed to it is false).
No evidence or explanations given instead claims were given in all your points.

Hopefully you provide evidence.

Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

Depends on how you define truth and in what way it is knowable.

What is truth?

Truth is "telling like it is".
Truth corresponds to the facts.
The truth is recognition of reality.
A correct description of the object's attributes.
Truth is absolute.
omar2345

Con

Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. (Google: truth define)

God is not accordance with fact or reality if you cannot answer how God did what God did. You say God did this and that. Yet you do not say how. It is really easy for God to do so since I am sure the Bible does say God is all-knowing. God can simply add verses that are used in a later date for science so that both science and your Religion agrees Christianity yet God did not but God did have supposed divine intervention with Jesus and the Bible but maybe it was asking too much to add evidence that science cannot deny. Science is a tool to explain the natural world. If the tools works correctly then God has no reason to not give evidence yet God does not.

Debate Round No. 5
101 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
The vote off is over, Unless you indicate you want it to begin again with your actions.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
If you don't want to answer the questions then I want to end the vote off.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
" I saw it was wrong to actually vote on the debate. "

I saw it was wrong to not actually vote on the debate.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I edited it because I saw it was wrong to actually vote on the debate.

Would like proof of me wanting a vote off.
Did I directly say or imply it?

I want to end the vote off.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Although you have since edited it, You recently said you're willing to have a vote off. If you have now changed your mind, I'd be happy to end this vote off. But I'll know if you've changed your mind again.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

I want you to end the vote off.

If not why?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"finally admitted to countering my votes"
But who started it?

"admitting that he wants a vote off. "
No I didn't. Proof required.

"that he's abandoned the lies. "
I don't believe in God you do.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Omar has finally admitted to countering my votes"
Are you seeing things?
I would advise going to a doctor.

"admitting that he wants a vote off. "
I think you should.

"I hope his conscience is clear"
How can you believe in a God without evidence?

"that he's abandoned the lies. "
I didn't lie.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
Thanks.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
I'm glad to see Omar has finally admitted to countering my votes, And admitting that he wants a vote off. I hope his conscience is clear now that he's abandoned the lies. Congratulations, Omar!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
jrardin12omar2345Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Omar has challenged me to a vote off, apparently. If at any time he wishes this to stop, he should let me know

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.