The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,737 times Debate No: 17072
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




The New Testament - The 27 books of the established cannon recognized by the Christian Church.
Contains - Contradictions that are WITHIN the text. It is not a viable argument to present the New Testament as contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the 1st Century, etc.
Genuine Contradiction - An actual contradiction. An example of two texts that cannot both be true.
Consequence - A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. The converse would be trivial contradictions, such as slight variations in dates or counting. Such trivial contradictions are typically easily explained, or pose no challenge to the truth being taught or the accuracy of the historical retelling.

[Rules and Debating Proceedure]
In the first round, Con must present any contradictions they believe are insurmountable. Please number them for clarity of response (Contradiction A, B, C, etc).

In the following round, I will respond to the contradictions and attempt to explain how they are either A) Not Genuine Contradictions, or B) Not Contradictions of Consequence. Con may respond in round 2 either with challenging my response, or presenting new contradiction (or both).

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

In round 4 I will respond to his challenges. In the close of round 4 Con may not present new arguments or responses to my challenge (that gives us each 3 rounds since my first round is being used only to describe rules). In Round 4 Con will enter "Closing Round" or something similar. If Con presents new arguments or rebuttals in Round 4, they are in violation of the terms of this debate and forfeit all 7 points to Pro for the debate.

[A note about Burden of Proof]
This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My burden of proof will be to reasonably explain any apparent contradictions that Con identifies. Con's burden of proof is to provide adequate biblical citations so that I may find the passages he is referencing. In addition, please use the ESV as the translation (It can be found at as it is both accurate and readable, and using only one translation prevents us from slipping into confusion over variant readings in different translations. If space is a premium, ESVonline provides a link shortening service to link to verses. Simply type reference and you will get a link. For example. will link to John 3:16. Ths stipulation does not cast the original Greek texts out of bounds, and is simply to avoid falling into conspiracy over varient modern translations.

[Limitation of Space]
Since it takes more space to answer an apparent contradiction than it does to claim one, My opponent will be limited to 5 active contradictions. If he wishes to add a new contradiction, he will be required to drop a prior contradiction. Dropping a contradiction equates to acknowledging that contradiction as invalid.

If there are any questions, please pose them in comments prior to accepting the debate. By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above.


Hello, ReformedArsenal, I am excited to be debating with you again. I accept your definitions, terms, and structure. As the resolution contends, I will stay with the New Testament (NT for now on) and not go into the Old Testament.

My opponent wishes to give me a max of 5 contradictions. Well, to find contradictions, one needs to look no further than the four gospel.

Contradiction 1: Should the disciples take staffs?

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a staff.

Contradiction 2: How did Judas die?

Matthew 27:5

A. He hanged himself

"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."-Matthew 27:5

B. He fell headlong and his bowles gushed out.

Acts 1:18
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Contradiction 3: Is Jesus God?

A. Yes

JOH 8:58, Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am

JOH 10:30, I and my Father are one.

COL 2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

PHILI 2:5-6, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

B. No

JOH 14:28, Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than

In fact, Jesus could NOT be God. Jesus is talking to Nicodemous and states that, "God is a spirit, he that worships God must worship him in spirit and in truth."

With that, I offer this syllogism
P1) God is a Spirit
P2) Jesus was NOT a spirit
C) Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

P1 is defended by Jesus' own words
P2 is just logical.
C is law of syllogism.

I have many more contradictions, but will save them for later. I ask my opponent since I only posted 3/5 contradictions that I will be allowed 2 more without droping a contradiction.

I thank my opponent for allowing me to debate with him.


Back to you! I'm looking forward to hearing your answer.
Debate Round No. 1


I am going to forgoe the normal nicities out of need for space. Please don't hold this against me.

C1) I have two general responses to this contention. The first is that this is a contradiction that falls outside of the criteria of "consequence." What does it matter if Jesus said they could take a staff or not? As defined (and agreed to) by the terms of the debate consequence means "A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine." My opponent will need to show how this poses a threat to Christian doctrine.

My second response is an explanation of the account. It is rather technical, so space may be prohibitive. It boils down to a study in comparitive lingustics. Greek was a langauge with a much greater range of word meanings and a fluid semantic field. The word in question here is translated as "take" but has a much greater range of meaning than a simple word. Let's first look at Matthew's usage of the word translated as "take" Most of this is taken from

Matthew uses the word "kataomai" which generally means to "acquire." This may or may not have financial implications (somtimes used as "buy" other times as "find"). We see that Matthew uses the word "agorazo" when he wants to denote acquiring by financial means. So in the context of Matthew's writing, the word kataomai means "to aquire." This translation is preserved in many translations as "provide" or "aquire." In the context of this passage and Matthew's greater writing corpus, he is saying "Do not aquire the following things." He is stating that the urgency of the trip they are embarking on is so great that they are not to take time to find provisions, they are to go right now.

Mark on the other hand uses the word "airo" which is a more general term for "pick up and take with you." It is the same idea as "pick up and carry your luggage" and is used when Jesus tells people to "take up your matt and walk." In the context of Mark's writing, Jesus is prohibiting them from carrying anything with them except a staff. This is different from Matthew who was saying that they should not take time to find a staff. Rather he is saying "do not carry with you anything other than a staff, your sandals, and a tunic." Essentially, the things than an average Jewish man would have with them at any given time.

Luke on the other hand uses "kataomai" in the financial aquisition sense. We see this when he says that Judas bought (ktaomai) a field. Also in Acts when he reports someone saying "I had to pay (ktaomai) a big price for my citizenship." So Luke could NOT use the word ktaomai in this context as it would make no sense for him to prohibit the disciples from "buying money." So he choses a more general term of "airo." However, he is using it differently than Mark is. If Luke was trying to convey the same idea that Mark was, he uses the term "bastazo." (See Luke 10:4)

So, to summarize: Matthew's "ktaomai" = "Luke's "airo" while Mark's "airo" = Luke's "bastazo." In addition, even if this answer is not sufficient to resolve the contradiction, my opponent has not shown how this is a "contradiction of consequence" as defined in the opening statement.

1) Matthew reports Jesus telling his disciples not to aquire (ktaomai) the things he lists
2) Luke records the same things, but uses a different word (since he would not use ktaomai as that has financial implications for him)
3) Mark tells them not to take up and carry (airo) the things he lists, with the exceptions of a staff, sandals, and one tunic.

There is no contradiction in the original langauge, and this is more a problem of the impressision of English.

C2) This is a "contradiction" that bothered me for quite some time as well. So I want to acknowledge the diffiulty of the text. Much of the information I am about to use is drawn from There are a few possible explanations.

I will begin with a question. Nearly all of us have tripped and fallen at some point. Have you ever heard of anyone who tripped onto a flat stretch of soil and not only died... but also split open so his innards burst forth? I haven't... so on the surface of the account seems unrealistic?

The standard explanation goes like this:

Judas, distraught over his decision, returned the money to the pharisees. He then went and hanged himself in a field and died. The pharisees then took the money, and since they could not put it back into the treasury, sought to purchase a field to bury foreigners. Since Judas died in a field, that field would already be defiled and would make a perfect purchase for a cemetary. So they took the 30 silver pieces, purchased it in Judas' name, and created a cemetary for foreigners known as "The Field of Blood" because it was purchased with blood money. Somewhere along the line Judas' body, which had been left hanging because it would make a person unclean to touch it, falls from the tree (either the rope or the branch breaks... or even the connecting tissues keeping Judas' head attached to his body) and splits open. This account contains no contradictions and similar harmnization happens in history all the time. Consider the account of two brothers being lynched in 1881. Boyd and Eddy in The Jesus Legend discuss a situation in which the two brothers are reported to have been hanged in two separate locations. Some people reported seeing them hang from a railroad crossing, others from a pine tree. The accounts appear contradictory at first glance, until photograhs surfaced of them in both locations. The conclusion is that they were hanged from the crossing first, then taken down and hanged again. (Page 424 in the referenced book).

The next (and one I find more likely) is a textual explanation. The greek phrase translated as "falling headlong" is prenes genomenos, while the phrase for "becoming swollen" is presthes genomenos. This is a matter of replacing a Greek theta, with a Greek nu in a manuscript. If this mistake had been made in the textus receptus (the version that the KJV was translated from) the original would read "and becoming swoolen he burst open in teh middle and all how bowels gushed out." This is certianly a plausible explanation. He hung from the tree for several days, then his flesh burst and his insides came forth.

Another linguistic explanation is a misunderstanding of the word "apanchomai" which is translated "hanged himself." Now, in the Bible this is word is only used in this passage. Hardly a good sample to draw a full range of meaning. However, when we look outsde the Bible to other Greek literature, we see this word used as "choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief."Similar to when we say "I got all choked up." If we see this as the meaning of the word we see that Matthew is not talkign about Judas' death. He is saying (although I'm using somewhat of a coloquialism) "Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, dearted, and got choked up with grief." If this is the way Matthew is using this word, it does not contradict Luke in any way.

C3) My opponent identifies two concerns. For the sake of space I shall be brief and will expand more if needed.

First, the contrast between Christ's equality and statements that the Father is greater. This is what is known as functional subordination vs ontological subordination. Functional describes the way a person interacts, while ontological describes the way a person exists. If I am functionally subordinate to my boss, does that necessitate me being ontologically subordinate to him? Of course not.

In response to the syllogism: In order for a syllogism to work, if a premise is false, the conclusion is false. In Christian doctrine, Christ is both a spirit and corporeal so P2 is not accurate as Jesus IS a spirit as wlll as a body. Since P2 is false, C is also false.

Thank you to my opponent, I look forward to the next round.


I would like to extend a deep thanks to my opponent for his quick response. Some were quite expected.

I am going to forgoe the normal nicities out of need for space. Please don't hold this against me.

I perfectly understand and accept your need for space! Please, voters, do NOT hold that against my opponent.

RRC1) What does it matter if Jesus said they could take a staff or not? What does it matter? It matters what Jesus stated!

Any contradiction in the Bible automatically proves the Bible false.

As for his second explanation, I typed this up very fast and will gladly drop this contradiction as I need to build up on stronger contradictions. Furthermore, I forgot to look it back up in the Greek.

RRC2) So I want to acknowledge the diffiulty of the text. My opponent has admited that there is a difficulty in the passage.

My opponent offers a very common explanation. I was not surprised to see him use it.

For my rebuttals in this passage, I will be using this main source:

My opponent cites this passage:

Judas bought the field indirectly: the money he returned to the priests (Mt 27:3) was used to purchase the potter's field (Mt 27:7)

The real meaning of Acts is clear as day: Judas bought the field himself. Therefore, there is a contradiction as to who bought the field! I am using this other contradiction to show how my opponent contradicts his own Bible! *Emphasis! Please take no offense*

Furthermore, there are a couple of other issues.

  • Judas never dropped from a high place, the passage does not record any mountain cliff.
  • Matthew says Judas returned the silver, and hanged himself. Acts says he bought a field and “fell headlong”, showing that he never fell down from a cliff. The Acts gives the implication that Judas was thrown ahead, and the impact was so hard that his bowels burst open. There is no evidence that Judas fell vertically, only horizontally (forward), so the Christian explanation does not work.
  • Here is another problem, the 30 pieces of silver, Acts says he used the silver to buy a field (where he died), but Matthew says he returned the silver to the chief priests, and hanged himself. There is no purchase of any field, so he obviously never died, except by hanging (Matt. 27:5-6).

  • There is no reference to a cliff, Judas probably hanged himself in seclusion, and his body was found by his relatives. What are the chances that Judas’ body fell from the ropes to the field below? According to Matthew, Judas never bought any field! The Gospel of Matthew says the chief priests bought the Potter’s field after Judas was dead (Matt. 27:7-8), yet the Book of Acts says that Judas himself bought the field and died therein (Acts 1:8-9).
  • If Judas fell from the ropes to the rocks below, he never fell headlong! How can you fall headlong from hanging? This is ridiculous, the legs crashed to the ground first, Judas never fell headlong.
Note: I am NOT a Muslim!

RRC3) My opponent just shown why the Ps were false. He never explained why Jesus stated one time, "My father is greater than I" then stating "I and my father are one" a clear contradiction!

New Contradiction!

This is to replace the contradiction I had to drop as it was not strong enough for me to fight it.

How many disciples did Jesus first appear to?

12, 10, or 11?

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.
1 Chorinthians 15:5
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus,was not with them when Jesus came.John 20:24

That passage also clearly contradicts Judas' death!

John 20:24 12 disciples, Judas died=11, Thomas was not with him-1=10

Matthew 28:16-17Then the elevendisciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him,they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Mark 16:14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Luke 24:33-37And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and foundthe eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, ... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Stating 11 disciples first saw the risen Saviour!


New Contradiction (I only posted 3/5 last round. Since I droped 1 contradiction that makes 2/5. I replaced that one 3/5 so this is contradiction 4)

When did Satan enter Judas?

A. Before the last supper or B. After the last supper

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot .... Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
And after the sop Satan entered into him. John 13:27

Note: SOP means the following:

1) a fragment, bit, morsel

Final Contradiction!

Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand?
They stood far away.They stood near the cross.
Matthew 27:55
And many women were there beholding afar off.

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off.

Luke 23:49
And the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Chart and contradiction courtesy of

the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person). So therefore, the explanation that they came closer is absurd!

Debate Round No. 2


Here is a brief summary of where the debate stands.
C1) Staff or no staff? - Introduced in Round 1, Dropped by opponent
C2) The death of Judas? -Introduced in Round 1, Still active
C3) Is Jesus God? - Introduced in Round 1, Still Active
C4) Number of Disciples - Introduced in Round 2
C5) When did Satan enter Judas? - Introduced in Round 2
C6) Where were the women? - Introduced in Round 2

Before I get into my rebuttals, I would like to address something.

In round 2 my opponent writes: "Any contradiction in the Bible automatically proves the Bible false." I find this to be a blatantly unsupported assertion? Is there any other historical document in which this axiom would be applied? One can point at several contradictions in historical accounts of just about any event and find contradictions. For example, take the accounts of the JFK assassination. One gunman? Two? Lee Harvey Oswald? Unknown shooter? Died immediately? Died at hospital? Died on the way to the hospital? There are many contradictions, yet we still acknowledge the historical fact that JFK was assassinated.

Furthermore, in the opening contention of this debate I stated that a contradiction must pose a significant threat to an essential Christian doctrine. I quote "A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine." As per the terms of this debate, my opponent accepted this condition when accepting the debate. "By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above." Therefore, my opponent cannot simply assert this claim and MUST prove how any given contradiction fulfills this criteria.

On with the debate

RRRC2) I provided three possible explanations for how this contradiction can be resolved. One was the traditional account of Judas hanging himself, the rope breaking, his swollen and partially rotten corpse falling to the ground, and then splitting open. The next was a possible textual error in which the phrase "falling headlong" had mistakenly replaced "becoming swollen" (it is a matter of a single letter being switched in the original Greek). Thirdly, I noted that the word for "hanged himself" can be used as an idiom for debilitating grief (Similar to the phrase "I got all choked up"). Note that my opponent left the latter of the two possible options entirely unchallenged and only focused on option one.

For the sake of space, I would like to address this briefly. my opponent has actually introduced another contention into this debate as the means of Judas' death and the purchasing of the field are two separate issues.

I will answer the issue of "who bought the field" with a question: If I own stock, and have my stock broker make a trade, who purchases the stock? Is it me, or my stock broker? The obvious answer is that it is me. Even if I do not make the decision on what to purchase or when, I still make the purchase. Simply because my stock broker is doing so on my behalf, and was the one who physically made the purchase, does not mean that he is the purchaser. This issue is similar in the case of Judas. He did not physically make the purchase, but since the Pharisees made the purchase on his behalf using his money the field was purchased by him.

My opponent then introduces a series of red herrings into the argument. No where does the Bible, nor I, claim that Judas fell of a cliff. In fact, in my argument I made the exact opposite argument. I found it strange that Judas could trip in a field, fall flat, and burst open. My opponent's argument regarding this as another issue can be ignored, since it is not present in either my argument nor in the Bible.

My opponent also notes that Judas returned the money, but then questions how he could purchase a field with that money. This has been resolved with the "stock broker" analogy. Just because Judas did not make the purchase himself, does not mean that the land was not legally his.

As far as "falling headlong." The original Greek is more literally translated as "became headlong" and likely refers to his final state. So he fell (from wherever he fell from) and in the end rested flat in a horizontal position. Again, my opponent introduces "rocks" that I, nor the Bible, never introduced.

RRRC3) I would encourage my opponent to read more carefully. I did address this issue in the discussion of "Functional" vs "Ontological" statements. "My Father is greater than I" is a functional statement. It shows how their relationship functions. "I and my Father are one" is an ontological statement. It shows how they exist. Again I point out, if I say "My boss is my superior" I am not making a statement about how we exist (Stating that he is somehow a superior human being), I am stating that in our employment relationship, he is superior in a functional ay.

RC4) The term "the twelve apostles" is used by Paul as a technical term to denote the original 12 Apostles, as opposed to the Apostles who would come before. For example, Paul himself was an Apostle, but not one of the 12. In addition, the name Peter and Thomas were common names in the 1st century, so he was indicating WHICH Peter and Thomas he was refering to by denoting them as "one of the 12," rather than any other Thomas or Peter. In addition, I would urge my opponent to show what significance this actually has to Christian doctrine. The issue with Judas again is resolved by pointing to the fact that in Paul, the 12 is a technical term that refers to the original Apostles and does not necessarily refer to the actual number of Apostles that were present at a given event.

RC5) This is extremely simple to explain. Satan entered Judas and compelled him to go make a deal with the Pharisees. He then left Judas, and re-entered him after dinner to compel him to complete the deed. My opponent would either have to show that the Bible says that A) Satan only entered Judas once, or B) The Bible teaches that a demon cannot enter someone more than once. We actually see the opposite to be true. In Matthew 12 Jesus teaches of an evil spirit who leaves a person, finds no superior place to dwell, then seeks to return. This implies that A) A spirit can leave a person, and B) it can then return to that person.

RC6) If you read the Synoptic Gospels carefully none of them denote which women were standing afar off. John however, does denote that there are specific women who are standing quite close to the cross (Along with John himself, who was present at the Cross). In order for this contradiction to stand my opponent will need to prove that the only possible reading of this text is that the two groups of women described are the same women. Is it not possible that some women stayed far away, while those closest to Jesus (His mother, his Aunt, and Mary Magdalene) drew nearer? He would also need to prove that the phrases "Afar off" and "Stood by" the cross are mutually exclusive. When I tell someone from Minnesota where I live I say "I live in Boston" however, this is not strictly accurate. I actually live in a town about 45 minutes north of Boston. So when I tell someone who lives in Peabody (a neighboring town) where I live I say "South Hamilton." Words like "afar" and "near" or "by" are relative terms. What if for John "by the cross" simply means they could see it, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke would only consider "by the cross" to be immediately next to it?

My opponent's assertion that "nobody was allowed near" is not substantially asserted or proven. Furthermore, we are not debating if the historical accounts are plausible, possible, or happened. We are debating if the accounts contained in the New Testament are consistent with each other. If they are or are not consistent with history is irrelevant to the resolution of this debate.

Thank you for your time in reading this debate.


Appologiese for taking so long!

In round 2 my opponent writes: "Any contradiction in the Bible automatically proves the Bible false." I find this to be a blatantly unsupported assertion? Is there any other historical document in which this axiom would be applied? One can point at several contradictions in historical accounts of just about any event and find contradictions. For example, take the accounts of the JFK assassination. One gunman? Two? Lee Harvey Oswald? Unknown shooter? Died immediately? Died at hospital? Died on the way to the hospital? There are many contradictions, yet we still acknowledge the historical fact that JFK was assassinated.

I should have made myself more clear. Any contradiction proves the Bible is not the Word of God because that would mean that God broke his promise about preserving his word, thus making the Biblical promises invalid.

Furthermore, in the opening contention of this debate I stated that a contradiction must pose a significant threat to an essential Christian doctrine. I quote "A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine." As per the terms of this debate, my opponent accepted this condition when accepting the debate. "By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above." Therefore, my opponent cannot simply assert this claim and MUST prove how any given contradiction fulfills this criteria.

Any contradiction would pose a significant threat! How? That would mean that God did not preserve his word as he said he would do!

Out of time and will make further rebuttals in the next round. Appologiese to my opponent. I've been busy. Vacation, admin training and final exams!

Debate Round No. 3


Not the Word of God

My opponent has not shown where in the Bible God promises to preserve his word in this way. Nor has he shown that minor contradictions in the Bible somehow undermine the overall message of the Bible. What if the "word of God" is simply the message of salvation? This message is not undermined in any way by these minor contradictions.

In fact, many Christian theological perspectives do not require the Bible to be free of error. The two theories (not mutually exclusive, but not mutually inclusive either) are infallibility (the Bible never fails to accomplish what it intends to accomplish) and inerrancy (the Bible is free of errors) are generally held by more conservative groups, while even more liberal groups will hold to infallibility. In short, unless the contradiction in a given text causes the text to fail to do what its intention was, it does not violate infallibility. Since none of these contradictions do that, they do not meet the criteria my opponent must to prove a contradiction of consequence.

Further Rebuttals

It is unfortunate that my opponent does not read carefully. As per the terms of the debate if my opponent posts any arguments or rebuttals in round four, they forfeit the debate. This is clearly outlined in the opening argument and is a stipulation that my opponent agreed to.


My opponent has presented 6 apparent contradictions (In reality, 7 as the discrepancy between how Judas died and the discrepancy of who bought the field is two discrepancies that have been conflated into one in my opponent's arguments.

Argument 1) My opponent sought to show a contradiction in the account of Jesus sending out the twelve disciples by pointing out that in Mark they are permitted to take a staff, while in Luke in Matthew there is an apparent prohibition. I have resolved this by examining the linguistic context of the passages, and my opponent conceded the point.

Argument 2)
My opponent introduced the various accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot. I proposed three possible explanations, only one of which my opponent responded to. I was able to successfully rebut my opponent, as he was not able to show that my explanation is invalid or illogical.

Argument 3)
My opponent sought to build a contradiction between the Functional statements (My Father is greater than I) and the Ontological statements (My Father and I are one). I was able to resolve this by pointing out that functional statements and ontological statements are different and refer to different aspects of reality. My opponent also sought to show by means of Syllogism that Jesus is not Spirit, and since God is Spirit that Jesus cannot be God. I dismantled this syllogism by showing that in order for my opponent to prove that this syllogism is true that he would either need to show that Jesus is not both Body and Spirit, or that it is impossible to be both Body and Spirit. He did neither. My opponent did not refute this.

Argument 4)
My opponent sought to show a contradiction in the way the number of disciples is listed. Specifically that Paul refers to them as the 12, when Judas was dead (totaling 11) and Thomas may not have been present (totaling 10). I was able to respond to this by showing that Paul uses the term "the 12" as a technical term referring to the original Apostles (as opposed to those who would become Apostles later, such as himself) or to distinguish which Peter or Thomas he was referring to (Peter of the 12 as opposed to any other Peter). My opponent did not refute this.

Argument 5)
My opponent shows that the Bible records Satan entering Judas in two different times. I responded by pointing out that my opponent would have to prove that the spirit did not enter, leave, then enter again or that this is biblically inconsistent. In fact there is biblical evidence for spirits entering, leaving, and the returning. My opponent did not refute this.

Argument 6)
My opponent claims that John states the women were near the cross, while the Synoptic claim they were far away. I pointed out that my opponent would also need to prove John and the Synoptic refer to the same group of women in addition to proving that John uses the term "By the Cross" in a way that is mutually exclusive of the Synoptic "afar off" as both the term "By" and "Afar off” are relative terms dependent on the perspective of the speaker/writer.

As you can see, I have successfully reconciled every apparent contradiction my opponent has mustered. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and kindly encourage him to read the terms of the debate more carefully next time. I would also like to thank you, the readers, for your participation and welcome any thoughts or feedback you have in the comments.

Thank you!



MilitantAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 7 years ago
The beauty of this vote... Kohai voted against himself in order to try to show that he was not himself... and it was his sole vote that gave me the win.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 7 years ago
You're not fooling me Kohai. You're predictable.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
"This stipulation does not cast the original Greek texts out of bounds, and is simply to avoid falling into conspiracy over varient modern translations."
Why you done gone and added that bit? :P
Posted by MilitantAtheist 7 years ago
What new account? Anyway, I'm gonna type up the rebuttal super-fast tomorrow morning
Posted by ReformedArsenal 7 years ago
And debating on your other new account.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 7 years ago
Sorry was away and busy with exams and admin training
Posted by MilitantAtheist 7 years ago
Ah, I did not see that. Sorry. I will switch to esv
Posted by ReformedArsenal 7 years ago
Consider it a sign of my good will that I am not pinging you for violation of the rules. I clearly stated that we were to use the ESV (which you agreed to), yet you still insist on using an inferior translation.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 7 years ago
i dropped one contradiction, and replaced it. I also added contradictions I didn't get to.
Posted by Man-is-good 7 years ago
P1) God is a Spirit
P2) Jesus was NOT a spirit
C) Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

I think this can be refuted if PRO uses the trinity doctrine to show that God is composed of God the father, God the son (Jesus), and the holy spirit. Jesus in particular was god incarnate on earth [if I am correct], so therefore this syllogism is not definite in proving Jesus is not god.
But then again, Con could dispute the validity of such a doctrine...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con had horrific conduct, and forfeited the last round Spelling/grammar: Both had good spelling Arguments: Forfeit by con and pro sucesfully refuted con's arguments Sources: I like how pro went back to the Greek. He had better sources and con used mostly just the Bible.