The participant with the most points wins.
Voting stays open until 2 more votes are cast.
Match format
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Send a message for questions on the topic.
Con
#1
We'll be looking for what the scriptures teach.
Did the flesh of Jesus Christ son of God come from Mary which would be a descendant of Adam , the first Adam?
The opposite side says yes.
To the opposite side, please present your case according to the topic.
Pro
#2
First up, I'd like to start by saying how Mal refused to give me a list of what he accepts as Scripture. I think that is very crucial for biblical debates. I typically let my opponents decide what canon or translation we should use. If I find a translation or canon list too off the rails, I may object. I also believe translations should be part of the debate itself. There shouldn't be one translation that rules everything. Debaters should debate the proper translations of certain words. Anyway, Mal refused to give me any list and accused me of "not being prepared."
Let's look at con's question in his opening:
Did the flesh of Jesus Christ son of God come from Mary which would be a descendant of Adam , the first Adam?
By saying that Mary is a descendant of Adam, it seems to me that con has some sort of problem with saying Jesus is even a descendant of Adam. Is this the reason why con rejects the idea that Jesus' flesh came from Mary? There are many problems that exist in con's hypothesis.
Mary is called Jesus' mother. Con might object and say that it proves nothing about the flesh, but con is then forced to interpret every verse that says this in the most complex way instead of the most simple way. There is no good reason to try to explain away verses like these. In what way was Mary Jesus' mother then? A spiritual mother? An adopted mother? Nothing in Scripture suggests her motherhood was limited.
Let's get into the whole descendant of Adam problem. Jesus is called the Son of Man, and in Hebrew it's Ben Adam in the Old Testament. According the Bible, the definition of a human is a descendant of Adam. God "called their name Adam" according to Genesis 5:2. Genesis 11:5 uses "sons of Adam" as a synonym for humans. Tobit 8:6 (a deuterocanonical book) says that from Adam and Eve "the human race has sprung." If Jesus is human, He is a descendant of Adam. 1 Timothy 2:5 calls Jesus a man. Hebrews 2:17 says He must be made like his brothers. This is why Luke 3 traces his genealogy back to Adam, who was made directly by God.
There are also good reasons to believe Jesus' flesh did indeed come from Mary. In Luke 1:42, Elizabeth calls Jesus the fruit of Mary's womb. John 1:14 says the Word was made flesh. Galatians 4:4 says He was born of a woman. The Word was made flesh by Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I'm not sure exactly what con will argue for. Con may ask how Jesus was able to be male because of how genetics work, but Scripture never answers this question. It's possible that some of Jesus' flesh didn't come from Mary, but at the very least, most of it likely did. Does con believe no flesh of Jesus came from Mary? This topic is very confusing.
Con
#3
"This topic is very confusing"
First of all, why would you take on a topic that is confusing to you?
This is why I asked the opposing side what age is the opposing side.
Scripture say we speak wisdom among the mature. This is not wise at all.
Why go into something blindly?
So because the opposite side is unsure of the opposing case, the opposing side needed chaperoned on what to bring to a BIBLICAL TOPIC.
This is a scriptural topic. Bring scripture to prove your point and don't waver like the scripture teaches against.
As we can see below, the opposite side can't even fully commit to the opposing burden .
"It's possible that some of Jesus' flesh didn't come from Mary, but at the very least, most of it likely did. "
The opposite side said "It's possible that some of Jesus' flesh didn't come from Mary"
See, now the opposite side is compromising relinquishing to my side.
Why ain't you firm on this?
Either the flesh came from Mary alone or didn't. Either it came from man , conceived of man or it wasn't.
"Does con believe no flesh of Jesus came from Mary? "
According to the scripture it did not come from Mary. Out of all the scriptures you gave, I got one scripture that tells you where the flesh came FROM. NOT THROUGH BUT FROM.
You apparently don't know and you're wavering with "It's possible that some of Jesus' flesh didn't come from Mary".
Did his flesh come from Mary only or not?
Why are you in these topics and you're not sure of what you know?
I got one scripture that says where his flesh came FROM and it's none other than Jesus himself.
Jesus Christ tells in the scriptures where his flesh came from .
This is where I say audience, when you have a scriptural based topic with a burden to meet, actually have it written using exact language and words to prove the point.
The opposing side gave no scripture that says in any variety that the flesh came from Mary.
Now, the opposite side has two weeks. I don't know why you guys don't utilize the full time.
You have two weeks. Take your time, take the time, research, study, whatever.
Your burden is proving that the flesh came from Mary. Not parts of the flesh, not most of it. The topic is on the flesh period. Being that's it's on the flesh, any part of the flesh would constitute as the flesh so that is any and all parts because we're specifically talking flesh.
Being that's your burden, you cannot backtrack and backpedal with the possibility to my side.
Your position is "yes", not "yes/no" .
It's yes it came from Mary. It's not it came from Mary and somewhere else.
You are affirming from Mary only.
You are affirming where the flesh period ..........came from. No other specification beyond that.
Come back and support that position or concede on the basis of you not being sure on this subject or ill-prepared.
I yield.
Pro
#4
Con chose to ignore my actual arguments made in the previous round and instead focus on one specific statement I made. My previous arguments still stand.
Con claims I can't say that part of Jesus' flesh was from Mary instead of all. Does con have to prove none of Jesus' flesh came from Mary?
If we say someone gets flesh from one parent, it doesn't mean only one parent. Same thing with DNA. It does not come from only one person.
We don't really know how it worked, but we know Jesus got flesh from Mary.
Also, with objections to not all of the flesh coming from Mary, all the objections are related to biology, not theology. Nothing in the Bible suggests part of Jesus' flesh came from Mary, but neither does the Bible say all the flesh came from Mary without a doubt. The Bible never talks about flesh coming elsewhere, and this would certainly be a problem for the semi-Marian flesh theory.
I was trying to make my argument as strong as possible, but con ignored my argument.
Con
#5
"Does con have to prove none of Jesus' flesh came from Mary?"
Nope. I have none of the burden and all the onus is on you to prove the flesh of Jesus came from Mary . Not from several places as a red herring. You can't look to me and what I would say as a red herring.
"I was trying to make my argument as strong as possible, but con ignored my argument."
It's because I don't want an argument. This is a scriptural debate. I don't know what it is about this stipulation you can't adhere to.
If you can't adhere to this, do not accept these debates or risk forfeiting.
If you can't prove your case based on written scripture, if you don't know how to do it based on that so you resort to making some personal argument instead by preference, it is a forfeiture.
The opposing side has presented no scripture that says the flesh of Jesus came from Mary.
Scripture doesn't teach he was conceived of man.
You have two more opportunities. The fifth round won't help you.
Or just admit that all the scripture you can give you believe is teaching your case was put forth in the previous round.
Pro
#6
"Scripture doesn't teach he was conceived of man."
He wasn't conceived of a man. It was a virgin birth. The Bible says a virgin will conceive. For you, it's not even really a birth at all. Where else would the flesh have come from other than Mary?
Also, Jesus is called the Son of Man, which means He must be a descendant of Adam. If Jesus wasn't born like a human, then He isn't a human.
Elizabeth called Jesus the fruit of Mary's womb. Trees bear fruit, and the fruit comes from the tree.
Also, saying Jesus' flesh came elsewhere is much more unbiblical. Stop complaining about me not being able to present verses. The Bible at the very least suggests Jesus' flesh came from Mary. It never suggests it came elsewhere. Saying Jesus' flesh came from Mary is the answer that is most faithful to the Bible.
Con
#7
"He wasn't conceived of a man. It was a virgin birth. The Bible says a virgin will conceive. For you, it's not even really a birth at all. Where else would the flesh have come from other than Mary?"
Go to the bible and get your answer. Don't ask me.
"Also, Jesus is called the Son of Man, which means He must be a descendant of Adam. If Jesus wasn't born like a human, then He isn't a human."
The debate is not about descendants. It's about where did that flesh come from . Stick to the subject. Where did that flesh come from?
Just admit it didn't come from man less you make Jesus out of a liar .
"Elizabeth called Jesus the fruit of Mary's womb. Trees bear fruit, and the fruit comes from the tree."
So does that mean she bore Jesus or did his flesh come from her earthly flesh?
"Also, saying Jesus' flesh came elsewhere is much more unbiblical. "
Scripture say speak on what you know.
Jesus didn't say his flesh came from Mary.
Now if you don't know what Jesus said, stop being ignorant.
"Stop complaining about me not being able to present verses. The Bible at the very least suggests Jesus' flesh came from Mary."
I'm going to speak that which I do believe like the scripture says.
I'm going to speak as the oracles of God and scripture says let me, don't stop me, let me.
"It never suggests it came elsewhere. Saying Jesus' flesh came from Mary is the answer that is most faithful to the Bible."
Are you sure about that?
This is your final chance to repent.
Are you sure?
Take heed to what I say, don't go with suggestions, go with what is written. You should know this by now as many times as I taught you that.
"It never suggests it came elsewhere. Saying Jesus' flesh came from Mary is the answer that is most faithful to the Bible."
Last chance.
Are you sure on this stance?
Pro
#8
"The debate is not about descendants. It's about where did that flesh come from . Stick to the subject."
Con brought up descendants, not me. Con believes Jesus is not the Son of Man (Ben Adam in Hebrew) because He denies Jesus is a descendant of Adam.
"Where did that flesh come from?"
That should be a question for con, not me. Con has no explanation as to where Jesus got His flesh from, and the Bible never hints at anything other than from Mary.
"So does that mean she bore Jesus or did his flesh come from her earthly flesh?"
Both.
"Jesus didn't say his flesh came from Mary."
So? When did anyone else in the Bible say their flesh came from their mother?
Are we supposed to assume every time the Bible doesn't say someone got flesh from their mother, it means they didn't get flesh from their mother?
"Are you sure about that? This is your final chance to repent. Are you sure?"
Yes.
"Last chance. Are you sure on this stance?"
Yes.
The Bible, at the very least, implies it. Any alternative will only end up being more unbiblical.
Each kind produces after its own kind. Jesus is human because His mother was human. We all get our flesh from our mothers. The Bible never says anything different happened.
Con
#9
"Con brought up descendants, not me. Con believes Jesus is not the Son of Man (Ben Adam in Hebrew) because He denies Jesus is a descendant of Adam."
I like how people say you said things and quotes nothing.
"That should be a question for con, not me. Con has no explanation as to where Jesus got His flesh from, and the Bible never hints at anything other than from Mary."
The opposite side is so ignorant or acts as such in this as well as many other debates.
I'm going to give you what Jesus said. You really need to know your bible on these topics. Just flat out ignorant.
"Both"
No that's wrong. Why?
Jesus said where his flesh came from and it wasn't Mary.
I decided to hold what Jesus said towards the end because there's no debating what Jesus said.
Now if the opposite side has questions, the person can ask in a direct message only.
"So? When did anyone else in the Bible say their flesh came from their mother?"
Nevermind that trying to derail off Jesus .
Look at you.
"Are we supposed to assume every time the Bible doesn't say someone got flesh from their mother, it means they didn't get flesh from their mother?"
I SAID JESUS SAID.....HE SAYS WHERE HIS FLESH CAME FROM.
The question should be ...what is the scripture for it.
One thing I notice about you, you never ask for scripture. You haven't been taught to ask, just argue .
"Yes.
The Bible, at the very least, implies it. Any alternative will only end up being more unbiblical.
Each kind produces after its own kind. Jesus is human because His mother was human. We all get our flesh from our mothers. The Bible never says anything different happened."
So the opposing side has chosen to speak on ignorance and not be humble to say I don't know, what did Jesus say?
I'm going to give you what Jesus said and if you argue with this, you're not arguing with me but with Jesus.
This ain't no implication. This is what is WRITTEN.
Scripture says we having the same spirit of faith.
2 Corinthians 4:13
"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written"
The opposite side never asked for scripture or what Jesus said because the opposite side was not humble to accept correction. Not even humble to accept it from Jesus.
Let's go to John and conclude this topic here.
Let's get what Jesus said.
The opposite side should of never tried to challenge Jesus.
JOHN 6
"51 I am the living BREAD which CAME....CAME..... CAME ...down FROM.......FROM .....FROM ......FROM.....
...FROM ... HEAVEN.....HEAVEN....HEAVEN: if any man eat of this BREAD, he shall live for ever: and the BREAD that I will give is my FLESH.........FLESH .......FLESH ........
FLESH.....FLESH.
STAY OUT THIS BIBLE SON.
Pro
#10
"I like how people say you said things and quotes nothing."
Look, this was heavily implied. This was con's opening statement:
"We'll be looking for what the scriptures teach. Did the flesh of Jesus Christ son of God come from Mary which would be a descendant of Adam , the first Adam? The opposite side says yes. To the opposite side, please present your case according to the topic."
There is no point of mentioning being a descendant of Adam if con did not deny this. Con is likely using a strategy of refusing to explicitly say things so that he can always accuse me of putting words in his mouth.
"This ain't no implication. This is what is WRITTEN."
Con needs to stop screaming "AS IT IS WRITTEN" in every debate. This is no reason to use the Bible alone. Stop adding "alone" to the Bible.
"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written" (2 Corinthians 4:13)
Con cut off the rest of the verse on purpose. The rest is very important.:
"But having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which cause I have spoken; we also believe, for which cause we speak also."
Paul is quoting Psalm 116:10 to prove his point. Con wanted it to look like believers have the same faith because they all use the Bible and the Bible alone. Con intentionally left out the rest of the verse.
"JOHN 6 "51 I am the living BREAD which CAME....CAME..... CAME ...down FROM.......FROM .....FROM ......FROM.....
...FROM ... HEAVEN.....HEAVEN....HEAVEN: if any man eat of this BREAD, he shall live for ever: and the BREAD that I will give is my FLESH.........FLESH .......FLESH ........
FLESH.....FLESH."
I think Jesus is saying His personhood came from heaven, not his body. "I" refers to a person, not a body. Jesus existed before His incarnation. The bread that Jesus will give is His flesh. It's ironic for con to use this verse. I am not sure if con believes Christians should actually eat Jesus or not.
Jesus is God and man, His divinity from heaven and His humanity from Earth. In my opinion, denying Jesus' flesh came from Mary is denying His humanity.
I'll wrap up my arguments from the entire debate.
There are problems with saying it is unbiblical to say Jesus' flesh came from Mary just because the Bible doesn't say anything about it.
First, saying Jesus' flesh came from elsewhere is even more unbiblical. The Bible doesn't given a specific answer to this question. It's more unbiblical to say Jesus got His flesh differently than the rest of humans.
Second, the Bible is silent on the origin of almost every human's flesh. I highly doubt con is going to apply this logic to any other person of the Bible.
Third, con's belief seems to stem from the need to make Jesus special and arguing His flesh must come from elsewhere because of His uniqueness. This is all unbiblical reasoning. There are certain things that were different with Jesus, but the Bible never list His flesh being among them.
Jesus is clearly depicted and stated to be a human in the Bible. A human had to save humanity from its sins. The Bible, as I have shown throughout this debate, says that all humans are descendants from Adam. They get their flesh from their parents.
My theology makes sense of why Jesus took flesh, but con's theology of Jesus taking flesh from heaven to save humans doesn't work.
Con cannot answer why Jesus was even in Mary's womb. Con believes God put foreign flesh into Mary's womb, which makes no sense.
Also, humans grow throughout life. Jesus would only have a small amount of flesh from heaven in con's version. Jesus' body grew over time and grew in the womb.
Luke 1:42 says Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb, which works much better in the traditional understanding of Jesus' hypostatic union.
Galatians 4:4 says Jesus was born of a woman. It only makes sense for Jesus to be human to save humans, which means He would get His flesh from His mother.
Hebrews 2:17 says He must be made like his brothers. In what way would getting flesh from heaven be considered being "made like his brothers"?
Con only gave us one verse and saved it for the final round. Not sure if that's even allowed. Just one verse to rest your theology on? I'll let the voters decide on this one.
"STAY OUT THIS BIBLE SON."
Wow. Con tells me to stay out of the Bible. Why would someone who believes the Bible say that? If the Bible is the truth, neither of us should fear anything since we both believe in it.
Summary of what con thinks: "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is not allowed to read the Bible!"'
One thing that seems simple to me is that God, the Father is a perfect, exalted man of flesh and bone, just as the resurrected Jesus described himself. A man with a genetic code via DNA that, being human, was/is compatible with Mary's, so both provided the body of Christ in the flesh. Occam's razor.
I would really like to vote on this one - it's a great subject for debate, but I am too biased in one direction of the argument to make a fair assessment of the pro/con debate. I am closer to Pro's side of the argument, but that argument does not go far enough to convince me his argument achieves a victory. Con, the instigator, makes a curious accusation against Pro in Con's R2 "I got one scripture that says where his flesh came FROM and it's none other than Jesus himself." He makes several stabs at the necessity to cite scripture in this debate, but totally avoids citing any scripture himself until R5 - the last round, the second of only two citations, whereas Pro has cited 9 scriptures in R1, 2 in R3, and another 2 in R5; - 13 scripture citations in all, yet Con has the temerity in R5 to claim: "I like how people say you said things and quotes nothing." Score: Con = 2 quotes, mocking both, not using them to support his BoP, Con - 13 quotes, using all to support his BoP, but, as. I said, misses the mark on genetic inheritance of traits that is obvious in the extreme because too many people find "magic" as a decisive biblical source of miracles. Nonsense. What's wrong with admitting natural law, even as used by God? Jesus inherits his mortal flesh from both God and Mary because mammals [all humans are], by natural law, cannot reproduce by parthenogenesis, i.e. "virgin" birth. Look it up. Other animal and plant types can, and do, but not mammals, ever. This is Occam's Razor kind of stuff - the simplest explanation is the most correct. By the way, the only product of parthenogenesis is female, never male. Natural law. Oops.
Are you going to answer me?
What is your canon of scripture? I remember you said you accepted certain "apocrypha" ones.
| Criterion | Con | Tie | Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
