The existence of the Judeo-Christian God is impossible

C1.1 I'd like to stress the fact that I answered and dealt with this very objection in the last round. This is conflating divine immutability and divine impassibility. See my response in round 3, the second to last paragraph under C1.1 C1.2Essentially Pro believes it's contradictory for a judge to sentence someone for what they deserve but offering a pardon from it. I have seen the video, responded to it and shown why it fails. I wish to extend my arguments from round 3. C2Note Pro's primary and only contention was that there is a "contradiction" in knowing who Joseph's father is. He writes "I want my opponent to give me his best reason why there is no contradiction." Pro originally gave two scriptures that appeared contradictory with who the father of Jacob is, and he used this to prove premise 3 of his argument. The claim rests on who Joseph's father is as this is the crutch of the matter. However, the discussion shifted into the genealogy of Jesus and whether or not it proves his messiahship, and most of what Pro said in the last round focused on this. This has nothing to do with the contention of who Joseph's father is. We are not discussing Jesus' messiahship and this is irrelevant as it does not affect who Joseph's father was. I've shown there is a logical explanation through the genealogies that shows Jacob is Joseph's father and Heli is Josephs father in law, thus dissolving "contradiction" and defeating premise 3 of his argument. Sin 1:In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus states he came to fulfill the law. This actually answers the entire charge that Pro levels against Jesus. What law was he fulfilling and what does it mean to fulfill the law? Dr. Grant C. Richison observes three codes of the Mosaic Law: Moral code or the commandments, spiritual code or ordinances, and the social code or law os Israel's society.[1] He comments saying, "Jesus did not come to abolish Old Testament teachings but to “fulfill them.” He fulfilled them with both His person as the Messiah and His teaching about the kingdom. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws that typified the coming antitype. He did not offer a competitive system to the Old Testament but established it." [2] If Jesus' messiahship is legitimate, Jesus is able to fulfill the law by his sacrifice on the cross as a payment and he fulfilled the old covenant and established a New covenant. Pro adds that for someone to desire a women is not necessarily sinful, and I agree. If I'm married is it wrong to desire to be with my wife? Of course not. So it seems it matters what your desire is. Pro is equivocating lust and desire. So what type of desire is referred to in Matthew? Here Pro utterly fails to provide careful exegesis, taking into consideration the cultural practices and theological concepts involved in scripture. Pro conflates the type of desires found in Matthew and the ones cited in Deuteronomy 21:10-11. In Matthew, Christ went beyond the deontological commandment not to commit adultery. A person may follow the law and not "commit" adultery per se, but in their heart they desire to do evil and it's just as wrong as committing the act. IVP Bible commentary notes, "If you do not break the letter of the other commandments, but you want to do so in your heart, you are guilty. God judges a sinful heart, and hearts that desire what belongs to others are guilty." [3] Jesus establishes that the issue goes further because it deals with the heart: virtues and vices. Barnes Bible Commentary notes: "[Jesus] assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. He declares that they who indulge a wanton desire, that they who look on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and committed adultery in the heart." [4] Lastly, lust is considered a form of adultery and should not be equivocated with any desire in general; All lusts are desires, but not all desires are lusts. Next, there was a particular reason why the command in Deuteronomy 21:10-11 was given. Theologian John Macarthur observes, "According to ancient war customs, a female captive became the servant of the victors. Moses was given instruction to deal in a kind of way with such issues. In the event her conquerors were captivated by her beauty and contemplated marriage with her, one month was required to elapse…"[5] Also some translations do not phrase it as a command to "take her as your wife." Instead, the NASB writes, "and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself." This isn't a command to take her but is merely noting a scenario in which a captor desires to marry a woman. There is no parallel between Deuteronomy 21:10 and Matthew. For the most part, Pro's argument was all over the place, context was completely ignored, and the argument failed to establish the contention that Jesus was a sinner. Tyre and EzekielHere is what the prophecy indicated: Nebuchadnezzar would "heap up a siege mound" against Tyre, many nations would go up against Tyre, Tyre will be a place of spreading nets, Tyre will become plunder for the nations, the city will be broken down and never rebuilt again. Keep Ezekiel 26:19 in mind, "For thus says the Lord GOD, “When I make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and the great waters cover you" (NASB). Pro claims the prophecy fails since 1) the city was rebuilt and 2) Alexander destroyed the city instead of Nebuchadnezzar. 1)There is one prevalent theory that seeks to answer the charge that the city was rebuilt. To resolve this charge, "it would be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel's prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea."[6] Noting Ezekiel 26:19, a Jewish traveler published the following in diary, "A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea" [7]. It's worth noting that a more accurate translation of Tyre not being "rebuilt" is actually that Tyre "will be built no more" (NASB v.14). In ancient times, when a city was destroyed and rebuilt, reconstruction was almost always done over the ruins. However, with Tyre this is not the case. "Today hardly a single stone of the old Tyre is intact… Tyre has become a place 'to dry fish nets' as the prophet had predicted."[8] 2) The text actually doesn't say that only Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city. The text says that "he" would come against it, he would lay siege upon the city, and he would lay the sword against him. Yes, the focus is mainly on him but other nations are mentioned in the text as well and this is signified by the pronoun change around 26:12. The prophecy indicated that many nations would go up against Tyre and there was no strict time limit as to how long this would happen.[9] MacArthur writes, "'they' in verse 12 appears to broaden the reference to others among 'many nations'. At this point, 'they' are not only Babylonians, but also Alexander's army which later heaped debris from the ruins into the sea to advance the island stronghold."[10] Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar is responsible for laying destruction to the mainland of Tyre. It's clear that Alexander helped in fulfilling this prophecy as Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled the other elements of the prophecy. I've shown that there are logical explanations for the apparent contradictions and therefore each "contradiction" was dissolved. Note that all I had to do was provide a logically possible explanation to show that there is no necessary contradiction. My opponent dropped his first contention as I've shown it, as well as the rest of his arguments, to be unsound.