jesus

A. To say that the authors motivation for writing the New Testament is that they were trying to spread a religion is obviously ridiculous. If Jesus neither claimed to be God, nor was resurrected, why would his disciples proclaim this to their death. It is crazy to think that these, numerous, credible people would die just to try and start a religion. In Luke we can see his motivation for writing down what had happened. "In as much as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Luke 1:1-4. The gospels writers wrote down the accounts to provide accurate historical events about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In your example of Luke 1:33 when it says "He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever" it is in reference to the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, because Jacob and Daniel were in the same family line. If you notice the verse does not say "and the house of Jacob will accept Him forever" it says "and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever" Which Jesus is. We both believe there is a God. If an atheist says "There is no God reigning over me" we both know that it does not matter what they think. God is still reigning over them. Likewise with what you are proposing. Just because you don't think Jesus is reigning over the house of Jacob forever doesn't really mean anything, because He is. Contradictions: (14 generations... 14 generations... 14 generations.. is repeated in Matthew's genealogy) With this Matthew made it clear that this genealogy is not complete. There were not actually 14 generations between the landmarks he indicates, but Matthew, as some suggest, edited the list down to make it easy to remember and memorize. For example, Matthew 1:8 says Joram begot Uzziah. This was Uzziah, King of Judah, who was struck with leprosy for daring to enter the temple as a priest to offer incense (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). Uzziah was not the immediate son of Joram; there were three kings between them (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah). Yet as Clarke rightly says, "It is observed that omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies." Another theory is he uses the genealogy to count 14 generations from each major section. (according to the Jewish practice of geomatria, the giving of numeric value to consonants in a word, David's name would add to D + V + D or 4 + 6 + 4= 14, and David is the 14th on the list) In the second contradiction my opponent brought up he failed to mention that while Matthew and Mark place him in Galilee, while Luke and John place him in Jerusalem, they were not happening at the same time. Jesus was in Galilee and Jesus was in Jerusalem but obviously not at the same time. "Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12). None of the accounts of Jesusï¿½€™ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection." - http://www.apologeticspress.org... "so when the new testament says Jesus says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god." All that attempt is, is syncretism. Taking two verses out of context and trying to connect them. As opposed to the claim I made that the term son of man is referring to Jesus divinity in reference to Daniel 7:13-15. That is something the over whelming majority of new testament scholars agree on. 1. "it could be someone else wrote it or the church itself wrote it" That is a theory however you provided no evidence for it. 2."My opponent does not provide evidence for the claim he makes that these were unimportant people" I did not say that they were unimportant people. I said that they were unlikely characters. Mark and Luke werent in the 12. Matthew was but was a former tax collector. 3."why should we believe them" - Papias would have gotten his information from Polycarp who heard John speak directly. 4."The fact that people claim that Jesus claims to be god proves that he was god? My opponent here defends against a blatant statement of Jesus mortality by saying it is not to be taken literally and refers to son of man in denial. But why should we assume that the verse in Daniel is not referring literally to a son." You are right that the fact Jesus claims to be God does not prove He is God. However all of the arguments presented work together to show that it is very reasonable to think Jesus is God. We should not assume that the verse in Daniel is not referring literally to a son because it said he came down from the clouds. It is not a blatant statement of jesus mortality, if you agree with the overwhelming majority of new testement scholars, which I do, it is a blatant statement of Jesus divinity. 5. You gave me nothing to refute 6-10. "Discuss the resurrection which is not relevant to this debate, as far as I can tell" The resurrection is the most relevant to this debatge. If Jesus did raise from the dead that is overwhelming evidence for Him being God. I am in the progress of getting my undergrad degree in biblical studies and as one of my proffessors always says, "Normal people don't do that." Simple statement; true statement. The more overwhelming thing is there were several, credible people who were willing to die for this fact. If they knew Jesus was not God why would they proclaim it even when it lead them straight to horrific deaths. Conclusion: I have refuted all the contradictions you gave. I explained that son of man is a clear claim to divinity. Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus was resurrected and this is what his disciples proclaimed to their death. I have refutted all of the rebuttles you gave. If my opponent brings up more arguments that is fine but I will obviously not have to oppurtunity to respond. But as for all the ones I had the opportunity to refute, I did just that. If you want to debate again just let me know. Thanks