ROUND TWO: Jesus was a non-smoker

1. Tobacco and Smoking in the Middle EastMy opponent asserts that tobacco was not actually introduced to the middle east until the 17th century, and that this is proof that Jesus was/is not a smoker. Maybe tobacco didn't exist in those days, however, there was a prominent form of tobacco called "tombeik" which was naturally grown locally in Persia (today known as Iran) and smoked traditionally via a hookah (a form of smoking which historically has been specific to India and the Middle East).[1]The omnipotent and omnipresent status of Jesus, who is God, would have allowed Jesus to have manifested all of the tobacco that he wanted, under the right circumstances. If Jesus can turn water to wine, what do you think he could do with that fig leaf over there? And don't forget the smoking of cannabis, too - there actually is historical evidence that the Jews commonly used cannabis in order to improve their spiritual condition.[2] The exclusive smoking of tobacco at the beginning of this debate was implied, but never clarified.Ultimately, my opponent seems to be lacking understanding of is that he/she made the absolute claim, "Jesus was a Non-Smoker". Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus was, absolutely, not a smoker. Likewise, it is my responsibility prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus could have been a smoker, which is exactly what I've done so far.My opponent says, "facts are facts, and if you can't substantiate something positively, there is no basis for believing it ever happened."I agree. So... would you happen to have any of these aforementioned facts to substantiate positively that Jesus was/is not a smoker? Absolutley, beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Tobacco = Walrus Fuzz?In response to my second argument, my opponent essentially compares apples to oranges by comparing tobacco and walrus fuzz. Anyone who's ever smoked tobacco and walrus fuzz to compare the two would probably notice that tobacco is not like walrus fuzz. This is really nothing short of a strawman argument to knock down my claim. My opponent's rationale could also be used to prove why Jesus never drank wine, ate meat, ate vegetables, slept in a feather bed, etc.In context, 1 Timothy 4:3-5 says, "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."Clearly, the purpose of tobacco is for medicine (which I will elaborate on in my next rebuttal) and for enjoyment, as is alcohol. Walrus fuzz - well - not so much. Although to be honest, I cannot prove that Jesus never smoked walrus fuzz, but I do think I can show that it is highly, highly, highly unlikely that Jesus ever smoked walrus fuzz.So, more to the point: Jesus would have had an understandable reason for smoking tobacco. For smoking walrus fuzz - significantly less so. In fact it puts a strange image in my head when I imagine anyone shaving the hair off of a walrus and smoking it. I mean - why would someone do that? Just why?3. Drinking in moderation; medicinal qualities of TobaccoThis argument has become two pronged: alcohol is OK in moderation, and tobacco has no medicinal value.Firstly, I never said it was bad to get drunk. Personally, if someone wants to get drunk, I say go for it but at least try to be safe about it. "Jesus nowhere said or implied that we are not to drink in moderation and, therefore, he was simply being ahead of his time. In fact, his Apostle Paul said specifically not to get drunk."...What? My opponent seems to be saying "Jesus never said to drink in moderation, therefore he was ahead of his time by espousing responsible drinking." All respect to my opponent, but... this rationale is confusing at best. Jesus never said to drink soda; does that mean it's bad to drink soda?Although to clarify, I'm not saying the Bible is telling people to go and get drunk. My original argument only put forward the notion that Jesus approved of a drug more dangerous to society than the nicotine in Tobacco, and that if Jesus is approving of that, then it is logical to concluide that Jesus would approve of something less dangerous to - and possibly even good for - society as we know it.This brings us to the second point of my opponent's argument about tobacco's lack of medicinal value. I've actually done a couple of debates already on the risks/benefits of tobacco, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about here as it is.In all honesty, the tobacco plant gets a bad rap from the big tobacco industry and the anti-tobacco industries alike. Tobacco, believe it or not, was originally used not only ceremonially, but also medicinally. Cultivated by native american indians, the tobacco plant was originally used to treat "earaches, snake bites, cuts and burns, respiratory diseases, fever, convulsions, nervous ailments, urinary ailments, and skin diseases."[3] Tobacco was seen as so medicinally incredible that people even began to call it "The Holy Herb", as well as "God's Cure", all because of the medicinal versitility of nicotine. Consider it a pre-WWII version of cannabis, if you will. Today however, the additives in tobacco products provided by the tobacco industry, plus the carcinogens carried by the carbon in the smoke, cause a kind of grotesque faustian health deal when choosing to smoke tobacco.4. "For nothing is impossible with God" Luke 1:37My opponent presents a very long argument here, so I will sum it up in short: he says that Jesus no longer abides in his human form, and because of this, Jesus is unable to smoke cigarettes. To defend his/her position, my opponent recites the Chalcedonian Creed as well as 1 Corinthians 15:50.My response is twofold. For one, there is strong theological support to suggest that Jesus still exists in his divine and human form (going back to my opponent's italicized section of the Chalcedonian Creed, here), so he technically would be able to smoke cigarettes as we speak; and I'm not alone in asserting this either. The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry itself declares, and I quote:"One of the lesser-known biblical doctrines concerns Jesus as a man right now. Many do not know that right now in heaven Jesus is a man though in a glorified body. Some object to this and cite various reasons (answered at the end of this paper) for denying His present humanity. They are in error. Following is a biblical demonstration that Jesus is still both divine and human in nature: It is biblically correct to say that Jesus is a man right now in heaven--though a glorified man . But, it would be wrong to say He was only a man. He is both divine and human in nature at the same time (Col. 2:9); He is both God and man right now."[4] The link I've provided from the CARM website has a long and complicated reasoning behind all of this as well which I really don't want to get into - it would take up a LOT of space - but I think my opponent and audience get the idea. Besides, even if Jesus was no longer human, I would still argue that he could smoke cigarettes. To say otherwise would be to say that there is something which is impossible with God - which we understand not to be true. [1] - https://www.hookahcompany.com...[2] -http://www.haaretz.com...[3] - http://www.sott.net...[4] - http://carm.org...