Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#4569
Jesus was traditional family, marriage, gender, sex, and creationist
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 13,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
This debate hinges on scripture from the Bible. The purpose to point people to salvation in Christ, and have doctrine in agreement with God's will.
Round 1
“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:6-9). This statement of Jesus is also forwarded in Genesis, the book of beginnings, preceding the Mosaic law, but its sentiments also echoed in the Mosaic law, and the minor prophets, and also proceeding Jesus in Paul’s epistle to the gentiles, thus is not confined to ancient Israel like the dietary, leprosy, sacrificial and other ceremonial laws, but for all men everywhere at all times. Yet, it clearly disputes our recent progressive cultural trends regarding origins, family, sex, sexuality, gender and marriage.
How do we know these words were truly from Jesus? Historical testimony is based on reliable sources. The NT is not one source from a historical perspective, although 1 source could be enough, especially if it has the authentic evidence of God breathed inspiration to its authors, but many letters, books, totaling 27, 4 of which are ancient biographies, which have evidence of being written well within 2 generations of the alleged events, thus not enough time for myth to overcome the core narrative, all synoptics written prior to the Jewish Roman war, the destruction of the temple and the death of Peter, Paul and James, with oral and other tradition on which some of it alludes going even earlier in time, while other ancient literature, there are significantly larger gaps, thus to dismiss the NT on gaps would also eliminate all ancient history if we are to be consistent. Further, there is good reason that these were eyewitnesses involved in the NT writings, even as Luke clearly mentions there is (Luke 1:1-4). There is good reason to believe these eyewitnesses were sincere and not deceived, who hazarded their lives and well being to proclaim their views about Jesus. Hence, there is multiple and independent testimony from sincere, competent men. The draw back for many are miracles, but miracles are not a problem if the universe was truly created by God, as all evidence points to that, since a randomly produced one is not only not viable, but absurd. If God did that great miracle of creating a universe from nothing, it is no biggie for him to interfere at certain points to suspend the natural laws by which he normally runs his universe. Not happening today is because their purpose was to establish revelation, which is finished; plus, much of secular views on origins is not happening today, yet doesn't stop them then from insisting they happened. So rejection of miracles on such grounds does not hold up. Miracles could then be established by reliable testimony, but NT critics beg the question, rejecting the NT because of the miracles.
Clearly, Jesus, who himself claimed to be divine by associating himself with all the metaphors associated with God in the Old Testament, like Shepherd, Light, I Am, etc. accepts special and young earth creation, since he is referencing Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Clearly Einstein’s relativity that implies that time, space and matter came into existence all at once is iterated in Genesis 1:1, coming forth from an immaterial powerful, supernatural being using a supernatural process. Jesus referencing the phrase “beginning of the creation” clearly brings the reference point to Genesis 1:1, yet he said at that time God created them male and female, which clearly indicates that the creation of Adam and Eve (humanities’ first parents) goes back to the beginning of creation. In Genesis 1, God creates man on day 6, which from the context using evening, morning, day, night and a number ahead of the days, clearly means literal 24 hour days, so a 100 hours or so after the creation of the universe clearly is within the range of the term beginning used in Genesis 1:1. The gap theory and the day age theory is false from this, meaning man’s emergence is not billions of years after the original creation event, but only within hours of its original creation. This means the Big Bang theory is false, as well as the general theory of evolution, both atheistic and theistic. Hence, special young earth creation is taught by Jesus and the rest of the Bible.
But it also means that there are only 2 genders, not 200. Cis, Pan, trans, etc. are meaningless terms; Jesus endorsed 2 genders (male and female). “God made them male and female.” This is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The idea that gender is perception is not fitting with objective truth, which the Bible and Jesus’s view of truth is that it is objective, not subjective. Jesus saith unto them, I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father by me” (John 14:6). “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17). There is never any other gender mentioned in scriptures than male and female. Yet, the statement that truth is subjective, itself would be subjective, thus not objective truth, thus canceling it out into meaninglessness. Gender is determined genetically by Y or X chromosome. Science repeatedly shows this. Any exceptions are abnormalities.
Also, the family unit consists of mother and father, since a man leaves his mother and father as indicated by the phrase, “shall a man leave his father and mother,”, which means it is ideal from God’s point of view that children arise from both mother and father, not mother and mother, father and father, or mother alone, father alone. Purposeful homosexually based families and single parenting is contrary to God’s original intention for the family. Of course widowhood is unintentional, so that would not be sinful.
Further, the phrase, “a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh,” by Jesus clearly indicates that God endorses the marriage unit of husband, who is stipulated here as a male and wife, who here is stipulated as a female, which means the marriage institution from God’s point of view was intended to between a man, husband and woman, wife, not a husband (man) with husband (man), or wife (female) with wife (female), nor could we exchange husband to mean woman and wife to mean man; that is if we are to take the sayings of Jesus seriously anyhow. Thus, homosexual marriages are not God’s plan.
Additionally, the phraseology by Jesus, “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” clearly demonstrate that sex is only be within the union of marriage between male and female, this being indicated by one flesh, thus giving the permission for the joining of bodies together. Hence, any sex outside of marriage between a husband (male) and wife (female) is contrary to God’s intended path for sex; this would include premarital, extramarital (adultery), same sex (homosexual), solo or fantasy sex, bestiality (sex with animals), as well as with objects, etc. All of these forbidden sex would be considered fornication.
Lastly, clearly Jesus opposes divorce, as indicated by the phrase, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” It is never God’s will that a marriage be dissolved by either outsiders or the participants of the marriage themselves. Jesus said, “except be for fornication,” but he indicates that was because of the “hardness of your hearts,” which means God opposes fornication that could cause one or both parties to divorce in the first place, or getting divorced for that reason would be considered a hardness of heart, which he says, “from the beginning it was not so.” Hence, it was God’s original set up for marriage to be one man with one woman for better and worse and for keeps. Scripture says, “God hates divorce,” understandably given its consequences for the family and children, as well as its perversion of the typology representing salvation.
Other verses proving these conclusions would be “marriage is honorable in all and the bed is undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4). This indicates God honors marriage and says sex in marriage is undefiled, that is it is without sin, but any sex (the bed) outside of honorable marriage is considered either whoremongering or adultery, pending if one or both parties are married. “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 6:18; 7:2). These previous verses indicate that fornication is sin against God and our own body, and fornication is defined as any sex outside of a husband and wife’s sexual relationship. Hence, homosexuality would be outside of that “let every man have his own wife” confines, also premarital, etc.
The reason for these guidelines regarding sex, marriage, family, etc. are as follows. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:31-32). God originally created things in nature, and institutions for man to follow, including family, marriage, sex, etc. to represent aspects of his nature and salvation, which was necessitated due to the fall of man into his freewill decision to sin, which also corrupted nature, man and institutions, but originally these were perfect prototypes of God’s righteous loving and nature and his salvation program based upon his qualities; hence, the marital institution between man and women represents the relationship between God (Christ or bridegroom) and his people (the church, or bride). Hence, anything outside of that marriage institution of man and woman is a perversion of God’s perfect prototype. Man and man or man alone with a covenant with himself would be like Christ saving himself, and women with women or woman alone would be like the bride without Christ; this then would represent fornication, idol worship. Christ died to pay for the sins of the church, so we can be involved in a close relationship with him once we receive his salvation in our heart receiving this by grace through faith. The sexual relationship in marriage represents this close intimacy where the Holy Spirit indwells the believer’s spirit and the family unit represents how we become part of the family of God or kingdom of God once we become saved. The perversion of the family without two parents would be like people being begotten without either God the Father, or without the congregation of the Lord that God used in the faithful in ancient Israel to bring about the messiah or Christ, the one responsible for salvation. Without creation as depicted in Genesis it would be like God didn’t create us and we are not responsible; if by random processes then the salvation of God would be random too; hence God would not use a creation by natural selection working on random processes (mutations).
Hence, the Bible is clear on its stand on these issues, so why isn’t our culture? In short the same reason why people need salvation and do bad and believe bad things in the first place, our sin nature and choices to want to sin over doing God’s will. We want our own way, which is the basis of sin, even if it means going outside the boundaries of God to get what we deem pleasant, or “good” in our eyes, but there are consequences of physical, spiritual and the 2nd death (eternal damnation). “For the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Since we all have a sinful nature, “For all have sinned…” (Romans 3:23) we all go our own way at times both in deed and doctrine. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him [messiah] the iniquity [sin] of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “ “However, “God calls all men everywhere to repent [change],” but we don’t want to, but Christ died for all the times we sin, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), so we wouldn’t have to pay the penalty for our own sins, but we must individually appropriate this gracious free gift of salvation of our souls by individual and responsive saving faith in our hearts and heads, to surrender to Jesus as our Savior and Lord. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9).
1. The title is impossible for proof unless we change English.
Jesus was traditional family, marriage, gender, sex, and creationist
This is the title.
Jesus was a historical figure vital to the Christian religion. Bottom line, Jesus was a person.
Structure of the titular sentence
The sentence
Jesus was a historical figure vital to the Christian religion.
and the sentence
Jesus was traditional family, marriage, gender, sex, and creationist.
both assign the set including Jesus, the subject, to being the subset of the set encompassing what is after the term "was". The term "was" is used as Jesus is a dead person. This may apply to one-to-one relationships(improper subsets) such as "Eminem is the real slim shady" and "Joe Biden is the current US president during the writing of this argument". This may also apply to other relationships(proper subsets) such as "George Washington was a Revolutionary War general" and "Donald Trump is a rich white man".
Firstly, the former sentence obviously stands. It declares the following relationship:
Jesus ∈ historical figures vital to the Christian religion
Of course, the latter set may include other figures such as Moses, St. Paul, David, Judas, Martin Luther, etc., but Jesus is obviously a part of that set.
The latter sentence thus attempts to declare... well, whatever this is.
Jesus ∈ traditional family, marriage, gender, sex, and creationist
The latter set, as it is descripted, must be the intersection of different sets including "traditional family", "marriage", "gender", etc., or in more pretentious terminology, the relationship above is the same as saying
Jesus ∈ (traditional family ∩ marriage ∩ gender ∩ sex ∩ creationist)
and in less pretentious terminology,
- Jesus was traditional family;
- And Jesus was marriage;
- And Jesus was gender;
- And Jesus was sex;
- And Jesus was creationist.
The last line is unlikely to be incorrect, but remember we are looking at the intersection of all these lines, not the union of them.
Why? Well, look at this example.
Dr. Chen, Nobel Prize Laureate, Professor at Tsinghua University, Chief Engineer at SpaceX, a Good Father of 2.
This figure was completely made up(at least not with any real figure in mind) but it can be assumed to be logically acceptable. Looking at this title, obviously, Dr. Chen is described to be the intersection of "Nobel Prize Laureate", "Professor at Tsinghua University", "Chief Engineer at SpaceX" and "a Good Father of 2" and not the intersection, and when you look at that title you wouldn't think that Dr. Chen is by any chance a Nobel Prize Laureate but not a Good Father of 2(this is still within the union of the four sets, but not the intersection) unless you think Dr. Chen is lying or bluffing on his profile.
Therefore, to prove the titular statement to be true, all five of these need to be true simultaneously.
- Jesus was traditional family;
- And Jesus was marriage;
- And Jesus was gender;
- And Jesus was sex;
- And Jesus was creationist.
And the disproof of just one guarantees that said statement is not true.
Well, what is traditional family? Let's let Pro explain it.
Also, the family unit consists of mother and father, since a man leaves his mother and father as indicated by the phrase, “shall a man leave his father and mother,”, which means it is ideal from God’s point of view that children arise from both mother and father, not mother and mother, father and father, or mother alone, father alone. Purposeful homosexually based families and single parenting is contrary to God’s original intention for the family. Of course widowhood is unintentional, so that would not be sinful.
A family consists of more than one individual(mother and father) whereas Jesus is one individual. Therefore, Jesus was not traditional family.
What about marriage?
Additionally, the phraseology by Jesus, “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” clearly demonstrate that sex is only be within the union of marriage between male and female, this being indicated by one flesh, thus giving the permission for the joining of bodies together.
A marriage is a process intended between a male and a female, but Jesus is one single male. Therefore, Jesus is not marriage.
What about gender?
But it also means that there are only 2 genders, not 200. Cis, Pan, trans, etc. are meaningless terms; Jesus endorsed 2 genders (male and female). “God made them male and female.” This is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The idea that gender is perception is not fitting with objective truth, which the Bible and Jesus’s view of truth is that it is objective, not subjective. Jesus saith unto them, I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father by me” (John 14:6).
Let's not get into the fact that "cis", "pan" and "trans" are just prefixes and not actual genders, genders are attributes to people(God made them male and female). Jesus is neither male itself nor female itself, Jesus is a male, one single male coexisting with many more males and females. Therefore, Jesus is not gender.
What about sex?
Hence, any sex outside of marriage between a husband (male) and wife (female) is contrary to God’s intended path for sex; this would include premarital, extramarital (adultery), same sex (homosexual), solo or fantasy sex, bestiality (sex with animals), as well as with objects, etc. All of these forbidden sex would be considered fornication.
Sex is either an attribute to people like "gender" as seen in "same sex (homosexual)" or sex is a procedure that a husband and a wife can perform just as a person and an animal can perform(bestiality, strongly not recommended). Neither can be meaningfully, pragmatically, and tangibly used to describe an individual. Jesus is not sex.
With 4 out of 5 parts disproven, it is thus false that "Jesus was traditional family, marriage, gender, sex, and creationist".
Conclusion
- In order to prove the topic correct, one needs to prove that Jesus ∈ (traditional family ∩ marriage ∩ gender ∩ sex ∩ creationist).
- It is proven that:
- Jesus is not traditional family, nor marriage, nor gender, nor sex.
- Therefore, the titular statement is disproven.
- Vote Con.
Round 2
Thank You for the structural critique of an argument; however, in the constitution of the pro thesis argument for brevity sake, I have formulated the argument in such a manner; perhaps, to be more technical conventions, should have said, Jesus was pro (for) or promoted traditional family, of husband and wife, with children raised by both parents, with the exception of widowhood and other exceptional circumstances, as well as marriage being only between husband and wife, gender being only associated with sex, which is only male and female, sex which is only permissible in marital covenant relationship between husband and wife, and a special creationist. That would be more accurate, but the brevity I formulated the argument as such. I still think the point was made, especially since I developed that in my argument. However, I appreciate my opponent holding me accountable for form. But the intent of my argument still holds true, and that is what I want the audience to come away with.
But here are some measures I will take issue with Con. ///Jesus is one individual. Therefore, Jesus was not traditional family./// Technically, yes, Jesus was single and wasn’t traditional marriage itself, but in the spirit I meant it, that he was for traditional marriage in his doctrinal teaching, yes, as Mark 10:6-9 and others already pointed out and explained in my opening. He promoted traditional marriage; this does not mean everybody has to be married, nor is that God’s role for everybody, including Jesus himself, who was to be our savior, destined to die for our sins, but if you are married, it is a husband and wife relationship only, which is contrary to what many believe today, so the point needs to be made hard and fast. Also, that marriage institution between husband and wife is promoted by Jesus and scripture because it represents the relationship between God and his people, or Christ (the bridegroom) and the body of believers, the church (the bride of Christ). Hence, God sets up institutions to represent some spiritual realities, including salvation. (Revelation 21:2).
///A marriage is a process intended between a male and a female, but Jesus is one single male. Therefore, Jesus is not marriage/// Technically true, but we must also look to the context of the spirit in which something is intended at times and debate the specific idea to truly persuade our audience that our opponent is wrong on the idea being posited, but my opponent agrees with the idea, changing the wording to “process intended between male and a female,” thus, in critiquing the form has conceded the general intended point of it, agreeing with it himself; hence, this is a very candid admission, agreeing with my overall sentiments on content, which means that my main ideas on it is unrefuted. Con does this critique of the form of the thesis and its tenets for the remainder of his argument on gender and sex seeking to refute it on such grounds of phraseology, which causes him to conclude, ///It is proven that: Jesus is not traditional family, nor marriage, nor gender, nor sex.///, which means the pro ideas of my main intended points, which anybody could get as the true intent of reading my argument, are indeed conceded, so true for all intent and purposes, which means the spirit of my main argument has been successful, which is great and both he and I are the happier for it, irrespective of conventional forms. There are arguments used by anti-bible critics and LGBT that would attack such principles, but they weren’t posited here, but I am aware of those too and they are not valid in any respect, including the unknowable Jesus view, which I refuted in my paragraph regarding the evidence for historicity of Jesus, whereas at least my opponent’s argument has a legitimacy in terms of form critique, the true deniers don’t have any legitimate grounds, any for an acceptable rebuttal that Jesus was pro the ideas I mentioned, but for what purpose is this important for us. It is not just for legalistic restrictive purposes, kill-joys of an ancient superstitious book?. We have to understand God’s intent in creating things this way, to point to this wonderful relationship we can have with him typified by God creating 2 genders, and marriage between those of different genders, and sex only being in marriage, etc. These are godly principles that point to godly realities, a part of being holy, which God as holy wants us to be. “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16).
Since I have characters, I will posit some counters and their solutions to my thesis that my opponent didn’t offer. Arguments that the words of Jesus can’t be known to be preserved. Ironically, Jesus himself provides a clear statement prophesying that his words will be preserved. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mat 24:35). Lo and behold, 2,000 plus years later, we have many words constituted in 4 gospels that purport to be the very words of Jesus, and even if redactors put that phrase or other ones on the lips of Jesus, a proposition by critics unlikely to be true, there is no manner possible they could have ensured the unlikeliness of words purported by Jesus would survive thousands of years ahead; for even redactors had no control of that, making the prophetic utterance true for all intent and purposes, especially, given the flimsy arguments used by bible critics to support such a claim in the first place, things like using 2nd century gnostic literature from gnostic cults to in a non sequitur manner cast off reliability of clear 1st century documents of the gospels. Further, given that all of the NT was quoted by the early church fathers in the early 2nd century, guarantees the NT’s early composition, which ensures the NT documents were early enough in composition to accrue accurate teachings or words of Jesus, thereby giving Mat 24:35 that much more power.
Another is that there are variant texts or renditions of Jesus’s words, including that of Mark 10:6-9; however, variations of text that are closely worded are hardly a means to cast off overall reliability of a text, especially given those texts have more mss by far than any other ancient documents, which with such amounts would expect some variations, but it is an inadvertent admission to the abundance of riches that the NT has compared to its equals, which don’t have enough texts for comparison in the 1st place. However variants, are extremely close, given us confidence in the general reliability; nonetheless, variants do nothing to ensure that a true pure line could not be preserved, especially when we see the evidence of corruption in the Alexandrian line from Egypt, in which non KJV translations come forth, eliminating those variants on the non Textus Receptus line, making the variants miniscule with conventional errors like spelling, etc. mostly, which comparison within the Textus Receptus main line can easily resolve, given the abundance of texts to sample, which then allows for the emergence of a pure line with the actual words originally published or spoken by Jesus, so that Mark 10:6-9 are the actual words of Jesus, as we have in the KJV, ensuring my main thesis in terms of intended content is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. It becomes obvious any book inspired by God would also have God’s protective care in preservation of his word. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Ps 12:6-7). Why should we expect anything less of an all good, powerful, wise God, especially ensuring that God’s solution, his own Son’s words, actions, deeds in his earthly ministry would be preserved so that we could have confidence in them, thus have faith, which God requires for salvation to take place.
Another argument that could be levied is I addressed in my first at bat was that Jesus was speaking of sex, not gender, but as I already pointed out, the male, female roles within the phraseology of Mark 10:6-9 clearly indicates gender is in view with such terms as husband, wife, mother, father, which then is not only dealing with biological sex. But there is more I will add here, Jesus avowed scripture could not be broken and Moses’s words were the Word of God and that scriptures spoke of himself, and that he came not to break or destroy the law, but fulfil it; that being the case, Jesus endorsed the whole of scripture, but every and anywhere in scripture traditional gender roles related to biological sex are always affirmed, making gender associated with biological sex. I have a whole article on such specifying some of those roles. Hence, it is unsupported that gender is disassociated with biological sex in scripture and in Jesus’s statements in Mark 10, also attested in Matthew 19:4-6, thus multiple attestation for their being only 2 genders and sex to be done between males and females in marriage.
Another argument that could be levied is that the joining of one flesh hasn’t precedent for what that means, thus allowing for other sexual union outside marriage. Given the context of these verses it becomes apparent we can know the intention of what Jesus meant by one flesh, especially given Jesus was an avid supporter of OT scripture, which promoted covenants, in which marriage itself would constitute a main covenant God has enacted. Therefore, it is practically impossible in good faith to believe that Jesus would allow for sexual consummation outside covenant relationship, especially since he endorsed it here in Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6. Given the matter of fornication being outside God’s will with many prohibitions of it, and Paul’s further denunciations and applications of it, and Jesus himself condemning it, it is without validation that Jesus could be endorsing fornication, sex outside of marriage. Paul himself renders a clear denunciation of such as sin and provides the criteria for what it is in 1 Cor. 7:2, showing it is any sex outside of marriage. Given Jesus promoted holiness, there is no way that he could be advocating for unholy, uncovenanted joining of bodies like pagans would advocate. The one flesh idea is also advocated in Genesis in connection with marriage, and given adultery is condemned in the 10 commandments it becomes clear he means a joining of bodies in a sexual manner that is permissible given God has joined the two individuals (male and female) together. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
Another potential idea one may lobby is that Jesus is merely indicating that God endorses such unions of marriage between husband and wife and sex in that union, but his mere mention of it isn’t excluding other types of unions or genders. God creating people originally that way in that idea does not mean God is opposed to deviance of such original creation in Eden. If we take that approach we would have to ask what then is the purpose of Genesis, Paul and Jesus using such phraseology in the first place? In promoting such ideas would have no purpose, if contrary unions, ideas are permitted, making Jesus’s statements utterly meaningless. If sex is permitted outside of marriage, why mention “one flesh” at all after leaving mom and dad to join in marriage? What would he purpose of marriage be if sex outside of it is condoned, where you go into a situation in which you aren’t sinning by having such intimacy since it is not forbidden to a situation in which you can very easily sin, given the restrictions of marriage in the prohibition of adultery in the 6th commandment? Marriage would not being promoted at all, but Hebrews 13:4 says, “marriage is honorable in all and the bed is undefiled, but whoremongerers and adulterers God will judge,” clearly indicating that sexual union (the bed) is undefled in marriage, but anything outside of that would be considered whoremongering or adultery. God could not value the honor of marriage if sex outside such is permitted, as such would nullify the need for marriage. Also, on the matter that the original formation of God’s creation doesn’t mean that variation on gender is not outlawed, makes the very endorsement of 2 genders futile to begin with; also, if we make such a claim, we can’t do it vacuously, without scriptural endorsement for uncondemned roles or genders being different than traditional roles. But all prescriptive measures of changing these roles are always condemned in scripture, including cross dressing, having long hair for men and such like. Those objections are not sustained.
My opponent has only proven that Jesus was related to traditional family, marriage, gender, sex and creationist, but did not prove that Jesus was anything except the last. By definition, the topic stands not.
There is literally nothing more for me to say. Vote Con.
Round 3
//My opponent has only proven that Jesus was related to traditional family, marriage, gender, sex and creationist, but did not prove that Jesus was anything except the last. By definition, the topic stands not// As I already stated this is not what was intended by the original thesis as anybody who views the content could tell. It is the intent of the content, not grammatical/conventional structure of an argument that is most pressing to most people. In a court of law the logistics of an argument count, but any sensible judge and jury looks past minor technical issues to the whole intent of an argument as a whole, certainly this would be true on any legal case dealing with one potentially spending significant time behind bars in criminal proceedings or capital punishment cases where true justice affects not only the defendant but potential families of victims. My opponent admits the content of my intended argument holds true, thus admits my success. In argument 2 I also addressed more potential responses one could oppose the content of my argument and even added answers for that, going above and beyond what was necessary to prove my overall point, which I originally meant and reformulated in grammatical structures that would be acceptable to my opponent, but he failed to address in his 2nd response. It has been established that Jesus was pro (for) or promoted traditional family, of husband and wife, with children raised by both parents, with the exception of widowhood and other exceptional circumstances, as well as marriage being only between husband and wife, gender being only associated with sex, which is only male and female, sex which is only permissible in marital covenant relationship between husband and wife. My opponent already conceded the point Jesus was “the last,” a special creationist.
To reiterate Mark, Matthew also records Jesus’s teachings on such a subject, “ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:5-8). The context here was the Jewish leaders asked about divorce, Jesus refers to scriptural authority for his answer, showing Jesus accepted the OT teachings as a foundation for moral, spiritual, godly truth, thus reading the NT in light of the OT is essential, and understanding Jesus in light of OT teachings is also necessary, but as such special creation is taught, male, female marriage, sex in marriage only, and the family unit emerge in Genesis and is consistent in the Bible. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus quotes such for these foundational elements. Also, Jesus was not for divorce as indicated by the provision regarding Mosaic law for divorce was only granted because of hardness of hearts of the ancient Israeli’s and mankind in general, but ideally was not God’s ideal plan for marriage with the phrase “from the beginning it was not so.” This provisional commandment allowing divorce in cases of fornication (Deuteronomy 24:1-3) only was implemented given a spiritual reason that God was married to ancient Israel, but due to their spiritual infedelity, under the OT covenant, which was conditioned upon obedience to the law, something not so, on the NT covenant of grace via faith, God could put them away, or spiritually divorce them, which became ultimately effectual when they rejected the messiah and his message via the apostles, which then allowed for God to spiritually marry the NT church (body of believers of Jews and gentiles, who become the body of Christ, but never are divorced from under the NT covenant of grace which is unconditional). All the spiritual children that come forth from the gospel as men and women come to know Christ become part of God’s kingdom and spiritual bride which is symbolized by actual male/female marriage of husband and wife as Jesus indicates by the phrase, “a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” Notice, only male with female, not male with male or female with female or male and female with object or beast. There is no provision for homosexual or any other type of union. By Jesus laying out the details for marriage he eliminates those alternatives outside of it, so being pro male, female, he immediately is con anything else including “gay marriage,” which in the Bible and according to Jesus is not a covenant recognized by God, as there is no joining together by God. Also, by being “one flesh,” Jesus is giving the license for sexual unions to happen, which of course his prior speech in the context is in marriage. “ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” This results in the concluding statement “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” indicating that God is joining male, female, husband and wife, which at that point alone they become one flesh, thus have covenant permissive rights to sexual intercourse with each other’s bodies, something not granted prior or in addition to this marital covenant. Jesus saying let not man put it asunder (split it apart) would also mean for the participants in marriage themselves doing such, showing Jesus was anti-divorce something pertaining to the Pharisees' question regarding divorce.
This pro sexual union is the means for children to come about, which is why Jesus was for traditional as defined as starting with man, woman, husband, wife marriage as the foundation, and children emanating from licensed covenant sex, which represents the spiritual children that come forth into God’s kingdom, part of Christ’s bride, those who become part of the spiritual bride of Christ. Jesus was anti-adultery, thus was not condoning having children by adulterous relationships (Matthew 5:27-29). Hence, Paul’s teaching on marriage parallels Christ’s given Paul was inspired by God and Christ is God, so their teachings harmonize and in light of that Paul expresses the true symbolic purpose for marriage. “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:27-32). Same-sex marriages, unions don’t fulfill the typology of the symbolism since Christ (the bridegroom) didn’t marry himself, nor the church (bride) married herself, which would never bring any spiritual fruit, including other believers coming into God’s kingdom and family represented by the sexual fruit-bearing union. That union becoming the family of God is why Jesus was pro pro-traditional family, given God created people and the marriage institution and sexual biology how he did to represent spiritual realities.
None of this was by accident, all by design given God knew his salvation plan would be essential to God’s plan for humanity. God doesn’t want divorce because he won’t divorce the church and they can’t divorce him, bound by an unconditional covenant of grace via the atonement. It was permitted only for fornication in the OT Mosaic law of a man leaving his wife, so it could show ancient Israel, who represented the kingdom of God on earth in the OT dispensation, was unfaithful to God’s conditional OT covenant (spiritual fornication/harlotry) which required Israel’s faithfulness, giving God (their spiritual husband) the divine right to divorce them (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8), so he could enter into a new covenant under the New Testament that was unconditional with the bride of Christ, (Jew and gentile true believers) (Revelation 21:2). Jesus indicated this true intention of God prior to Mosaic law’s temporary provision of divorce for fornication, going back to Genesis, “from the beginning it was not so,” Obviously premarital, extramarital, homosexual sex, along having children out of wedlock results in all kinds of natural problems on earth for people simply because it is not God’s ordained purposes representing his salvation covenant of marriage, sex, family properly. Of course, murdering unborn children is not an option after unbiblical sex, so we have to ride with those pregnancies, but it isn’t God’s plan in the first place for the abortion issue to be an issue to begin with since sex is to be done in marriage, considered fornication, a sin (1 Corinthians 6:18). Paul’s scripture says, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2).
If you have sinned in these areas, sex changes, sex out of marriage, infidelity, divorce, etc. there is forgiveness possible if you enter into a covenant relationship with God via Christ who paid for the sins of the world, including yours, if you by faith embrace him as your Lord and Savior, rejecting your animosity towards him and his Word to finally submit to his will for your life, which is know, fellowship have relationship and worship him in this life and beyond with eternal life. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins...And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled” (Colossians 1:14, 21). Surrender to the Lord, trusting fully in his atonement for your sin as the sole basis for salvation, receiving him as your Lord to be saved and have eternal life. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9). “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). That is God’s will, but if you are saved, then you need to revamp, repent, reestablish fellowship in these areas by surrendering your will to God’s will on these issues, giving up self autonomy for God’s will, so God can bless you. “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).
My opponent has only proven that Jesus was related to traditional family, marriage, gender, sex and creationist, but did not prove that Jesus was anything except the last. By definition, the topic stands not.There is literally nothing more for me to say. Vote Con.
I extend.
Regardless of the concepts associated to the topic itself, the topic is the topic and there is nothing within the description section that changes the topic, Pro's arguments do not support the topic at all.
Saw this too late. Yeah, it would have pretty easily gone to con.
... But Jesus never married... What?
True.