" But is harmonize found in the resolution? In the description? Is it defined? No, no, and no. But, it is in Pro’s R1"
First off , your case has to be found in scripture. So common sense says or as the book of 1 Corinthians says to compare spiritual things with spiritual.
So this should be known without teaching it to you. Whenever you don't harmonize something, all you have is what appears to be contradiction.
When you and I find passages that are very distinct from one another and show these to a prospective person of the bible, they won't know if the bible teaches what either one of us is talking about or not. All they'll see is the scriptures saying one thing and on the other hand saying something else.
The question they're going to have is "Well is this true in the bible or not?"
Now once everything gets on one accord, another thing I believe the scriptures teach, the prospect or student will understand as a whole what the scripture is explaining.
Saying I never used a specific word is a very weak, tactical copout on your part. It's like saying I never said the debate had to be english and then you start responding with a different language of text. Somethings are just tacitly the case.
"II.c Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters of those books. No, I did not, because the protocol of harmonization [another word in the family] is not in the proper scope [see II.b]. Further, John 5 is not listed as a proper harmony to use, as listed by Pro. Finally, Pro missed that I did not harmonize with Ephesians. Pro further introduces harmony with Hebrews, which is not in his list, either. "
See this is a copout. The scriptures given to you, you know are contradicting as it appears to what you've given. So you're just going to stick to just repeating yourself. This is a dishonest move and it is abandoning your burden of proof. I've harmonized what you've given.
How are you abandoning your burden of proof? Let's say there is a beginning student of the bible before us. After hearing what we have both said before understanding it as a whole, what will that student think?
When they heard what one of us had to say , they understood one thing and they were confident of one that had the truth. Then they hear something else different from the other and are totally confused.
The student wants to be honest with not learning only part of the scriptures but all of the scriptures.
Let's say the student has already learned about 2 Timothy 3.
ALL SCRIPTURE , NOT SOME IS GOOD FOR DOCTRINE OR TEACHING OR INSTRUCTION.
"II.c.1 Pro charges, regarding my unharmonious inclusion of reference to I Corinthians 15: 22, that its reference to “all” being made alive in Christ apparently conflicts with Ephesians 1 with its apparent reference to “some,” to wit, Pro says, “Shouldn’t be some but all resurrection to life here according to you.” "
Let me tear down this weak , sorry effort use of a strawman.
"V.b.1.a I Corinthians 15: 22 [KJV] “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]"
My response to this :
"You didn't harmonize this with Revelation 13.
You also didn't do this with John 5 :
"28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Shouldn't be some but all resurrection to life here according to you. "
Didn't mention Ephesians here.
Are you actually comprehending where I cited what at?
"II.c.2 I ask Pro to quote from Ephesians 1 the word “some,” or any variation of it. Perhaps from verse 4? “Us” means “some?” No, nor in any following verse, up to the last, verse 23, “Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” "
What a silly strawman attempt or maybe you just made a simple mistake with a misquote.
I never said the word "some" within conjunction with the book of Ephesians. I said the scripture you put forth , you didn't harmonize with the book of John and Revelation. Which throws your erroneous teaching of "all" out of the church.
"II.d I therefore rebut Con and redeem the fulfillment of my BoP that Christ did die for all, and that all do resurrect to life according to scripture."
Not according to the book of Ephesians in conjunction with Revelation. Get this false teaching of yours out of here.
"Pro listed, but only in his R1, while noting in the resolution that “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.” Does Pro’s resolution specify specific scriptures? No. Does Pro’s Description specify specific scriptures? No. Do either Pro’s resolution, or Description, specify “harmony,” or any other derivative in that word family? No. Yet in R1, Pro begins throwing scriptures. Con followed suit in R1, per Pro’s Description that“This debate is much appropriate more for theists or people who have had serious time and investment in the scriptures.” I’ve had some 60 years of “time and investment.” Is that enough? In R2, pro declares, "You must present your case with bible,chapter and verse.” But later in R2, Pro moves the goal post to declare we apparently cannot use scriptures to achieve our BoP."
You're not being honest in this debate. The things that I've said you ignored. You clearly don't understand what I mean when I say "throw scripture for scripture". I'm not going to repeat my point on that . It's apparently worthless to you.
Now you're complaining about the debate description. Just because it didn't have arguments in it, is it supposed to or is that for the debate rounds?
Why are you being extra petty over this?
You're nitpicking stuff to death. Another thing that came to mind concerning the scripture is to put away childish things. This is a childish move on your part.
"III.b Pro declares, “The verses I mentioned appears to show a contradiction. Atheists seeing this debate will use this as a validation to discount the bible.” I take Pro at his own words that the scriptures appear to contradict themselves, therefore, what harmony? And if those specific scriptures, the Holy Bible, are infallible, how, then do we interpret harmony?"
Do you know what harmony is ?
It doesn't have contradictions. So all of the scriptures we're laying out would have to not be inconsistent in order to demonstrate agreement between them.
"only because Pro is attempting to link resurrection with the book of life, as if the two represent synonymous terms. If they do, I’m sure Pro would have shown us the definitive “bible, chapter and verse” as is Pro’s Description challenge, to demonstrate the harmony of these two terms. I will not offer Pro’s BoP on that score, because it is Pro’s claim, therefore, his BoP. And that is my challenge to Pro: show us the “bible, chapter and verse” that so links these two subjects as synonymous. Err… harmonious. Actually, they are, but not in a manner Pro proposes since he declares that not all resurrect, nor are all listed in the book of life prior to judgment."
Looks like you're taking issue with the resurrection of Christ and the book of life.
I'll ask you to read over and study Ephesians 1 and 2 , then compare it with Revelation 13.
I've already laid out the explanation in the previous round. Now if you're really serious about acknowledging these scriptures, come back with some questions about what you're still not understanding about these passages.
To be in the book of life, it means you have life, is that so? Are you made alive through Christ being raised up with him?
Also I declare what the book of John 5 declares. It says what it says. Don't pin this on me. You either accept what the scriptures say or you don't.
"IV.b Can’t be avoided; I will offer a Con BoP. I offer a description of resurrection from Acts 24: 14, 15 [KJV] “…so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow [that is, speaking of the law and the prophets], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” How can Paul “believe” the contradictive nature of “the law and the prophets?” I’ll answer in a later round. Let that stew for a moment."
When will you start harmonizing these scriptures?
What was just quoted, it says resurrection.....of the dead...but resurrected to what ?
It didn't say all people are resurrected to life . That makes sense because the book of John 5 says there are those resurrected to.......life ...and....damnation. Again, Revelation 13 makes it very clear, everyone is not in the book of life of the lamb, ****of the lamb slain****. The resurrection of life of the lamb slain that was also resurrected applies to those in that book.
The details here are very important. You see the word "resurrected " and move fast with the conclusion the scripture always means back to life.
" IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. "
The book of John 5 doesn't agree with you.
It doesn't say all people are resurrected to life. But I understand that is what you're saying.
"Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell."
Now you're starting to agree with scripture. All people you can say are resurrected. But those who weren't resurrected to life, their name was not found in the book of life.
That's according to Revelation 20:15
What you have to do is get a clear distinction with the resurrection. As said in John 5 compared with Revelation 20, it is saying of those resurrected to damnation are simply resurrected to die which is the second death mentioned in Revelation 20. Those are the ones not in the book of life that have worshipped the beast that Christ was not slain for as mentioned in Revelation 13 of those that worshipped the beast whose names were not in the book.
Remember the book is called the book of life of the lamb slain. The book of life of the lamb slain would have all names in it if all were on the list of the lamb slain. The lamb's book of life contains those with life in connection to the lamb's death. Why wouldn't my name be in the book of I was connected with the death of the lamb?
Harmonizing again with Ephesians 1 and we'll start at verse 13
"And you also were included in Christ(AB) when you heard the message of truth,(AC) the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal,(AD) the promised Holy Spirit,(AE) 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance(AF) until the redemption(AG) of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.(AH)"
Harmonizing back with John 5 about being resurrected to life. The distinction is made in the resurrection as when resurrected to ***life *** versus damnation, you're restored back to life and it stays that way. A guaranteed inheritance. Those that get resurrected to die again we're not included in Christ. To be resurrected in Christ, you remain alive or as the scriptures calls it, eternal life.
You're hung up on this point about everybody being resurrected but does it mean all people were resurrected through Christ? The scripture answers that.
Looking at Revelation 20 ,
"5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
Your interpretation : "
“But the rest of the dead [those who did not die in Christ, obedient to his word] lived not again [that is, did not resurrect yet] "
You read that into it.
It just says "But the rest of the dead....." with you adding on the " those who did not die in Christ".
Going down to verse 12, same chapter :
"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."
No where here it mentions those being alive, they're dead. Those living with Christ have life as mentioned back in verse 4. None that have life is mentioned here in these latter verses.
To keep from being confused, read the language as it is put. Those not alive with Christ receiving judgment , the context here mentions nothing but the dead. According to what you're saying they are alive but this scripture isn't saying that.
Being made alive by grace through the resurrection, if it were all people, they wouldn't be those names not found in the book of life as mentioned in verse 15. I guess the only point of the lake of fire would be for the fallen angels.
Think about what being made alive means as the book of Ephesians says. You have life forever more. Those not in the body of Christ don't get this gift as mentioned in Romans 5 or else they would be in the body.
"IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. The “small and the great” counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the “great and small” and “just and unjust,” and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell."
Totally non-scriptural and disregards John 5.
V.a Pro argues that the scriptural references given in my R1, VIII.a, .b, .c did not say “Christ died for everyone in the world,” as if the Con BoP must show bible references that say that direct quote. "
How else can we separate from what you're saying versus the scriptures?
"V.b Pro takes my reference to the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus, saying of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” and rebuts my claim that the latter refers to all of us; everyone in the world. Are not the verses of the Holy Biblereplete with references that all of us sin, that all are found wanting in the eyes of God, unless we repent?"
It doesn't say Christ died for all people. You're looking at the word "world" to mean every person.
"V.c I therefore rebut that Pro’s claim of “…“Christ did not die for everyone in the world” must be refuted by my BoP only by “bible, chapter and verse” of only verses that contain these quoted words, or they are not valid rebuttal. Nonsense. A capable reader will interpret that the phrasing used in my three sample verses in R1, VIII.a, .b, .c infers that Christ died for all. "
Let's see if these scriptures say Christ died for all.
"V.b.1 Romans 3: 23 [ESV] “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”. "
"V.b.2 Romans 3:10 [ESV] “As is written, ‘none is righteous, no, not one…’”"
"V.b.3 Isaiah 64: 6 [ESV] “We have all become as one who is unclean…” "
These scriptures say plainly with no private interpretation as the scriptures say, all are sinners or there is not one who is not or was not a sinner.
A capable reader can infer, interpret however they like. That's the problem with not just reading something as is. People and false prophets can come up with anything.
"VI Argument: Harmony as a debate necessity is out of bounds
VI.a I suggest, given its late arrival to the debate, that harmonyis out of bounds, and ought to be scrapped as a necessary component in this debate, even though I have demonstrated that while there exists contradiction in the Holy Bible,it is not all contradictive; it also has harmony, which is good. It is needful that there be opposition in all things.. Selah."
Are you literally giving justification for not going by everything that's written in the bible or for not going by as much as we can find what is it written on a specific subject to avoid that?
You're saying there are contradictions. Are you conceding that the scriptures I provided show the topic statement true but because they appear to contradict what you understand, you just settle with them being contradictions but yet hold your view as correct biblically?
If you wish to do that, then both of us can just have our true side of the bible separated by conflict and say we're both right based on our separate sides of the fence . The problem is it has to be one or the other. A contradiction like this self negates what the actual gospel of salvation is leaving those yet to believe and understand straddling the fence that we're on opposite sides of.
That's why in lieu of settling with what is thought to be contradiction, should just be an obstacle or stepping stone we have to take, working harder, learning what the scripture is saying.
"When is when?We obviously cannot harmonize yet because, clearly, Pro is finding his own contradictions, such as in I Corinthians 15 which he combats. So, do we ignore Corinthians? Or do I ignore Ephesians?"
We shouldn't be having a debate about something that has to be proven with scripture then asking a question of which scripture to ignore. This is supposed to be your source. You don't ignore your source.
You can give up calling everything a contradiction. I choose to continue to read, study and analyze what I'm reading.
How am I combating? I've done nothing but harmonize scripture. The book of Corinthians says compare spiritual things with spiritual. The book of Proverbs 4 says of all thy getting, get understanding. It's something you're not understanding about 1 Corinthians 2:13.
Compare the things between the two passages. You don't ignore anything. Just as the book of Revelation warns about taking anything away from the book or adding on, you read just as written, you don't leave anything out that's written.
Each book and chapter has a piece of information you have to put together. The book of Genesis doesn't go over every single detail of creation. You'll find more information in the book of Revelation 14, Psalms 95, Nehemiah 9, Psalms 74, Psalms 104, Isaiah 45, Exodus 20.
This is how people declare so called contradictions and false beliefs about creation. They look at isolated text maybe unbeknownst to them that they've learned only part of the gospel but thinking the whole creation story and the details there of is only in the book of Genesis.
"Is that how Pro harmonizes? "
What are you not understanding about harmonizing scripture?
Is this why you can't or have not put everything together? You don't know exactly how to do it so you threw your hands up on it.
" I do not personally agree with this tactic. But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony,regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book. "
I didn't know you actually believed in using a source you think has conflicted information.
Let me ask, if you wanted to demonstrate a fact to somebody , would you use questionable or erratic so called evidence or would you use solid material?
Why would you even enter a debate with the belief or maybe you weren't aware that scripture existed against what you knew.
You say harmony is a tactic of mine. Are you saying nobody else would try to demonstrate evidence that is totally consistent in its source?
You're not making sense.
According to Pro, only “some” books can be harmonizedwith others. Who decides which, and which books will be shelved as Apocrypha? Pro? Are we convening still another Ecumenical Council?"
Where have I said only some books can be congruent? Is this all you have left is to strawman? I notice you're not even attempting to build your case with scripture. At this point, you're criticizing over how consistent evidence is somebody's tactic.
That's offensive to scientists abroad that also invest in factual data. The truth and the facts are always consistent or else they wouldn't be what they are.
I don't understand why someone would take a biblical topic that can't be declared correct or incorrect due its source thought of being conflicted unless you thought you had this in the bag.
"Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bibleas the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round."
There goes the debate right here. If you deny the scriptures to be true by holding the position that they have perceived contradictions you can't resolve, it makes a topic like this futile to debate.