THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven

1731

rating

167

debates

73.05%

won

Description

The traditional Lord’s Prayer contains a positive attitude; one of hope, not despair, of courage, not fear. It does not ask that God might do something, expressing doubt; it assures God’s actions. In this manner ought we pray, not in weakness, but in strength. Not as a pansy, with wilting pedals, but as a rose with thorns.

Therefore, when it asks for the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, “thy kingdom come,” it is a declarative statement; it will come. It’s not a “maybe,” it’s not a wilting “oh, pretty-please.” I wonder of God even listens to such pathetic entreaties as these.

God is looking for the likes of Peter and Paul, not the willowy, pissed-by-the-wind men and women as depicted by medieval artisans, who even had the gall to present Christ as such a weak, lowly excuse of a man. Such is the definition of “meek” by such artisans. The paradisiacal Earth will not be inherited by weaklings.

Some believe Christ waits to return until Satan's power is at an apex, but I believe that condition already exists; that we already see a greater abundance of evil in the world than even at the time of destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. Therefore, Satan's power is not the trigger, but rather, our own.

My burden of proof is that Jesus will come when the intended strength of humanity will invite the return of the Lord, for I believe we are already past the advent of debauchery that invited the destruction of Sodom and Ghomorrah. It is not Satan who will bid Christ to come, but men and women who have proven worthy to receive the Lamb of God at their table by their evidence of good works against the mayhem of evil in the world. His coming will abolish all such mayhem; he will establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Only then is the Lord’s Prayer answered in full.

My opponent’s BoP is will necessarily rebut the proposal as defined.

Note: this debate challenge assumes as valid that the biblical Jesus existed and is prophesied to return to Earth at a future time not designated by any meaningful clock, including the biblical claim [Matt. 24: 34] that the return would occur "in this generation," "this" being the operative word often concluded to be that of the first century.

Rules:

BoP is shared

Any one forfeited round is a loss of debate.

No new arguments in final round.

Definitions:

Jesus [Christ]: accepted as a biblical figure, the Son of God.

Return: [In the case of Jesus Christ] A physical return to Earth in prophesied power and glory.

Sufficient number of people: admittedly, a vague number which may not even be the equal of half of all living on Earth when Christ returns, but a sufficient number to help administrate the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, just as many are required to administrate an earthly kingdom such as the United States, or the Roman Empire, etc.

The Kingdom of Heaven: A physical and spiritual kingdom administrated on Earth for and on behalf of the entire human population of Earth, entirely for their benefit and progress, by Jesus Christ as the King of the Kingdom.

Round 1

[i]https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-36.htm

08.25.2021 11:00PM

Pro

Thank you, Intelligence_06 for accepting this debate.

In this first round, I will present two arguments:

- The Lord’s Prayer declares the kingdom, but not the timing

- The need of sufficient, capable, righteous administrators of the kingdom is the trigger, and not the degree of evil present in the world.

It is important to justify the use of biblical reference since it is the primary source of information regarding the kingdom of heaven, the primary subject of this debate. This BoP will, therefore, among other sources, use the Holy Bible as a source of argumentation and defense.

1 The Lord’s Prayer declares the kingdom, but not the timing

a. “Thy kingdom come…”[i] declares the Lord’s Prayer. It is a positively charged statement, almost a demand more than prayerful request. The latter is the typical method, supplicating blessings. This particular blessing, the coming of the Lord’s kingdom, called elsewhere the “kingdom of heaven,” or that kingdom which will ultimately be our heavenly abode, is desired almost as if it can be an eminent accomplishment that is coincident with the return of Jesus Christ to the Earth.

b. When Christ’s return occurs is a question theologians have debated for centuries; no one knows for certain. The scriptures recount a total lack of knowledge on the point; only God the Father knows the schedule.[ii], [iii]

c. Speculation, then, is the best one can do. My BoP speculation is that it is not a calendared event. It will most likely not occur - but who can really say? - on August 25, 2035, or January 1, 2100, or any other of several specific dates already predicted, and passed by, without incident. Some suppose that it was to occur within the generation of those who knew and associated with Christ in the first century, but that century, too, passed without incident.[iv]

d. The reference to Matthew 24: 34, above (1.c - iv), indicates an apparent timing to occur before that first century generation all expired, but a full read of the passage from verse 8 to the end of the chapter seems to speak to a later generation when a calamity of “sorrows” will afflict the world, and that the second coming of Jesus Christ will not be fulfilled until that future generation.

2. The need of sufficient, capable, righteous administrators of the kingdom is the trigger, and not the degree of evil present in the world. I will summarize this argument by calling it sufficiency hereafter to mean the previous statement to avoid excessive verbiage of the argument title.

a. What this means is that, perhaps unlike the historic and divine interventive significance of such events as Adam & Eve’s expulsion from Eden, or Noah’s flood, or the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, all of which but the first resulting in widespread loss of human life, at least, and all of which resulting from disobedience of God’s commands, the second coming of Jesus Christ will not be triggered by any measure of evil in the world, resulting from Satan’s temptations, but because when Jesus Christ returns to the Earth, and establishes the kingdom of heaven, Jesus, himself, will not solely administrate the kingdom, which will, in effect, replace all other earthly governments in favor of his own.

b. First, let’s establish what is the kingdom of heaven. There are several biblical references. First, let’s understand that kingdom of heaven, and koongdom of God are similar terms with similar intent: a place where God dwells now, and a place where righteous people will live with him, ultimately.

c. First reference is Matthew 3:2, which says: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”[v] Repentance is a process of personal riddance of sin in one’s life. Therefore, one must expect that the kingdom of heaven is populated by righteous, God-fearing people, and not run-of-the-mill sinners.

d. Second, consider: “…seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”[vi] With righteousness being a preliminary requirement to enter heaven, it is evident that the scope of heaven is wide and deep; “all things” are to be ours.

e. Third, observe: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”[vii] Not all people will enter heaven, but only the obedient to God.

f. Fourth, “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’”[viii] The origin of the kingdom of heaven will not grow out of any present earthly government, but will be established by Christ, bringing it from heaven.

g. Fifth: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”[ix] The kingdom will be composed, and of, and administrated by righteous people – the sheep – and will cast out evil people – the goats.

h. The whole point is that Jesus, alone, will not administrate the kingdom of heaven, but all righteous people will be involved in its administration to accomplish its purposes; Jesus will not do it alone, as all previous references designate.

i. “The Bible is a rescue story, not about God rescuing sinners from a broken creation but about him rescuing them for a new creation.”[x] That “new creation” is the kingdom of heaven, not an abode exclusive to God and Christ, but to include all the righteous as their new home; an eternal home; an eternal kingdom.

j. No kingdom ever established by man on Earth was ever completely administrated by a single individual. Yes, there were kings, rulers, emperors, magistrates, and presidents, but in all cases, these “kingdoms” were never entirely administrated by that person, alone. It follows that all kingdoms require numerous people just to administrate the day-to-day, let alone to effect the long-range plans for the kingdom’s continuance. The kingdom of heaven is no different. The return of Jesus Christ will occur only if and when there are sufficient numbers of people who can bear off the kingdom and effect its administrative function sufficient to assure its continuance into eternity.

This concludes my arguments for round 1. It is passed to my opponent to offer the opposing view in the bottom frame of round 1. I will rebut my opponent’s arguments of R1 in my R2, plus add arguments. Thank you for your attention.

[ii]https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-36.htm

[iii]https://www.moodybible.org/beliefs/positional-statements/second-coming/

[iv]https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-34.htm

[v]https://biblehub.com/matthew/2-3.htm

[vi]https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-33.htm

[vii]https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-21.htm

[viii]https://biblehub.com/john/18-36.htm

[ix]https://biblehub.com/matthew/25-31.htmMatthew 25: 31 - 34

[x]https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/kingdom-god-8-words/

08.26.2021 05:47AM

Con

Framework

Shared BoP

While I have to prove something instead of just disprove stuff that Pro has said, it is nothing more than that. A shared burden of proof, for Con of the statement, is basically prove that the topic statement is incorrect. Not to prove the inverse of the topic statement correct, just to prove the topic statement incorrect. A Con position on "The Republican Party is the objectively better party" would not be "The Democratic party is the objectively better party", but merely "The Republican Party isn't the objectively better party". A middle ground with a centrist standing on it would technically still be of the Con position. You get the point.

Default Assumptions

So, Pro writes in the description This:

Note: this debate challenge assumes as valid that the biblical Jesus existed and is prophesied to return to Earth at a future time not designated by any meaningful clock, including the biblical claim [Matt. 24: 34] that the return would occur "in this generation," "this" being the operative word often concluded to be that of the first century.

Let's assume history as objectively true, and I have no problem admitting that Jesus existed.

The "Prophesied to return to Earth in the future" part, though, is much more vague. Let's look at the term "prophecy".

1: an inspired utterance of a prophet
2: the function or vocation of a prophet
3: a prediction of something to come

In which a "prophet" is:

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: such as
a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible
b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will

In the end, based on how the term is defined, even if someone said that Jesus will return later in time, it does not make his/her/their words authentic in any way. The definition tells nothing regarding that the prophecy must have validity and must come true. It just has to be a prediction made by someone who says things in the name of God. It just has to be a prediction.

I have no problem with someone back in the days saying that Jesus will return, but that does not mean the book of bible is automatically true, or that Jesus WILL in fact return. This is same in essence to me saying in my bedroom, "GTA 6 will come out exactly 1 month from now." Both are predictions.

The entire basis of Pro's argument is unsupported since the debate does not assume the books of Bible as true, and at this point it is too late.

Proving the topic statement wrong

Certainty of the statement

THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven

The term "will" adds a certainty to the statement. It is either it happening or it not happening. In order for the statement to be true, it must be a 100% chance that Jesus comes back. One could use Murphy's law and declare that anything that can happen will happen, given an infinite amount of time, but the same goes for "Jesus will not come back ever". If anything that can happen will happen, it creates a paradox in which we still aren't sure that if Jesus will come back.

To prove this statement wrong, I simply won't prove the inverse to be 100% correct: That would be as impossible as to prove this topic statement correct. Instead, I will prove that "Jesus will return and establish the kingdom of heavens...etc." is not of 100% certainty but a float between 0% and 100%(0<x<1), thus proving the topic statement wrong.

And how can I prove this wrong? Simply, Pro cannot know the future. Pro did not state that he is a prophet that always makes 100% accurate claims and will make 100% accurate claims no matter what. Pro did not even prove that the Bible is authentic source, nor rule it as authentic in the description.

Yes, that is all. Unless Pro can prove that the prophet's claim is 100% accurate just for this, it is impossible that with 100% certainty Jesus will return, or that "Jesus WILL return".

Others

b. When Christ’s return occurs is a question theologians have debated for centuries; no one knows for certain. The scriptures recount a total lack of knowledge on the point; only God the Father knows the schedule.[ii], [iii]

This quote is one of the many that illustrates not even Pro can say with 100% certainty that Jesus WILL come. Based on the nature of the topic statement, this is equivalent to a concession. Vote Con.

Conclusions

According to how "prophecy" and "prophet" is defined, it doesn't automatically mean that the biblical prophets are true, or that the Bible is reliable evidence. So far, without justifying the authenticity of the Bible, Pro's argument is just a huge fallacy of appealing to authority.
The topic statement implies that it is of certainty, 100%, that Jesus will return, etc. That is impossible to prove as Pro cannot know the future.

Thus, the probability of Jesus returning, etc., is not 100%, neither 0%, but a float between the two.

Not even Pro can prove that it is of certainty that Jesus will return and establish the kingdom of heaven, making so that Pro's case did not do anything at all.
VOTE CON.

Round 2

[i]https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

08.27.2021 01:01AM

Pro

Thank you, Intelligence_06 for your first round.

In this second round, I will present rebuttal to Con’s R1 arguments:

- 1. Default assumptions

- 2. Proving the topic statement wrong

- 3. Others

and I will present my R2 arguments:

- 4. The historic Jesus

- 5. The scriptural prophecies of Christ’s return to Earth

Rebuttals, 1 – 3, of Con’s R1 arguments.

1. Con’s Default assumptions

a. Con said: “Let's assume history as objectively true, and I have no problem admitting that Jesus existed.” The statement's face value accepts my R1 statement, “It is important to justify the use of biblical reference since it is the primary source of information regarding the kingdom of heaven, the primary subject of this debate. This BoP will, therefore, among other sources, use the Holy Bible as a source of argumentation and defense.”

b. Then, Con contradicts himself by saying, “The ‘Prophesied to return to Earth in the future’ part, though, is much more vague.” Con places the first phrase of this statement, “Prophesied to return…” in quotes. He must be quoting from my R1, but my R1 does not contain this string. From whence is Con quoting? He does not say.

c. Further, Con has assumed the biblical history as true, and has no valid rebuttal to it. He accepts my statement of using the Bible as a primary source of information, which I cited numerous times in my R1. Prophecy is a significant part of that biblical history.

d. Con provides three definitions of “prophecy” from Merriam-Webster. I accept all three definitions, and will highlight the third, “a prediction of something to come.” I accept, however, Con does not. He then declares, “The definition tells nothing regarding that the prophecy must have validity and must come true.” Since Con has earlier accepted the Bible as a source that “assume(s) history as objectively true,” he negates his later withdrawal of “…the definition tells nothing regarding…”

e. Con concludes, “The entire basis of Pro's argument is unsupported since the debate does not assume the books of Bible as true, and at this point it is too late.” Well, my argument makes no assumptions; it declares the Bible as justified, as quoted above in 1.a. Con’s argument completely ignores the points from my R1 argument as reviewed above, 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, which declare the Bible as a valid source, and completely rebut Con’s conclusion.

f. I therefore declare Con’s first argument as a null, and preserve the resolution as valid.

2. Con’s Proving the topic statement wrong

a. Con argues, again, that prophesy, such as the topic resolution speaking to the return of Jesus Christ to establish the kingdom of heaven, does not assure the prophesy as valid. Let’s return to Con’s definition #3: “A prediction of something to come.” He is rebutting the topic statement “Jesus will return…”Con’s R1 stated on this matter, “The term ‘will’ adds a certainty to the statement. It is either it happening or it not happening.”

b. No, there is no “not happening” about the topic statement, nor Con’s given definition of “prophecy.” The definition does not say, A prediction of some to come, or not to come. Con merely adds the “not” by his own whim, ignoring the definition as Con cited it. This is unjustified addition, and not valid debate rebuttal.

c. Con then argues, “Pro cannot know the future.” No, I do not of my own knowledge, but Con is ignoring my R1, 1.a - d arguments, citing the Bible as accepted source of the prophesy of the return of Jesus Christ, and given that Con has accepted the Bible as a legitimate source of information. See my rebuttal above, 1.a – f.

d. Con then argues, “Unless Pro can prove the prophet’s claim is 100% accurate…” But Con has already accepted the accuracy, given his first R1 argument, “Let's assume history as objectively true, and I have no problem admitting that Jesus existed.” Either Con lies and he does not accept the Bible as “objectively true,” and thus invalidated his entire R1, or he admits he has reversed his argument. Either way…

e. I therefore declare Con’s second argument as a null, and preserve the resolution as valid.

3. Con’s Others

a. Con quoted my R1, 1.b statement “When Christ’s return occurs is a question theologians have debated for centuries; no one knows for certain...” and then declares, “…not even Pro can say with 100% certainty that Jesus WILL come.” By rebuttal, I will point to my rebuttals, above, 1 & 2, declaring Con’s reversals of argument, denying his own acceptance of biblical history as “objectively true,” and the cited definitions of “prophecy.”

b. I therefore declare Con’s third argument as a null, and preserve the resolution as valid.

4. Argument: The historic Jesus

a. No, there is no historic (to us), contemporary, first-century account of Jesus Christ outside of the Bible. However, it must be understood that “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”[i]

b. Science, including an accredited historic record, does not discount lack of evidence as signifying it’s not true, it merely means the record is unknown; potentially to be made evidence at a later time. Scientific theory does no more. For example, though even a historic record of Nazareth as the town wherein Jesus came of age does not discount that such towns as describes Nazareth by biblical record did, in fact, exist with archeological evidence. Therefore, the biblical account of Nazareth is counted a theoretical probability.

c. Today, we accept the academic accounts of historians who did not live during the times of their research, such as accepting Egyptian accounts of Egyptologist, E.A. Wallace Budge[ii] ( having nothing to do with the biblical account, but is used merely as an example), and even first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus,[iii] and second century Roman historian, Tacitus.[iv] The latter two examples both mention Jesus in their histories.[v]

d. It must be concluded, that, although biblical accounts, for purposes of this debate, are recorded as accepted by both Pro and Con in this debate, these additional histories offer secular accounts sufficient to accept such documentation of Jesus Christ.

e. Further, the biblical account of Jesus Christ is believed by 43% of adults in a 2015 survey conducted by the Church of England, which survey included 2,545 adults, with a margin of error of ±1.9% at a confidence level of 95%. Statistically, these values are highly acceptable. 40% did not believe, and 9% were uncertain.[vi] While believers do not constitute a majority, they do represent the largest plurality.

f. I therefore conclude that the historic records of Jesus Christ, both biblical and secular, are sufficiently plausible to accept that he lived, died, resurrected and promised to return, as indicated by scriptural references in my R1, references i, ii, iv – ix, are upheld as valid evidence of the topic statement.

5. The scriptural prophecies of Christ’s return to Earth

a. The following biblical accounts - three examples (there are many others, most repeating these essential points) - record the promised return of Jesus Christ:[vii]

b. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”[viii]

c. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first”[ix]

d. “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”[x]

This concludes my rebuttals and arguments for round 2. It is passed to my opponent to offer the opposing view in the bottom frame of round 2. I will rebut my opponent’s arguments of R2 in my R3, but, by rule, will not add new argument. Thank you for your attention.

[ii]https://aalbc.com/authors/author.php?author_name=E.+A.+Wallace+Budge

[iii]https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

[iv]https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

[v]https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

[vi]https://talkingjesus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Talking-Jesus-dig-deeper.pdf

[vii]https://www.openbible.info/topics/return_of_christ

[viii]https://biblehub.com/hebrews/9-28.htm

[ix]https://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4-16.htm

[x]https://biblehub.com/acts/1-11.htm

[1]Is Jesus Real? SHOCKING New Proof That Jesus Walked the Earth - Welcome to Truth

08.27.2021 12:30PM

Con

1. Jesus being existent

According to various non-Christian sources, Jesus did exist[1]. Even Pro agrees with that. Therefore, regardless of whether the Bible is truthful or not, Jesus did exist, and his existence does not prove the Bible true.

Pro has yet to prove that the Bible is truthful, or that it is a reliable source. In fact, neither did Pro rule out that the Bible is a reliable source in the description, so any attempt in doing so would be a moving the goalpost fallacy, since the condition of the Bible being true is entirely unexpected to Con. The Bible being true isn't common knowledge either: We have no way of proving it, and it is up to Pro to prove that the Holy Bible is in fact an authentic source since Pro insisted to take large chunks of arguments with sourcing solely from the Bible.

The Bible touched on the topic of prophesizing that Jesus will return later in time. Is that enough for it to be an authentic source? No! That would be the same in essence as claiming QAnon is a reliable source on the US politics, or that Historical fanfiction is a factual account of history. In fact, we do not even know if the kingdom of heavens exists or not: It is not assumed to be true, and it came from a source that isn't proven to be reliable.

In short, since there is no presented proof of the Bible being a reliable and authentic source on this topic and that Jesus exist regardless of what the Bible said, it wouldn't be proven that I have accepted Pro's face value. What if the Bible is just a brainwashing device involving Jesus as a character in the book? Well, we don't know if it is really false. Jesus being historically existent does not automatically imply that the Bible is a trusted source. Pro still needs to justify why the Bible is accurate in order to win this debate.

So no. I do not accept the Bible, and I have no reason to.

2. A prediction of something to come

Pro falsely interpreted the term "to come", and twisted his definition so that "to come" means "come true", and used that "semantical argument" to prove the assuredness of the scenario prescribed in the topic statement. The problem is: "to come" means not "come true", but rather, "something in the future"[2]. So, the definition of "prophecy" as shown here would actually mean, "A prediction of something in the future". A prophecy is basically a prediction of what the future(or at least one aspect of it) will be like, especially stated by someone trusted to make those predictions(prophets).

In order for something to be a prophecy, it just has to be a prediction of one or several future events. "I will die exactly 60 years from now", for example, is a prophecy. What is not a prophecy? Something said about past events. I mean, why would anyone try to predict something that has already happened? Nevertheless, "to come" is just a modifier that signifies we are talking about the unknown future, the yet-to-come, as opposed to the known history, the already-came part of time. "To come" is not "to come true", and it signifies nothing of certainty.

As for "Not come true", even if one predicts that something WON'T happen in the future, it is still predicting the state of the future, which doesn't negate it from being a prophecy. There will be an example below, of a prophecy predicting that something will not happen.

Still, if they don't come true, are they not prophecies at all? They are still prophecies, as they are still predictions. Here is a list of failed prophecies of the Bible[3]. Excluding the ones directly related to this topic statement, and there are still failed prophecies, such as those say somebody will do something, and that somebody died before doing that thing. For example:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.
This prophecy was never spoken by Jeremiah.

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Again, Jesus is never referred to as Emmanuel (Immanuel).

Amos 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
Many times, Jews have been pulled up out of their land. The ownership of their land is still being fought for.

By definition, all of these "prophecies" are indeed prophecies, yet those prophecies never came true. All these examples illustrate that assuredly coming true is not an intrinsic attribute of a prophecy, which agrees with the definition.

Finally, I extend that Pro cannot know the future, on the fact of that Pro needs to prove the Bible is true. I did not accept the Bible as true and nowhere does the debate actually hint that the Bible is true. I extend that it is not of certainty that Jesus will return, etc., thus proving the topic statement wrong.

3. Pro's concession

Since Pro never proved the Bible to be 100% truthful and Pro doesn't know assuredly the future, it is still up in the air whether if Jesus will return, and not 100% sure.

Conclusions

Jesus exists historically outside the Bible, and Pro admits that. Just because Jesus exists does not automatically make Bible a truthful source. External proof is needed and is currently nowhere to be seen.

Thus, I do not accept that the Bible IS accurate, and there is no reason for me to do so.

The Bible is not assumed to be true in the description, so it is truly uncalled for.

Pro has based his argument on a set of sources that Pro has not fully justified to be true. Pro's "proof" is unsound.

The definition of "prophecy" includes "to come", which means "in the future" rather than "to come true". Coming true is not an intrinsic attribute of a prophecy and there has been prophecies that fails, in the Bible.

Thus, it is not assured that Jesus will return.

Not even Pro can say assuredly that Jesus will return, and Pro is dependent on a source yet to be proven to be true.
Therefore, since it isn't of 100% certainty that Jesus will return and establish the Kingdom of Heavens in the future, the topic statement is proven to be false.

Vote Con.

Sources

[2]To come definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

[3]Failed Prophecies (50megs.com)

Thank you for reading.

Round 3

[i]https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-syllogism.html

08.28.2021 02:04AM

Pro

Thank you, Intelligence_06 for your second round.

In this third round, I will present rebuttal to Con’s R2 arguments:

- 1. Jesus being existent

- 2. A prediction of something to come

- 3. Pro’s concession

- 4. Con’s R2 conclusions

By rule, I will not present new arguments.

I present the following rebuttals, 1 – 4, of Con’s R2 arguments.

1 Con’s Jesus being existent

a. Con presents an issue of topic migration from its intended course by attempt to cast doubt on the truthfulness of the Bible when “Bible” does not even find existence in the topical statement. I presented no “Bible” in the topic statement, nor gave definition of it. Jesus is the topic, specifically his return to earth for the purpose of establishing the kingdom of heaven. I caution Con to stay on point.

b. As is typical of debate, the Bible serves only as source material. Con has accepted the source by clearly stating, in R1, “Let's assume history as objectively true, and I have no problem admitting that Jesus existed.” I take Con at his word on the matter, since it is the crux of the topic. The Bible is not.

c. That Con then argues against this R1 statement is evidence, continued in R2, that Con disagrees with himself. It is not my BoP to rescue Con from self-contradiction. Let it be so.

d. Con offers a suggestion: “What if the Bible is just a brainwashing device involving Jesus as a character in the book?” What if? That statement cannot be construed to result in logical conclusion such as is required of a syllogism, wherein two or more statements, P1, P2, Pn… are proposed followed by a conclusion. For the conclusion to be reasonable, all proposition statements must be true.[i] A “what if” statement begins with the assumption that what ever follows that introduction is not true, at least, it is not a given that it is true. That truth is to be demonstrated, but that demonstration is not merely by offering a concluding statement, for that would be circular reasoning, which is fallacious.[ii]

e. Con’s topical migration from the topic statement cannot, therefore, prove Con’s BoP, and the topic is preserved.

2. Con’s prediction of something to come

a. Con attempts to throw doubt on his own definitions of “prophecy,”by denial of the third definition, “a prediction of something to come.” Con means to say that the coming is not a truth. Again, Pro engages a convenient forgetfulness of his own statement, “Let's assume history as objectively true, and I have no problem admitting that Jesus existed.”

b. Since biblical history includes the element of prophecy, and is objectively true by Con’s R1 acceptance, one must therefore conclude that the prophecy of the return of Jesus Christ is objectively true.

c. I do not accept as valid Con’s attempt to topically drift from “prophecy,” the definition of which Con offered in argument, to “prediction,” even though the latter term is used in definition of prophecy. Prophecies are clearly borne out and demonstrated by evidence of the prophecies as given actually occurring. Whereas, predictions come and go, with only potential for realization. Observe:

d. Definition: Prediction: something that is forecast.[iii] One can see that while prophecy is linked characteristically to prediction, the reverse is not. Prediction, itself, has no force of reasoning to declare that it is “something to come;” it is only forecast. Weather professionals, who nightly take a segment of local news broadcasts to “forecast” our local climates, use that term, and neither “prediction”, nor, certainly, “prophecy.” Con cannot make that drift, either.

e. Con’s prediction is not prophecy and, therefore, does not prove Con’s BoP, and the topic is preserved.

3. Con’s declaration of Pro’s concession

a. Con declares that I have not proven the Bible is true. Proof of the Bible is not the topic’s purpose, since, as noted above, the Bible is an element not given voice in the topical statement. Further, Con has, himself, conceded that “the history is objectively true.” Con said it, and I accept it. That Con now wishes to walk away from that statement is entirely a choice Con has made. Reader, take note.

4. Con’s R2 conclusions

a. Con accepts the existence of Jesus Christ, but declares him mute. As I demonstrated in R1 by source, there is historic, non-biblical record of the existence of Jesus. However, apparently according to Con, Jesus must have never said anything because there is no historic record, outside of the Bible, of Jesus uttering a single word.[iv] Nor is there record of his writing anything that has endured as a personal record, including in the Bible.

b. Can we really stretch logic to that degree of lack to say with certainty that the man was a mute, and pen and paperless? The assumption is a stretch too far that a man, even one just in his thirties when crucified, spoke and wrote nothing.

c. No, such a stretch is not acceptable, so we must accept that whatever written record of his words is left to us, and, given their worldwide acceptance by a greater number of the Earth’s human population than any other religious doctrine, 31.2%,[v] I submit that the biblical record is valid as accepted.

d. Therefore, Con’s attempt to discredit the biblical record by an attempt to accept Jesus, but not his words, is also a stretch too far.

e. Con then concludes that the return of Jesus cannot be demonstrated as true, but, again, Con engages in topical migration. The topic does not state that Jesus will return, and that alone, and that it is Con’s BoP to demonstrate that Jesus will not return. The topic is rendered as a description of what will trigger his return, to wit: “THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven.” Con’s entire argument over two rounds has avoided this trigger, “when a sufficient number of people…” While Con gags Jesus Christ, he has completely ignored even one person, let alone many, as I argued in R1, “The need of sufficient, capable, righteous administrators of the kingdom is the trigger, and not the degree of evil present in the world.” To this trigger, Con has gagged himself through two rounds. Given the rule prohibiting new argument in R3, Con is prohibited by rule from offering such an argument in R3.

5. Conclusion

a. I conclude that, as 4.e has declared Con’s lack of addressing the primary challenge of the topical statement that Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven, Con has missed the thrust of his BoP and has failed to rebut the topic and my BoP. His argument, instead:

- has attempted to attack the Bible as a document of history,

- has attempted to demonstrate that prediction is prophecy,

- by so doing, has attempted to prove the topic as wrong,

- that Jesus is not coming, period,

- that Con accepts Jesus, but Jesus gagged,

- that Pro has not proven the Bible is true, but that proof is not in the scope of the debate

and these arguments have failed by my listed rebuttals of R1 & R2. I therefore ask for your kind consideration of my arguments ands rebuttals through three rounds and cast your vote for Pro. Thank you for your attention.

[ii]https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Circular-Reasoning

[iii]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prediction

[iv]https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

[v]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/

08.29.2021 12:26PM

Con

1. Jesus being existent

Pro has given cited the Bible as evidence in the first round. If Pro has failed to prove in any way that the Bible is a reliable source within this debate, it is thus deemed that the Bible is not trustworthy as a source in this debate. Just because the Bible is not mentioned anywhere in the topic statement, and there is no presented proof that it is true, that is nothing to prove that the Bible is a source reliable enough to amount to something in this debate, but rather the opposite of that: If the Bible was never intended to be brought up systematically according to the topic statement, and it isn't proven to be true independently, Why is it suddenly a credible source?

Of course, Jesus exists, as shown by secular pieces of evidence that can be proven to be accurate records of history. Just because Jesus exists does not mean the Bible is an accurate account of history though: It merely touches on the topic of what Jesus did and predicted what the world will be like, but there is no proof that the Bible is factual.

As for "1d", of course I am not claiming with assuredness that the Bible is for brainwashing. We can't prove that. Neither could we say, with assuredness, that the Bible is credible and factual. At least, Pro failed to even attempt to prove why the Bible is credible and factual.

And in the end, the removal of Bible from this topic would easily remove all basis for Pro's constructive, due to that nowhere does it say that Jesus will return and establish the kingdom of heavens other than the Bible. Since the Bible is not systematically included to be true in this debate, and Pro has failed to prove that the Bible IS in fact true, Pro's entire argument thus is unsupported.

2. A prediction of something to come

a. Con attempts to throw doubt on his own definitions of “prophecy,”by denial of the third definition, “a prediction of something to come.” Con means to say that the coming is not a truth. Again, Pro engages a convenient forgetfulness of his own statement, “Let's assume history as objectively true, and I have no problem admitting that Jesus existed.”

However, we have no solid proof of that the Bible is true. I accept history in this debate but there is no proof that Bible is history. None. "To come" doesn't mean "to come true" either: By definition, it means something related to the future. Predicting the future does not have to have the prediction come true: In fact, there are examples in the Bible of prophecies that did not ever come true. Pro did not touch on that, and I hold my claim that prophecies does not have to come true to be prophecies. Based on the pattern, how can we conclude, with assuredness, that this one will come true?

c. I do not accept as valid Con’s attempt to topically drift from “prophecy,” the definition of which Con offered in argument, to “prediction,” even though the latter term is used in definition of prophecy. Prophecies are clearly borne out and demonstrated by evidence of the prophecies as given actually occurring. Whereas, predictions come and go, with only potential for realization.

Prophecies are not always evident in reality. There are prophecies that did not ever come true. To say that prophecies will come true of certainty is against the definition of the term itself: In which there is no such condition. Predictions come and go, with only potential for realization. Yes. That is how it works, and the two are synonyms.

d. Definition: Prediction: something that is forecast.[iii] One can see that while prophecy is linked characteristically to prediction, the reverse is not. Prediction, itself, has no force of reasoning to declare that it is “something to come;” it is only forecast.

"Something to come" is basically "something related to the future". Even if the terms don't interlink with each other, they are similar: Something forecast is something to come, by definition. Weather forecasters, of course, can use the term "prophecy" too, due to the synonymous nature within the terms. Though, which words of the similar meaning do they use, is none of our business.

Seeing the examples above, it became clear that Pro's idea of "Prophecy" does not align with its actual meaning from the dictionary. A prophecy is a prediction of the future, essentially, with no intrinsic quality of coming true, but an intrinsic quality of always dealing with the future.

a. Con declares that I have not proven the Bible is true. Proof of the Bible is not the topic’s purpose, since, as noted above, the Bible is an element not given voice in the topical statement. Further, Con has, himself, conceded that “the history is objectively true.” Con said it, and I accept it. That Con now wishes to walk away from that statement is entirely a choice Con has made. Reader, take note.

I will say this again, Pro failed to prove that the bible is historical fact. Pro only gave speculation, which I will get to in a second.

4. Jesus?

c. No, such a stretch is not acceptable, so we must accept that whatever written record of his words is left to us, and, given their worldwide acceptance by a greater number of the Earth’s human population than any other religious doctrine, 31.2%,[v] I submit that the biblical record is valid as accepted.

"Just because many people believe in the Bible, it is true!" That is a bandwagon fallacy and does not prove the Bible to be true. If 90% of all people believed in false propaganda, is it true then? Just because this book writes something that could have been spoken by Jesus, it doesn't negate the possibility of the Bible being historical fanfiction and that Jesus said something else but not that.

Conclusion

The Bible is NEVER proven to be historically accurate by Pro. Since Pro's "evidence" for that Jesus will return is heavily dependent on the Bible, not having a sound proof of Bible being accurate would thus make Pro's constructive baseless. Pro's proof is unsound due to a bandwagon fallacy, i.e. "Many people believe in 'Jesus' words', so it is true!" With the Bible never proven to be accurate, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP and it is not of certainty that Jesus will return and establish the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus exists, but that does not prove the Bible to be true, since we cannot negate the possibility of it not accurately recording Jesus' words.
The topic statement not mentioning it does not deem my stand to be false, but still that Pro did not justify the usage of the Bible.

By definition, a prophecy is nothing more than a prediction of future. Pro's opinion is not more authentic than the dictionary. There are biblical prophecies that have failed, and Pro never touched on those. Coming true is never an intrinsic quality of a prophecy and the only intrinsic thing about a prophecy is that it is "something to come", or dealing with the future. Thus, it is not of certainty that the prophecy of the topic statement will come true.

My BoP is just to prove the topic statement is not true. I have proved that the topic statement is of certainty and Pro accepted that. To prove the topic statement is not 100% true is already a Con's win.

Vote Con.

Thank you for reading.

09.26.2021 01:25PM

#26

-->

@Intelligence_06

I understand why in your view there is ground for the "K". But you're not disputing the fact that the intention of the debate was very obvious, and you took advantage of what is at worst a relatively small error (compared to the major errors that make most of these tricky Ks justified) and at best not an error at all to alter the course of the round.

09.25.2021 04:32PM

#25

-->

@Barney

Thank you for voting

09.25.2021 01:17AM

#24

-->

@Username

It is Pro's blunder for not exclusively include the Bible as the one true source for this debate. Just because the topic is related to the Bible does not automatically make it an actual source. The debate "Hogwarts is a real place" would definitely be related to Harry Potter, but would they be good sources for saying that yes, Hogwarts is indeed a real place?

"Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything."

If we assume a predefined area of knowledge as true before the debate started, then the story would be different. However, Pro ruled not the Bible as a reliable source, what he should have done.

09.24.2021 11:10PM

#23

-->

@Intelligence_06

Just because a point may be true doesn't mean that you can cite it in any context. Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything.

09.24.2021 11:09PM

#22

-->

@Intelligence_06

That may be true but the debate clearly seems to be about what the Bible says. Not whether it's accurate.

09.24.2021 11:06AM

#21

-->

@Username

Because the bible is not an accurate source nor proven to be so nor accepted to be so.

09.24.2021 11:05AM

#20

v0te bump

09.23.2021 12:38AM

#19

Why deliberately derail a debate that was clearly supposed to be an argument about what the Bible says by making the argument that the Bible isn't actually true?

09.21.2021 12:48PM

#18

vote bump

09.19.2021 06:03AM

#17

Bump

drlebronski

09.03.2021 11:52PM

#16

-->

@Ramshutu

voteeeeeeeeeeeeeee

drlebronski

09.03.2021 10:50PM

#15

hmmmmmmmm ive seen this argument structure before........

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3183-a-stopped-clock-would-still-be-considered-right-two-times-a-day

09.03.2021 06:40PM

#14

Voters, please vote.

08.29.2021 11:38AM

#13

aaa

08.25.2021 11:03PM

#12

-->

@Intelligence_06

So we begin! Thank you, Intelligence_06, for accepting the debate. I look forward to our contest. Good lock!

zedvictor4

08.24.2021 06:58AM

#11

-->

@949havoc

Belief should not be condemned......No matter how "vague" the basis of a belief might be.

coal

08.24.2021 02:44AM

#10

-->

@949havoc

> I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present.

Judges are going to look at how you're defining the BOP so you should either remove what you've written for CON or replace it with what I wrote.

> Perhaps I ought to remove a suggested BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open season.

That would be fine, or you could replace it with what I wrote.

> I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers."

Dostoevsky was a better author than Schiller was a playwright. lol

08.24.2021 02:16AM

-->

@coal

Thanks for your commentary. I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present. I present my BoP. Perhaps I ought to remove a suggestede BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open aeason.

I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers." I have composed a number of essays on the subject at various times in my life, but had not really thought of it when developing this challenge, but is definitely related.Not so familiar with Schiller.

coal

08.24.2021 02:02AM

-->

@Barney

@949havoc

I agree with Ragnar. The resolution states "THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven." Clarification would be helpful here.

The burden of proof for the resolution as written is shared, and PRO must prove that "Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven"; whereas CON must prove that "Jesus will NOT return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven."

While you correctly note that one way to negate is to argue that "Jesus will return," the alternative you propose ("his time has past and no longer needed") is NOT the resolution's negation. Rather, the way to negate the resolution would be to prove that "a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven" is NOT the determining factor for the second coming.

Rather, the alternative you propose is simply a reason WHY Jesus might not return (and is therefore subsumed into the preceding method of negating), presumably based on either Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor recited by Ivan to Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov or Friedrich Schiller's play, "Don Carlos."

08.23.2021 03:04PM

-->

@Bones

Thank you, glad to be here

08.23.2021 03:04PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

That reduces the matter to semantics. A rose by any other name...

Bones

08.23.2021 01:38AM

Another theist to add to the list...

Welcome to the cite.

08.23.2021 01:25AM

Kingdom of heaven? Why a kingdom? Why not a republic or a state of anarchy?