(Ron) Farrell Runs for Cover (M.Bell-F.Till)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

M.BELL
e) Mary being the source is indeed a reasonable inference included 
in your own post, 'Since, as I have already noted, it would be impossible 
for anyone except the woman herself to know if she had been a virgin 
when she conceived, how could the fulfillment of a virgin-birth prophecy 
ever be verified?' As Mary would be the only person who would have 
known then it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that she is a likely 
source, though possibly not primary, for the Gospel accounts. 

 
TILL
That's precisely the point.  Since no one but the woman herself could
ever know if she was a virgin when she gave birth, then there is no way at 
all to verify a virgin-birth prophecy.  Hence, Matthew's claim is worthless 
as any kind of apologetic evidence.

M.BELL
No, Farrell, you are missing the point, not making one. Both Matthew 
and Luke are sources of the virgin-birth account. The reasonable 
conclusion that Mary was the source of these accounts, though not 
necessarily primary, leaves you to demonstrate that these sources are in 
error. It is your avoidance of the issue which is 'worthless' not the 
evidence.

F.TILL
Whether your inference is unreasonable or not, verification that a virgin
birth took place is impossible, and so it doesn't matter what Mary 
may have told Matthew.

M.BELL
Yes, Farrell, however much it displeases you, the accounts stand as 
records that such a birth took place. 
 
F.Till
That is about as lax a standard as I can imagine.  There isn't even a hint 
ANYWHERE in the NT documents that Mary ever shared any details 
about the circumstances of her son's birth. 

M.BELL
I believe if I am learning logic properly from my time on this list that
this is what is called 'an argument from silence'? Isn't that a pretty
weak, if not fallacious argument?

 
TILL
Then you haven't learned enough about logic yet.  My comment is not 
an argument from silence.  It simply points out that you don't even have 
a claim in the NT that Mary ever testified to any of the NT writers 
that she was a virgin when Jesus was born. In other words, I was pointing 
out that even your own sources of your Christian beliefs say nothing to 
give you any reason to suppose that Mary ever told any NT writers 
anything about the circumstances of Jesus's birth.   Tell me why that 
would be an argument from silence. 

M.BELL
Well, here is how I understand it:

1. You are presenting an argument.
2. That argument is based on Mary never telling (silence) anyone 
anything about the circumstances of Jesus's birth.

The result: An argument from silence.

By the way if you read Luke's Gospel, you'll have a claim from Mary
herself, as recorded by the writer, that she 'had not known a man' at 
the time of the angelic visitiation.

F.Till
In other words, this is a flagrant supposition. 

M.Bell
No, it is a reasonable inference drawn from the accounts which relate
the virgin birth in two gospels and as 'it would be impossible for 
anyone except the woman herself to know if she had been a virgin when 
she conceived', then Mary becomes a likely source of that information. 

TILL
Well, let me suggest other reasonable inferences.  (1) Mary did tell 
the apostles that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, but this was a 
lie to hide the embarrassment of becoming pregnant before she was 
married.  (2) This was just a legend that developed just as other legends 
about virgin births had developed before this one.

M.BELL
Well, I beat you to these other inferences below. There is nothing new
about them and they stand alongside the 'Mary was telling the truth 
claim' as reasonable inferences. Difference between us is that I can admit 
as valid all three.

F.TILL 
In other words, you are begging the question of NT accuracy and then
arguing that since the NT is accurate in everything it says, there has to 
be a reason why Matthew accurately knew that Mary was a virgin.  Thus, 
it is reasonable to assume that he knew because Mary told him.  It's 
back to the logic books for you, Matt.  If any of us reasoned like that, I 
don't think you'd have a bit of trouble recognizing that it is flawed thinking.

M.BELL
No, I am not begging the question of NT accuracy, just taking an 
approach that historical persons should be given the benefit of doubt 
unless there is evidence to demonstrate deliberate falsehood. 
 
F.Till
For the sake of argument, let's just assume that she told the apostles 
about the circumstances of her son's birth.  How would that prove that 
what she said was the truth?   We're just supposed to assume that she 
would tell the truth?  Oh, I see, and I also see that as an apologist, Matt, 
you're a joke.

M.Bell
It would not prove that Mary told the truth, the same as the Gospel
accounts relating the virgin birth do not prove that is what happened
and it was not a cover up for a pre-marital natural conception, or 
immoral affair, or legend to enhance the Jesus/Messiah status etc etc. 
Each individual can look at the accounts and draw their own conclusion 
on what they *think* is the truth with regard to the matter. 


TILL
Well, sure, and any Mormon can read the Book of Mormon and draw his 
own conclusion on what he thinks is the truth about the claims that 
Jesus appeared in the Americas after his resurrection. 

M.BELL
Yes, the Mormon can and then deal with the intrinsically complex 
problem of the contrary evidence re: the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, 
etc, etc. Do you want to present contrary evidence to the virgin-birth 
accounts?

F.TILL
So I'm going to do the intelligent thing and "think" that it is a waste of 
time to try to reason with you.  

M.BELL
You call that intelligent? I call it running for cover.

F.TILL
You proved that during our debate on baptism, 

M.BELL
Yes, the old baptism hang-up. Get over it Farrell, your semantics 
killed it off long ago.

F.TILL
so I blame myself for not sticking to my decision to trash your postings 
when I see them. So if anyone on this list ever sees Matt make a logical 
argument, will you let me know? 

M.BELL
Don't be peeking now Farrell.

F.TILL
I'll try to take a look at it.  Until then, I have too much to do
to waste time on someone who knows himself that his line of 
argumentation is fallacious.  If you're just going to assume the accuracy 
of the Bible, then there is no need for you to be on a list like this where 
logical argumentation is expected.

M.BELL 
Well, when you stick to logical argumentation and I'll continue to
demonstrate the inerrancy of God's Word.


RON
  To Till: "Hey, Matt just made a logical argument! And you ducked it by 
insulting him when you couldn't rebutt him. Is there some rule about an 
atheist never being able to admit he's wronG?

• Previous message: Gospel Authors and Dates
• Next message: Moderated Errancy List
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]