A Challenge to Farrell Till
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 22:58:29 -0800 (00918046709, 2.2.32.19990203065829.0085d654@midwest.net)
At 06:28 PM 2/2/99 PST, Thomas Dervartanian wrote:
>>TILL
>
>RESOLVED: Jesus of Nazareth was born of a
>
>>virgin, i.e., a woman who had never had sexual intercourse with a male.
>
>
>
>TOM:
>
>Interesting that you picked such a topic Farrell. In order to
>demonstrate the reasonable plausibility for the virgin birth you are
>necessarily inviting Matthew to argue an unusually broad topic. The
>foundational premises (as I see them) would include:
>
>1) Evidence for the existence of a transcendant omnipotent creator from
>both Philosophy and Science.
>
>2) Evidence that this creator is actualyzing a plan to redeem mankind to
>himself.
>
>3) The Old Testament (not the inerrency of, but simply the record of)
>bears record of God's actions and God's prophetic words regarding the
>carrying out of his redemptive plan.
>
>4) Evidence that Jesus is the fulfillment of the God's redemptive plan.
>
>
>
>The first premise (and the most foundational to the arguement) alone can
>and does fill volumes in the debate literature. The second and third
>premises are also sufficiantly broad and multi faceted. The fourth
>premise can delve deeply into ancient Rabbinic Messianic understanding
>and expectation. The entire argument can be made without ever
>addressing claims of biblical inerrancy. The debate simply revolves
>around the plausibility of a supernatural claim. Does this mean that
>you will address his arguments in his opening statement if they flow as
>above?
>
>
TILL
No, all that I'm asking is for Bell to affirm that a claim made in the NT is
a historical fact. If I had said that I want him to affirm the historicity
of the resurrection, you could have made the same complaints. Can I help it
if Matt Bell is determined to defend the indefensible?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net