A Challenge to Farrell Till

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

> >>Matthew Bell

> >>2. How one is supposed to affirm a miraculous happening

> >>without first ascertaining whether miracles are possible or

> >>not?

> >

> >TILL

> >That's your problem.  You are the one who said that you would

> >debate "any other matter of alleged errancy" that I "wish to

> >discuss," and I wish to see you give reasonable evidence that

> >the NT's claim of a virgin birth is true. Perhaps you can prove

> >your position on this in the same way that you can prove such

> >claims as inerrancy in the original autographs or the existence

> >of demons or changing water that doesn't exist into blood.

>

> Matthew Bell

> I'm not so sure it is a problem, it just changes the focus of the debate as we

> would need to first address the possibility/impossibility of miracles occurring

> before dealing with any alleged miracle claim.

>


ELF    Um, not really.

    Till can, and possibly will, simply grant that "miracles" are possible.

    YOUR problem remains proving a specific story is an actual instance of a
miracle.

    I would suggest a detailed review of Hume's commentary on miracles, as well any
commentary on same. I would suggest you start at The Hume Archives at:

http://www.utm.edu:80/research/hume/hume.html

    You can anticipate that Till will use Hume's arguments, thus be ready for Till
to grant, arguendo, that the gospels were authored by whom tradition says they
were, and ask why we should believe their approx. 2000 year old stories when we
would immediately dismiss any contemporary tales of like events, as did his fellows
the tale of the young girl in the event already related. Your challenge would be to
show why 2000 year old hearsay. The angel (if angel there were) spoke to Mary, not
to the Evangelists, so they are at best taking Mary's word for what happened..
Alexander the Great's mother made a similar claim, if you don't believe her, you
must detail why the Mary story is believable while Alexander's mother (I don't
recall her name) is not -- without begging the question of biblical accuracy.

    So in a nut shell, Till can grant that Yahweh intended to send his "son" to
make a sacrifice and that Yahweh intended to send his holy spirit part to
impregnate a human female with the human who was to become the Logos incarnate and
the eventual sacrifice.

    What you would have to do is prove that Mary was the woman and that the HS
indeed was responsible for her pregnancy, not sex short of vaginal penetration with
Joseph or some other human male, by overcoming Hume's already well documented
objections plus any other arguments Till may make.


¡Salud!

Mike, aka Elfish Chimera

• Previous message: A Challenge to Farrell Till
• Next message: A Challenge to Farrell Till
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]