Debate Format
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:04:54 -0000 (00919098294, 19990215110920750.AAA277@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> > Matthew Bell
> > Such a proposition would be impossible to affirm. By definition it could be
> > affirmed as being 'historical', but not in it's most meaningful sense, i.e.
> > factually established as having occurred. It could never be affirmed as a
fact
> > as it is not verifiable.
>
> ELF But then, there is nothing (much) of doctrinal importance in the NT
that CAN
> be verified, is there?
>
> No one is denying that there were indeed "Christians" appearing at some
point
> in history.
> Even granting full weight to Josephus only gets us one more Jewish rabbi
> preaching in the holy land circa the early first century, it does nothing for
the
> actual content of the NT.
>
> You've just admitted that the virgin birth can't be verified.
>
> That Joseph and Mary can't be verified.
>
> What about the slaughter of the innocents? The flight? Jesus baptism in
the
> wilderness by John the Baptist? [and last I heard, we at least have
confirmation of
> John the Baptist]
> The sermon on the mount?
> The actual existence of any of the disciples? Of Paul?
Matthew Bell
Yes, but I think that what all the above have in common is that they cannot be
categorically shown to be false. Now, I am not asking anyone to prove a
negative, or take the burden of proof that Mary (or any other of your examples)
was not a virgin, only stating that debating such matters don't assist in
determing the truth of falsity of the inerrancy claim, which is surely the
purpose of the list? Discussion on all the above amounts to one thing, the
reliability of the NT documents as true history. If the NT documents are
trustworthy records then Mary, Joseph etc have historical verification. If they
are not, then you don't have historical verification, but that in itself
doesn't prove that they didn't exist, only that it can't be historically
verified. What can be debated, and can assist us in determining whether the
Bible is inerrant or not, is a topic which disproves the claim of inerrancy.
That was the intent of my challenge which I should have worded more precisely.
I look forward to a listing of what logical fallacies are contained in the
above ;0
>
> MATTHEW
>
> > The proposition also begs the question of the
> > existence of Jesus of Nazareth (and a mother),
>
> ELF Noted above.
>
> MATTHEW
>
> > as well as the possibility of
> > miracles occurring.
>
> ELF Well, isn't that one of the problems that the inerrantist has to
solve? To
> simply assert that the bible miracles are different from other asserted
miracles
> around the world across time is simply the fallacy of special pleading.
Matthew Bell
Yes, it is a problem for the inerranitist to solve and it is one I would have
been prepared to go into, using C.S.Lewis' material as my guide.
>
> MATTHEW
>
> > It is ironic that you make so much of the lack of
> > inerrantists prepared to answer or contribute to TSR articles and also the
> > failure of so many inerrantists to engage you in formal public written
debate,
> > and when someone does you respond by setting a proposition that you know
> > impossible to affirm.
>
> ELF Well, what incidents/people in the NT of doctrinal importance, that
underlie
> actual Christian (fundamentalist) belief CAN be affirmed?
Matthew Bell
Umm. the doctine of Biblical Inerrancy?
>
> Pilate and Herod were actual persons, so far as such things can be
determined -
> but there isn't a scintilla of evidence they did any of the things the NT
says they
> did (apart from John the Baptist) that are of any importance to Christian
belief.
> The slaughter of the innocents?
> The granting of a pardon to a condemned criminal on some special day?
>
>
> > MATTHEW
> >
> > It is without doubt that you were trying to make some sort of Farrellite
point
> > in doing so, and I have played along with such to delay that point being
made
> > (two can play mind games!). So I suggest you make your point, receive your
> > accolades from the faithful and get down to the business you are supposed
to be
> > so proficient in and set a serious debatable proposition.
>
> ELF And what could that be?
Matthew Bell
It could be anything which would assist us in determining whether the Bible was
inerrant or errant. How would debating the virgin birth have accomplished this?
Wouldn't an alleged internal inconsistency constitute such? Doesn't Farrell
Till run TSR which is allegedly full of articles which demonstrate the errancy
of the Bible?
>
> Isn't Farrel entitled to have you establish that something ACTUALLY
HAPPENED
> that is at least similar to something in the NT before he argues anything
else
> ABOUT the NT?
Matthew Bell
And how exactly would you establish that any contemporaneous historical event
actually happened? Wouldn't such be dependant on historical documents?
> If you can't prove that there was a Jesus who was crucified, for
> whatever reason, then arguing about, say, the resurrection accounts is
rather
> moot, n'est ce pas?
Matthew Bell
Which amounts to saying, apart from the biblical witnesses to the life of
Jesus, have you got any more! Wouldn't go down well in a court of law that, now
would it?
> Such would make about as much sense as arguing about how Romulus and
Remus
> acquired human language and culture while being reared by wolves, since there
isn't
> a scintilla of evidence that any such persons ever lived and experienced such
an
> upbringing - even though the city of Rome is undeniably real
>
> Christianity is as real as the city of Rome. But we certainly are
entitled to
> decline arguing about the internal consistency of the stories of the founding
of
> the city of Rome by Romulus and Remus absent some evidence that the events
actually
> happened. Similarly why should we argue about whether the stories Christians
tell
> of the origin of their religion make internal sense before they (you) at
least
> establish that at least some of the events actually happened?
Matthew Bell
So given the criteria above why are you on the errancy list? Indeed why have an
errancy list, until your criteria for discussion be met?
Thanks
M.Bell