(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format

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

JEFF:

> > Of course, we're debating with B="the virgin birth story is true" or

> > something similar, but you get the idea.  I keep returning to the example

> > which you stated yourself, because it's available and the choice of

> > words was yours and not mine.


On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:45:10PM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:

> I have already pointed out that accepting Mary as historically verified

> in the NT documents is different from [accepting?-JEFF] everything

> that is claimed for her.


They are not "different" in the sense that you can let B="the virgin birth
story is true" or B="Mary, Joseph etc have historical verification"
and you'll get a statement which you affirm (I think):
	"If the NT documents are trustworthy records then the virgin birth
	story is true"
(if you feel it is necessary to strengthen "trustworthy" to "inerrant", I
don't feel that the substance of my argument is altered---I have been
treating "trustworthy" as a necessary precondition for "inerrant")

If you agree with this statement, then my whole argument about the
usefulness of debating the virgin birth to determine "if the NT documents
are trustworthy records" is merely a repetition of my earlier messages.
(That's the beauty of letters like A, B and C:  On Sesame Stree they teach
you that "A is for Apple", but A can even be 22/7 or Lt. Pfeffer's
Garters if it suits your purpose)

So, again, if on the balance of the argument it appears that the virgin
birth should be disbelieved, then errancy should be disbelieved.

Jeff
-- 
\/ http://www.freshmeat.net/                     Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Excellent day to have a rotten day.

• Previous message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Next message: (The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]