(March 6, 2014 at 7:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: What'd I say? 20 bucks this never happens after a bunch of "ironing" of details.

People use the word "proof" in different ways.

I just want to make sure we are using the term univocally in the sense that it means "evidence".

Do you understand why that is important. If you do not, I will tell you.

I will preface with...it's no longer 'faith' if you can prove it. (a mantra I used to say often when I was a Christian, when having debates with atheists) lol

---

(March 6, 2014 at 7:20 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 7:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: What'd I say? 20 bucks this never happens after a bunch of "ironing" of details.

People use the word "proof" in different ways.

I just want to make sure we are using the term univocally in the sense that it means "evidence".

Do you understand why that is important. If you do not, I will tell you.

Hearsay is not proof. Fables passed down through the centuries is not proof. You believe it so it must be true, is not proof. You learned it from Bible scholars, is not proof.

Just so we're on the same page. lol

(March 6, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Okay. My pick >> You need to prove why you believe the Bible is a credible source to establishing the existence of God. (The One and Only God, using your terminology)

How about this for a debate topic:

"Has God raised Jesus from the dead?"


The topic is concise and when defended, will satisfy your request for both demonstration of the reliability of the ancient biographies of Jesus's life as well as demonstrating via inference to the best explanation that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead as the climactic event of His ministry and thereby furnishing proof that He was God incarnate.

If we agree on the topic, I assume you will seek to refute this and I will seek to affirm it.

---

(March 6, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Hearsay is not proof. Fables passed down through the centuries is not proof. You believe it so it must be true, is not proof. You learned it from Bible scholars, is not proof.

Just so we're on the same page. lol

I will be using historical documents and eyewitness accounts to support my arguments.

I will not be using hearsay or fables to support my case.

I will not say I believe it therefore it must be true to support my case.

The research, scholarly articles and publications of New Testament scholars will be used when needed as support for my case.

(March 6, 2014 at 7:45 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Okay. My pick >> You need to prove why you believe the Bible is a credible source to establishing the existence of God. (The One and Only God, using your terminology)

How about this for a debate topic:

"Has God raised Jesus from the dead?"


The topic is concise and when defended, will satisfy your request for both demonstration of the reliability of the ancient biographies of Jesus's life as well as demonstrating via inference to the best explanation that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead as the climactic event of His ministry and thereby furnishing proof that He was God incarnate.

If we agree on the topic, I assume you will seek to refute this and I will seek to affirm it.

I don't like that topic. And the reason is, because I don't care about it. What I think is more relevant, and more 'interesting' to debate, would be a Christian (in this case, you) proving the validity of the Bible, and explaining why you see it as credible proof of God's (even Jesus') existence.

Most everyone here doesn't believe in God or a god, to begin with, let alone that Jesus was raised from the dead, or that God did it, or that they're both one in the same, etc etc...

Soooo....I think my topic idea is more relevant, and interesting.

(March 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Evolution is true. The Genesis creation account is a myth.

Come at me, bro.

Even the Bible preaches evolution so that will be a short debate.

(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I don't like that topic. And the reason is, because I don't care about it.

You say you do not care if God raised Jesus from the dead. Then you go on to say this:

(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: What I think is more relevant, and more 'interesting' to debate, would be a Christian (in this case, you) proving the validity of the Bible, and explaining why you see it as credible proof of God's (even Jesus') existence.

If I am arguing that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead at some point in the past (an actual historical event), then it follows that Jesus did exist and that this resurrection was a divine miracle which is evidence that He was who He claimed to be i.e The Son of God.

How could you not care about me arguing this?

(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Most everyone here doesn't believe in God or a god, to begin with, let alone that Jesus was raised from the dead, or that God did it, or that they're both one in the same, etc etc...

Soooo....I think my topic idea is more relevant, and interesting.

I think you misunderstand what the topic is about. Me defending my affirmation of the debate topic entails that I do all that you ask.

Do you understand that?

I will systematically start with defending the reliability of the gospel accounts and then from there deal with four historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which must be explained. I will argue that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation for these four historical facts.

So in presenting my case, I will be doing all that you ask me to do.

Or if you want to just have a debate on the reliability of the gospels we can do that.

I smell WLC

Quote:The topic is concise and when defended, will satisfy your request for both demonstration of the reliability of the ancient biographies of Jesus's life as well as demonstrating via inference to the best explanation that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead as the climactic event of His ministry and thereby furnishing proof that He was God incarnate.

You've already got yourself in a bit of a bind, mate. There are no '...ancient biographies of Jesus's [sic] life...'. Not a single one.

Boru

(March 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:The topic is concise and when defended, will satisfy your request for both demonstration of the reliability of the ancient biographies of Jesus's life as well as demonstrating via inference to the best explanation that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead as the climactic event of His ministry and thereby furnishing proof that He was God incarnate.

You've already got yourself in a bit of a bind, mate. There are no '...ancient biographies of Jesus's [sic] life...'. Not a single one.

Boru

There are four actually.

(March 6, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Evolution is true. The Genesis creation account is a myth.

Come at me, bro.

Even the Bible preaches evolution so that will be a short debate.

No it doesn't.

(March 6, 2014 at 8:06 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I don't like that topic. And the reason is, because I don't care about it.

You say you do not care if God raised Jesus from the dead. Then you go on to say this:

(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: What I think is more relevant, and more 'interesting' to debate, would be a Christian (in this case, you) proving the validity of the Bible, and explaining why you see it as credible proof of God's (even Jesus') existence.

If I am arguing that God did in fact raise Jesus from the dead at some point in the past (an actual historical event), then it follows that Jesus did exist and that this resurrection was a divine miracle which is evidence that He was who He claimed to be i.e The Son of God.

How could you not care about me arguing this?

(March 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Most everyone here doesn't believe in God or a god, to begin with, let alone that Jesus was raised from the dead, or that God did it, or that they're both one in the same, etc etc...

Soooo....I think my topic idea is more relevant, and interesting.

I think you misunderstand what the topic is about. Me defending my affirmation of the debate topic entails that I do all that you ask.

Do you understand that?

I will systematically start with defending the reliability of the gospel accounts and then from there deal with four historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which must be explained. I will argue that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation for these four historical facts.

So in presenting my case, I will be doing all that you ask me to do.

Or if you want to just have a debate on the reliability of the gospels we can do that.

The Bible is one entire book. Why are we 'starting' with the Gospels? The entire OT, if you believe it, is a foreshadowing of the NT. Yet, many Christians cherry pick this or that, as to what they believe out of the OT, I guess because God was a bad guy in that section of the book. But, when we get to the 'Gospels,' he becomes a man, and is now a kind compassionate benefactor of mankind.

Is God both a sadist, and also Jesus, a kind Savior to all? If so, how do you reconcile the two sections of the Bible, OT and NT?

Do you believe the Bible in its entirety, and if so...what is your proof that the Bible is a credible source of God's existence?

It all comes back to MY topic.

In other words, why do you wish to start with the Gospels?

**I'm wondering if an actual debate will ever ensue.