(March 11, 2014 at 10:39 am)discipulus Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 9:56 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'm less happy with restricting it to "errors" because it leaves our the element of proof. To show an error one assumes the correlary to be true. Some of my issue is the "dog which barked in the night" principle, which is not so much an error.

But the hell with it. Let's call it errors to get things moving. Provided you promise not to get semantically pedantic over the difference between an error and an inconsistency or whatnot.

The restriction is necessary because you have asked that I deal with one point at a time in a four round debate. My case is extensive and much of it is revolving around various interpretations of key concepts relating to the nature of the gospels, what historians consider to be contradictions, the burden of proof and who it goes to in approaching texts critically etc etc.

All of these concepts and several more must be enumerated and expounded upon and this will necessitate my opening post to contain a lot more than just "one point".

In fact my opening post would of necessity have to be about the size of a small chapter one commonly finds in reference material dealing with these concepts.

Maybe you would just like to give me one reason why you think the gospels are errant? No debate would be necessary to the discussion of this reason. We could just start a new thread here and dedicate it to this reason.

Ye gods, we've used more words debating the structure of the debate than the debate will involve . Fine, cover as many points as you like but I don't really want to read an entire book on hermeneutics in order to muddy what is a very simple topic.

OK, because their are substantive differences between the accounts of the same events which mean they can't all be correct.

Now enough already. It's a flippin online forum not the Oxford debating society and this is swiftly moving from a bit of fun to a pain in the arse. We can do one with the original title or not bother.

(March 11, 2014 at 11:38 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 10:39 am)discipulus Wrote: The restriction is necessary because you have asked that I deal with one point at a time in a four round debate. My case is extensive and much of it is revolving around various interpretations of key concepts relating to the nature of the gospels, what historians consider to be contradictions, the burden of proof and who it goes to in approaching texts critically etc etc.

All of these concepts and several more must be enumerated and expounded upon and this will necessitate my opening post to contain a lot more than just "one point".

In fact my opening post would of necessity have to be about the size of a small chapter one commonly finds in reference material dealing with these concepts.

Maybe you would just like to give me one reason why you think the gospels are errant? No debate would be necessary to the discussion of this reason. We could just start a new thread here and dedicate it to this reason.

Ye gods, we've used more words debating the structure of the debate than the debate will involve . Fine, cover as many points as you like but I don't really want to read an entire book on hermeneutics in order to muddy what is a very simple topic.

OK, because their are substantive differences between the accounts of the same events which mean they can't all be correct.

Now enough already. It's a flippin online forum not the Oxford debating society and this is swiftly moving from a bit of fun to a pain in the arse. We can do one with the original title or not bother.

This topic is not a very simple topic at all. Volumes have been written on just one of the concepts entailed in our discussion i.e. ancient biographies, not to mention the various other subjects which have a direct bearing on the topic in question.

You state that because there are substantive differences between accounts recorded in the gospels, they therefore cannot all be correct. I have a few in mind you are probably referring to.

Instead of debating these issues, just create a new thread in this forum and we will discuss it.

(March 11, 2014 at 11:50 am)discipulus Wrote: Instead of debating these issues, just create a new thread in this forum and we will discuss it.

(March 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 11:50 am)discipulus Wrote: Instead of debating these issues, just create a new thread in this forum and we will discuss it.

Ok, let's do that.

(March 11, 2014 at 12:19 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

Ok, let's do that.

Please do.. I havent left the site for 3 days. . I shit my pants already

(March 11, 2014 at 12:19 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

Ok, let's do that.

Awesome! : )

lol @ "ancient biographies"

There are none on the cast of characters in the Bible. Anything that is written outside of the Bible is speculative AT BEST, with most information stemming from the Bible.

48 pages in - has a debate actually started yet?

I'm guessing not huh.

(March 11, 2014 at 12:35 pm)max-greece Wrote: 48 pages in - has a debate actually started yet?

I'm guessing not huh.

I have grease.. for the wheels that keep turning.. and turning. .

(March 11, 2014 at 12:19 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Ok, let's do that.

Not so fast, Jacob! Have you given proper consideration to the fine but crucial differences between debating something and discussing it? Have you laid out in excrutiating detail the methods by which you could distinguish these different forms of interaction (and are said methods free of category errors and the taint of empiricism)? Will you be prepared to defend your theory of knowledge at any time, regardless of its relevance? If not, you might wish to go off and develop a comprehensive epistemology before trying to discuss anything.

It is important to lay this groundwork lest you find yourself utterly unable to have a discussion, which would not be fruitful.

Do you understand? If not, I will gladly provide quotes from various scholars who had many fascinating, if perhaps drunken, insights into these lofty matters. And if that doesn't help you, I will be here for the next forty-odd pages to steer you toward the light. Why? Because I value clarity of thought almost as much as I love Jesus.