KnightWhoSaysNi

The purpose of this thread is to provide a Peanut Gallery for a formal debate between Jason Gastrich and Sean McHugh on the following resolution:

Resolved: The Gospel accounts of the post-resurrection period are in harmony and are without contradictions.

Jason Gastrich will go first, taking the affirmative, while Sean McHugh will oppose.

We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over.

Keep in mind that there will always be a link to the Peanut Gallery in the first post of the formal debate thread in case you cannot find this thread later.

Enjoy the debate!

Jason

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, right off the bat, Jason's opening "statement" (if it can be called that), sinks his own ship.

Claiming that the "original manuscripts" are what are inerrant (which cannot possibly be supported one way or another, since they don't exist and Jason couldn't possibly know one way or the other accordingly), he then goes on to concede that the latter editions are "essentially inerrant," which means, "errant."

So, Jason is actually stating that the bible we have today is errant, but what does that mean?

Inerrancy is a result of, allegedly, God's "inspiration." So, at least according to what Jason has claimed thus far, the only conclusion anyone can derive from his first statement is that God's inspiration ended with the original manuscripts. I would very much like to see a justification for why God would insure only the original manuscripts to be inerrant (and how Jason would know this without having the originals to compare and contrast with), and allow for errancy through translations, but I won't be holding my breath.

All of which, again and allegedly, were "inspired" by God to write "the Truth" about "his" creation, so, technically the Bible was actually (and allegedly) only written by one entity through "40 people from all different walks of life."

That they came from different walks of life, should, therefore, be completely irrelevant to the revelation of God's "word."

How would Jason possibly know this or support this, if, indeed, the Bible was inspired by God? He would have to be God to know what was ommitted and the reasons behind such ommissions.

Indeed, it claims that there is more to it that isn't revealed, but that's not the issue. The issue is in what is not ommitted (i.e., what is extant), so I'm at a loss as to why these points are being raised, other than setting up a convenient and impossible to quantify "out" for any of Sean's observations.

Again, Jason would have to be God to know or support this. Not to mention the fact that he contradicts his own opening declaration (the the bible we have today is errant).

Yet another irrelevant observation. The question, as I understand it from the resolution, is whether or not the post-resurrection accounts differ, not whether or not every word ever spoken was recorded. Again, according to theodicy, what is recorded was inspired by God, so any observations or speculations on what was not recorded are completely irrelevant.

What is recorded is the issue.

Thereby contradicting and erradicating inerrancy completely, rendering the bible (past or present) to be nothing more important than any other book on my bookshelf. If the bible is not the inspired word of God and therefore the events chronicled historically accurate (i.e., "true," regardless of what may or may not have been "ommitted"), then it is worthless to mankind, or, at the very least, no more important than Grimm's Fairy tales.

Jason has effectively removed all reason to continue with the debate. He has conceded that the bible we have today is errant and that the "original manuscripts" must also be errant, since they can be nothing more than the necessarily faulty opinions of different people at different times.

Instead of an historically accurate, God inspired chronicle of actual events, Jason is telling us that it is an historically irrelevant, non-God inspired chronicle of myths, personally recounted.

Debate over, IMO.

offa

who was the first "peanut gallery"? Hint: buffalo bob

Toto

The debate is here

I note that the stated topic is

(a) Topic: Resolved, the post-resurrection accounts, in all of the gospels, are harmonious and inerrant.

I would expect from this to see an opening statement that at least outlines what the 4 gospels say and explains why common perceptions that they cannot be harmonized are incorrect. (Dan Barker's challenge is well known.)

But in the first 4 paragraphs, I see two [solicitations deleted - NS], followed in the next post by a scolding from the moderator. There are no substantive arguments - it appears that we have to buy the book to learn the Good News.

As Koy noted, Gastrich does not argue for inerrancy, but for the Bible as a good historical record, better than most historical records, but still the product of humans with all of their known errancies and problems in perception.

Is there any reason to take this whole enterprise seriously?

Would it be out of line to mention that Jason Gastrich was a write-in candidate for governor of Caulifornia since he couldn't get his paperwork in on time (lost to the Terminator by a few votes)? Is this anything other than another publicity stunt?

JoeWallack

JW:
This is my summary of the debate so far:

Nightshade:
Are the post-resurrection accounts contradictory? -- Jason Gastrich vs. Sean McHugh. Mr. Gastrich will go first.

Gastrich:
No.


JW:
This reminds me of the story of the Internationally renowned expert on sex getting an enormous build up by the moderator before his hugely anticipated lecture on sex in front of an aroused crowd and then going to the microphone and saying:

"Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure."

and then sitting down.


Joseph

Resurrection. Verb. Spiritual investment advice received from the Divine until there's nothing left.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Kosh

The whole thing just looks like a sales pitch. I would delete ALL his references, just to teach him a lesson.

Katarzyna

Wow. Uhm, not to be uncivil, but I predict a trainwreck...

Kat, watching from afar...

variant 13

What it's over already, like you mentioned Kat he was basically stopped the debate by shooting down his own arguement.

He's left nothing, Sean wins by default

GaryP

The audience for The Howdy Doody Show ?

Katarzyna

Surely you mean "Koy", as in Koyaanisqatsi? As much as I'd like to take credit for his posts, I'm ethically unable to ...

Kat