However, I see no reason why these restrictions cannot be discussed in General Chat.
The following is given as "Guideline #2
I would suggest that the above actually serves as a reversal of the "Burden of Proof". In other words, this rule/guideline requires that everything the Bible says must be considered to be historical data unless the following can be shown:2. Do not dismiss any historical claim of the Bible 'a priori'. You can dismiss a claim as being unhistorical if you have evidence or a historically plausible reason to show that a particular biblical passage has some discrepancy. Besides that, all claims of the Bible that are historical in nature, that is, it offers information about an individual, place, or event, can be considered historical data with varying degrees of certainty.
In other words, if you can't produce evidence that it's unhistorical, and you can't show a "discrepancy" within the Biblical text, then you MUST ACCEPT IT as being historical data.You can dismiss a claim as being unhistorical if you have evidence or a historically plausible reason to show that a particular biblical passage has some discrepancy.
From my perspective this actually represents a theological approach to the Bible and not a historical approach.
Why? Well, because it requires that a person must accept everything the Bible say unless they can "SHOW" otherwise. In other words this places the burden of proof on those who simply aren't convinced of the historical credibility of the Bible.
Consider the following:
If the Bible says that Pilate verified that Jesus was dead after the crucifixion, then this MUST BE ACCEPTED as being a valid historical data unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
If the Bible says that Jesus' dead body was placed in the tomb, then this MUST BE ACCEPTED as being a valid historical data unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
If the Bible says that women found the tomb empty, then this MUST BE ACCEPTED as being a valid historical data unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
Obviously if these are the rules of inquiry then there will be no choice but to accept what the Bible says on just about everything.
In fact, just think about this for a moment. If we embrace these guidelines, then when the Bible says that God spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his Son, then this MUST BE ACCEPTED as being a valid historical data unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
Do you see where this is going?
If the Bible says that Jesus was raised from the grave and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God, then this MUST BE ACCEPTED as being a valid historical data unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
I personally don't see where this approach is anything more than an evangelical attempt to demand that people accept what the Bible says unless they can prove otherwise.
In other words this amounts to nothing more than shifting the Burden of Proof onto the skeptic to prove that the Bible is wrong on things that we can't know anything about.
If you can't know anything about it, then according to the above guidelines, this MUST BE ACCEPTED as being a valid historical data unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
This is a typical evangelical tactic. Force people into a corner where they have no choice but to accept that what the Bible says cannot be challenged.
I'm certainly not going to be debating in that sub-forum because I can already see that it's basically "stacked" in favor of demanding that the Bible must be taken as being a valid historical account unless the skeptic can demonstrate otherwise.
So I would suggest that anyone who goes there to debate a supposedly "Historical Jesus" be VERY CAREFUL that they don't get sucked into a black hole that basically demands that they must accept the "Biblical Jesus" as being historical.
I would even go as far to actually say that this is a "typical" evangelical trap.
I'm posting this in General Chat just to hear what other people think.
Please feel free to voice your own views and opinions in this thread. This thread is not a debate thread, so all opinions are welcome, and there is no need to debate your views. I just felt like pointing these things out for whatever they might be worth for anyone who thinks that this new sub-forum is actually going to be about a "Historical Jesus" when in truth it's going to demand that the "Biblical Jesus" holds true unless the skeptics can prove the Bible wrong.
As far as I can see it just a shifting of the entire burden of proof onto the skeptic to disprove the Bible. If you can't disprove what the Bible says then you have to accept it as being valid history.
Your thoughts?
