I don't know how much influence you have on the thing, but IMHO I think it would make a big difference for the "informative-ness" of the event. Look at presidential candidate debates; unless there is some kind of refereeing, people will use whatever they feel will sway the audience the most.
For example, a key discussion point is bound to be Jesus' resurrection. Historical evidence hints at it being a later addition to the gospels. How do you referee between the two? Two people just claiming opposite things has little educational value. What IMHO the listeners should take away from the discussion is what exact part of the issue requires faith and which not. Because overall, people think it requires much less faith than it actually does. The ordinary believer thinks that most of the stories as written in the gospels are essentially established historical fact.
rumborak
Nah, I disagree. For one thing, both debaters are Ph.D. historians; they both know the subject well and if the other tries to pull any kind of chicanery, my guess is he'll be called on it. Neither is running for political office and both are being paid no matter the outcome, so I don't anticipate a say-whatever-will-win-the-argument style debate. After all, they have reputations as scholars to maintain. Making things up doesn't aid that effort.
For another, faith in the biblical sense is
not belief without evidence. The apologist, again, knows this and won't attempt to argue from blind faith. That would be suicide in a debate of this nature.
The question of the resurrection being a later interpolation is one of the issues that will be in play, I'm sure. In any event, your view is not one shared by all scholars, even many on the liberal side date the empty tomb account very early. They say it was derived from a single source that predates all the gospels my several decades.
Topic: Upcoming debate on the historical Jesus (Read 5023 times)
