Reflectorites
I am breaking my rule about answering Paul's posts in strict date order, in
order to answer some more of Paul's charges.
It is noteworthy that Paul has shifted his focus from the original topic of
the debate which was "Daniel's 70 `weeks' ... How to prove
supernaturalism" to attacking me personally and my debating method "Can
you find more errors?". In any debate this would be regarded as a sign
that one cannot answer one's opponents arguments and therefore
would be regardded as a tacit admission of defeat.
Now normally this wouldn't matter much, but the subject is Dan 9:24-27
being evidence of the supernatural and of Jesus being the Messiah. If Paul
is wrong on these point the consequences for him (and indeed for all non-
Christians) is simply *immense*.
I suspect that at some level Paul realises this and that is why he is trying to
`shoot the messenger' rather than face up to the message. But even if Paul
did succeed in shooting the messenger, it would not change the truth of the
message. If Dan 9:24-27 *really is* predictive prophecy and Jesus *really
is* the Messiah, then Paul trying to stop me saying it is not going to change
that fact.
I would also like to add that I bear Paul no ill-will for his ad hominems. I
was once shocked and depressed by evolutionists' frequent ad hominems
but now I am so used to them that they are like water of a duck's back.
Indeed, I always regard them as a back-handed compliment that my
arguments must be doing well!
I will work through the rest of Paul's posts in this thread and answer any
new points, but with a view to terminating the thread ASAP.
I have started an FAQ on Dan 9:24-27 which I will eventually post to both
the Reflector (if it is still going) and to eGroups. If Paul wants to he can
repeat his arguments all over again!
Please note that I am going to un - sub - scribe from the Reflector before
1 January 2001, so if Paul responds to this, I may not be able to respond
to it. I will however try to work through Paul's posts I have already received
with the title ""Daniel's 70 `weeks' ... How to prove supernaturalism" to see
if he has raised any new points that require a response.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:16:31 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Nice try by Paul, but this fish isn't biting today! :-)
PR>No, it's simpler than that.
>
>If it comes down to things you can copy out of apologetics
>books, you have no problem. You can copy large chunks
>out and think you have "answered it".
If Paul means do I think I have *conclusively* "answered it", I don't think
that. I always leave open the possibility that I could be wrong.
But within this email *debate* format, I claim that it is better to state one's
position and back it up with *evidence* than to just make unsubstantiated
assertions.
PR>WWhen one gets away from "Does the Bible say this ?" etc
>away from things in books like ETDAV and Giesler
>and looks at YOUR specific arguments (for example your
>woefully variably use of the argument from silence,
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Just about Paul's entire
argument is an "argument from silence".
PR>see
>below) you have to think for yourself. This I conclude you
>can't do very well.
>
>I suppose I could just simply cut and past large chunks of
>Michael Martin, or some such,
It is up to Paul what he wants to do. I *enjoy* researching and presenting
evidence for my debates. This is a major way that I, a layman, can *learn*
about a topic. I really mean it when I *thank* Paul for his debating me on
Dan 9:24-27, since it has forced me to research it in order to advance and
defend my argument.
Also, Paul seems to forget there are a large number of lurkers on this List
who might *like* reading the evidence presented and making up their own
minds.
I occasionally get private (and some public) messages from List members
who say they like reading my quotes. One Polish professor sent me a
journal in Polish with what he said were my quotes in it. I could only read
my name, so I hope the comments were good! :-)
PR>or even in the case of some
>of your wierder claims (6th BC Daniel,
I have posted *evidence* that the language of Daniel is 5-6th century BC.
If Paul has any counter-evidence, let him quote it.
PR>Non-existence of Q)
See previous.
PR>most of the theists, but that's rather tedious. Who wishes
>to play duelling apologists anyway ?
Its better than "duelling" unsubstantiated assertions!
PR>If you feel that you can use arguments from silence when and
>only when it suits you, why should you be surprised no-one
>takes it awfully seriously.
>
>As with most apologist arguments, no consistency is ever
>thought about. The function of the "argument" is simply to
>get from A to B ; that is it..
Not really.
[...]
PR>Oh, here's another one :-
>SJ>"Given that hardly anything has survived from the 1st century, what
>>extra-Biblical notice that was taken of Jesus is remarkable*, and is, if
>>anything, *more* than I would have expected."
PR>How does this work with your "Why did no-one refute it at the time
>if it wasn't true" argument ?
My point was not that "Why did no-one refute it at the time if it wasn't
true" but if it wasn't true they *would* have refuted it and Christianity
would never have got off the ground.
PR>and that documents that refute Christianity weren't actually destroyed
>by Christians, but were much less likely to survive because Christians
>wouldn't copy them.
That is not what I said. I said that Christians would not need to destroy
their opponents' writings (as Paul alleges they did without providing any
evidence). All Christians would need to do is not copy them and they
would self-destruct as *all* original early Christian Era papyrus writing
has. This is simply a *fact*.
PR>and "No. See previous. This is just an argument from silence."".
As I have several times explained, my "see previous" is where I have
already answered a point of Paul's point. I have had to do it because Paul's
arguments are *very* repetitious, and I see no point in endlessly repeating
myself. Especially since Paul often takes no notice of what I answer and
just asks the same questions again, and again, and again ....!
PR>which
>is your sole refutation to "why did no-one other than Matthew notice
>the dead bodies on the wander".
This is a case in point. I have answered this at least *twice*! I am not
going to keep answering it.
PR>PS: The * means you have to justify the word remarkable
Another case in point. I already *have* justified that. Paul should read
again my quote about how not *one* of Pontius Pilate's reports has
survived.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridicule is a popular and political tool but not a scientific tool. If you want
to challenge a thesis, you do it with facts and science." (Douglas K.,
"Taking the plunge," New Scientist, Vol. 168, No. 2266, 25 November,
2000, pp28-33, p.33. http://www.newscientist.com/nl/1125/taking.html)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 25 2000 - 20:55:54 EST