Reflectorites
This is my last post on this sub-thread to Paul, as I am un - sub -
scribing from the Reflector tonight!
I thank Paul for his posts and wish him a happy new Century and
Millennium.
As I said, I am preparing a web page FAQ on Dan 9:24-27 which
I hope to post to eGroups: creationevolutiondebate@egroups.com,
which Paul is on. I will look forward to Paul's critique all over
again! :-)
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 02:19:13 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>PR>I can't see any point in continuing with this. These arguments are just
>>rat holes of errors.
>SJ>Paul is of course free to bail out at any time, but I will still go through
>his remaining arguments to see if there is anything new in them and then answer
>them with *evidence*.
>PR>You have very variable standards of evidence.
At least *I* post evidence!
>SJ>My posts are to the List, not to Paul. Others might be interested in seeing
>answers to all of Paul's points, particularly Christians who might be
>encouraged seeing how critics who rely mostly on bluff can be patiently answered
>with the *evidence*.
>PR>As shown here. Quoting opinions of other apologists ad nauseam is
>not "evidence".
And Paul thinks his unsubstantiated assertions is?
>PR>Arguments are just slung together in a totally ad hoc fashion with no
>>degree of consistency. As an example, arguments from silence are
>>applied to suit. I hear repeatedly "Why were there no rebuttals", and
>>a few lines away is a comment about Christians not copying documents
>>that don't agree with them, or missing documents not demonstrating
>>something.
>SJ>I have supplied *evidence* and Paul has just supplied his unsubstantiated
>assertions. It is ironic that Paul complains of "arguments from silence"
>when almost his whole argument is based on same.
>PR>You see, this is absolutely typical. Steve either doesn't understand,
>or doesn't get the point.
Unfortunately for Paul I *do* understand and I *do* get the point.
>PR>Or my pet favourite, connected with the 70 weeks, where Jones
>>apologists disagree and (because he presumably doesn't read it
>>but just cuts and pastes it) he didn't notice.
>SJ>It is called presenting possible alternatives!
>PR>No, it's called flooding. ONE of them has to be wrong !
Agreed. I am still making up my mind which one it is. I am leaning
toiwards a termimus a quo of Neh 2:1-6 (445/444BC), and the
sevens being Sabbath year cycles.
>PR>Or we get catch all arguments ; Tacitus is like this. Jones claims that
>>Tacitus' note about Christians isn't, as one would expect in a Historical
>>book, an explanatory note, but is there in case Christianity wasn't
>>important at a later date. [despite the lack of any real information]
I have no problem with Tacitus, if he was a non-Christian, thinking that
Christianity might not be important at a later date. The point is that
Christianity was important in Tacitus' time, i.e. the early Second Century
AD.
>PR>Of course, if it wasn't there, he'd say it was because knowledge was
>>so common.
The problem for Paul is that it *was* there!
PR>If there was a complete history of Christ there, it would
>>be "proof" of all his claims.
No. There is no absolute "proof" of historical claims. People are always
free to disbelieve the claims of Christ. But if what He said was true, they
will be held accountable for their disbelief.
>SJ>The extra-Biblical evidence supports the Biblical account as well as could
>be expected. If there was *no* extra-Biblical evidence Paul would have a
>case.
>PR>This ignores the point as well !
No it doesn't.
PR>I wonder if you actually read it. I mean, this is such a non-answer to the
>above comment I despair.
It is interesting that Paul despairs. I have *enjoying* his questions (except
when they become repetitious).
>PR>A common one is this kind of false dichotomy. In Jones' mind,
>>there is no mid point between "they were frauds" and "Jesus was who
>>he said he was" (the assertion in the line before this). This refers
>>to the passage at the bottom.
>SJ>I have said repeatedly that the gospel writers selected and emphasised from
>a core body of common sources, according to their personalities,
>theological perspectives and the needs of their respective target audience.
>PR>So does this ! And you wonder why I'm bailing out. WHAT does this have
>to do with the paragraph above ?
I was answering Paul's point that "there is no mid point between `they were
frauds' and `Jesus was who he said he was'".
But perhaps I misunderstood Paul's point?. There have been various
naturalistic theories to explain away the supernatural evidence of Jesus life,
death and resurrection. They fall into two main categories:
1. Jesus was: a) deluded; or b) a fraud; or c. both; and
2. The disciples were: a) deluded; or b) frauds; or c. both.
I suppose one could add:
3. Both Jesus and the disciples were: a) deluded; or b) frauds;
or c. both.
Now Paul apparently wants to add another category: d) mistaken? So we
now have:
1. Jesus was: a) deluded; or b) a fraud; or c. both; or d. mistaken; and
2. The disciples were: a) deluded; or b) frauds; or c. both; or d. mistaken.
3. Both Jesus and the disciples were: a) deluded; or b) frauds;
or c. both; or d. mistaken.
Now Paul's task is to provide evidence for his position and to try to get
anyone to take him seriously!
>PR>This of course also contains the "die for a lie" fantasy, which suggests
>>a lack of knowledge of how human beings operate ; and as ever
>>assumes the truth of the Gospel.
>SJ>The fact is that all such "die for a lie" theories have failed. That is why
>modern, mutually contradictory "die for a lie" theories keep arising new,
>rather than building on a core consensus of radical criticism.
>PR>Well, this is just nonsense (and an assertion !), and doesn't address the
>point, as usual.
I have since posted a quote to support my assertion.
>PR>The two main approaches, though are :-
>
>>1] Flood posting. Basically, flood with arguments.
No. I support my arguments with *evidence* from the apologetic and
historical literature. It is interesting that when I didn't above, Paul
immediately jumped on it and said "and an assertion !"
So with Paul I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb!
PR>This is very easy to do
>>because there are umpteen apologetics books, and it seems that Jones
>>has most of them.
No. But I have a reasonable number. Paul seems to think that is bad for a
Christian to have evidential backup for his position?
PR>This also has the handy side note that anything that
>>is found to be well, wrong, can be "not what I said".
No. I take responsibility for my posts. What I post is "what I said". The
only exception is where I have posted a range of possible interpretations
of Dan 9:24-27. That is because I am still making up my mind which is the
best one. I want to consider all angles and no make up my mind
prematurely.
>SJ>I post *evidence* unlike Paul who just relies on unsubstantiated assertions!
>PR>No , you post largely unsupported or flat out fantasy from apologists and
>claim its evidence.
So what *would* Paul count as evidence for Christianity? Nothing I guess.
Paul it seems, has locked, bolted and barred his mind against the very
*possibility* that Christianity could be true? IOW, if Christianity *was*
true, Paul would have no way of ever finding out?
>PR>2] Debate associative abuse. I called it this because it's used orally
>mostly.
>>It refers to the endless stream of "anti supernatural liberal atheist"
>>buzzwords that populate his writings. It's function orally is to set the tone for the
>>next passage in a debate ; it is an instruction to fundamentalists basically
>>saying "... so what they say isn't true".
>SJ>It is not "abuse". It is what the critics are, and claim that they are!
>PR>You really think that Christians call themselves "anti supernatural" ?
I was referring to the word "liberal".
In the case of those who claim to be Christians, but deny the supernatural
altogether (and some do) I would personally not regard them as Christians.
In the case of those who claim to be Christians but who deny the
supernatural but not altogether, i.e. disbelieve the Biblical miracles except
the core miracles of the Christian faith, like the resurrection of Jesus, I
would personally regard them as naturalistic (i.e. anti-supernaturalistic)
Christians.
Once again I thank Paul for his posts on this thread.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The prophecy of the seventy weeks, or heptads, in chapter ix. is in some
respects the climax of the book. It is not easy to fix precisely the points at
which the periods commence and terminate. The prophecy is undoubtedly
messianic, and a comparison of ix. 2 and 24 indicates that true deliverance
was to come, not at the end of seventy, but of seventy times seven years.
That it was about this length of time from the edicts of Artaxerxes (Ezra
vii. l, Neh. ii. x) to the Crucifixion no one can deny, and some measure
exactly 483 (or 486 1/2) years to that event, interpreting the last seven (or
three and a half) as referring to the second advent. There can at any rate be
no doubt that the six great purposes mentioned in v. 24 were accomplished
at and through the death of Christ." (Manley G.T., ed., "The New Bible
Handbook," [1947], Inter-Varsity Fellowship London, Third Edition, 1965,
reprint, p.237)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 10:14:59 EST