>
> >PR>You have very variable standards of evidence.
>
> At least *I* post evidence!
I don't think you get the point. This doesn't surprise me at all.
>>PR>As shown here. Quoting opinions of other apologists ad nauseam is
>>not "evidence".
>
>And Paul thinks his unsubstantiated assertions is?
To be brutally honest, I don't think you could understand an
argument if it bit your backside.
> >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.
But your answer doesn't suggest you do. I'm talking about the inconsistency
of *your* arguments. You don't, or won't talk about this.
>
> >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.
No it wasn't ! It was a best a minority cult religion. Don't you realise this
?
There is virtually *nothing* about it. If you read Pliny you'll see what I
mean.
> >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!
Sheesh. Read it again, Jones.
> 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.
Threat of Hell #43. Missing the point, again.
I do wonder Jones if this is deliberate. I mean, *whenever* I make an
argument such as "you said X, then you said Y, how do these two
work together" you just nitpick on X and Y, which doesn't affect
the consistency problem !
> >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.
Yes it does ! You're doing just what I say above.
> 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).
Try answering them then.
> >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'".
No you weren't. You presented this as a dichotomy (probably why it's been
mysteriously cut). The point is that you are implying this dichotomy. That's
what "In Jones' mind" means. Doh !
> 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!
How about "the Gospel authors, who relied on second hand knowledge,
documents, oral recollection, gossip put together their versions of Jesus
life selecting material and rewriting parts to support their particular
views" (for example Matthew's passion for "Righteousness".
This incidentally, is the same dichotomy argument extended slightly.
> >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
> > thepoint, as usual.
>
> I have since posted a quote to support my assertion.
Where ?
> >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 !"
Virtually everything is an "assertion". And you haven't to my knowledge
quoted from any "historical literature", unless this is another of your
dishonest pedantic word games, which I would expect.
> So with Paul I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb!
Address the inconsistency between your various arguments.
> 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?
You seem to have at best a very limited selection. Nothing apparently
about a 6th CBC Daniel, which makes me think you buy idiot fundie
books like ETDAV mostly.
> 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.
You only said this because I pointed it out. You didn't apparently notice
it because you were just flood posting.
> >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.
Oh, I dunno, some relevant extant historical support beyond the Bible
would be nice.
I mean, if someone had noticed the events of the Gospels it would be
useful.
> 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?
Probably. But your arguments are staggeringly unconvincing, requiring
a belief in the Bible etc.
> >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".
No, that's your buzz word for "don't listen to them".
> 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.
Nice.
> 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.
Bizarre.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 12:23:00 EST