Lying asshole. Now we know what we think of each other. Shall we proceed?

No, I just put the monkey on your back. You make all kinds of assertions and ad hominems. You had two entire posts devoted to it today - one where you accused me of paralleling the YEC crowd; and another after it, with such gems as:

This, in spite of the fact that you cut and paste only selected sections as well - this, assuming you even respond at all with the original text. Pot-kettle-black debating from Layman again.

You assert quite a bit, Layman. I just decided to stop letting you call the dance tune here and make you back it up.

So get busy. Here are the questions again:

You said:




Let's see the evidence that "strongly indicates that he did." And no, I am not going to go fishing and weaving through a previous thread of yours.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how the scientific method proves it is the only way to know anything(?) with "any degree" of certainty?

Your claim about miracles precedes mine. He who asserts first, must prove first.

Besides, didn't you and Pollyfish already stipulated that text. crit. does not produce certainty, but only "likely" or "probably"? If so, then it appears you already concur with me.



[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]

It is the first post in the thread. Jesus, Miracle Worker. All you have to do is read the first post.

As for my most recent discussion of recent archeological finds and their impact on New Testament studies, check out Nomad's "7Q5 and Redating the Gospel of Mark," and "Redating the books of the New Testament" and Layman's "Discussing the Gospel of John" and "The Dangers of Dating New Testament Dooks Based on Theological Development."

Again, feel free to read the entire thread, but all you need to do is read the first post.

Well, it you concur with me, then maybe it's over. What I actually said was: "I agree with you to the extent that you are saying that we cannot prove that Jesus performed miracles through historical inquiry beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't strongly indicate that he did. If you have decided before hand that you will only believe those things proven by the scientific method, the evidence will remain unconvincing. But most people, including historians, wisely do not limit themselves to such knowledge. In fact, such a thing would be impossible, because commitment to the scientific method as the only source of certainty does not itself rest on the certainty of a scientific conclusion."

If you are saying that conclusions reached by the scientific method are the only means by which we are justified in establishing a belief, then we do not agree.

Hmm. Where is the part (in the prologue?) that demonstrates that such miracles are possible? I couldn't find that part.

You see, if you're going to postulate the following:

then a necessary preliminary step is to prove that such things can even occur in the first place.

YOu have to demonstrate two things here:
1. that such events are possible; and
2. that Jesus performed (or participated in) such events.

You can't get to #2, if you haven't proven #1.

Can you point me to that section, please? Thank you!

You asked for the historical evidence that indicates that Jesus performed miracles, I provided at least a good chunk of it. Now you want to change the rules and get into a philosophical discussion about the possibility of miracles.

Coward.

I give you exactly what you ask for and you won't even talk about it. I delivered what I promised to deliver and you pretend that I did not.

It seems that you will go to any length to avoid actually discussing the historical evidence.

And I think you are confusing the scientific method with the philosphical underpinnings of that method. Perhaps if you explained precisely what you mean by the scientific method, and then demonstrated how, step by step, it proves that it is the only way to have "any degree" of certainty about anything, you could be more persuasive.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 20, 2001).]

Whoa, cowboy. Slow down.

The necessary prerequisite to historical evidence (#2 - that someone in history did an amazing deed) is to show that such deeds are even possible (#1).

If you can't clear #1, then your arguments about #2 are dead on arrival.

If there is a question as to the feasibility of your starting premise, then you need to clear that up first before moving on to your conclusion. And I think that everyone would agree that there is more than just a "minor question" as to your starting premise.

Here's a parallel: suppose I said there was historical evidence that a certain Wei Zhin Po was the first human in orbit, fully 100 years before the US and USSR put men into space.

Before I could prove that Wei did all this, I would have to prove that (given the state of technology at the time), such a ship could even be built. And, where it was built, what the fuel was, how did they stand the heat and stress of liftoff, etc.

If I can't show that the necessary premises are solid, then the historical conclusions I want to draw will not work. I can't prove that Wei went into space, if I can't demonstrate the feasibility of spaceflight in mid-1800s China.


No, a scientific discussion.

And no matter what the framework (historical, philosophical, whatever) there is no way in the world that I would ever accept a conclusion from you where you had not demonstrated the plausibility of your initial premise.

Asshole.


No, you gave me the conclusion, without justifying the premises. Silly wanker.


No, you pretend to deliver what I asked for, but you did not do so.

Not jumping through this hoop.

You asked for the historical evidence. I've presented a good deal of it. You refuse to examine it. Given the level of historical ignorance that you have demonstrated throughout our discussions, I can't say that I blame you.

And you also failed to respond to this:

And I think you are confusing the scientific method with the philosphical underpinnings of that method. Perhaps if you explained precisely what you mean by the scientific method, and then demonstrated how, step by step, it proves that it is the only way to have "any degree" of certainty about anything, you could be more persuasive.

Your position is like saying, "You asked for a car; I gave you one." Yeah, but you gave me one without any engine or wheels. So you haven't fully delivered on the promise yet.

The engine and the wheels are inseparable from the car. Without them, the car is useless for its primary designed function.

In like fashion, your historical argument is useless if what you are arguing for historically-speaking, is impossible scientifically.


You can quit if you want to; I can only conclude that you don't have the poker chips to play at this high-stakes table.


Because you still have work to do on your own argument. Get busy.