You said "almost entirely". What did Earl D. do wrong?

Peace,
Vinnie

My thoughts:

Through it all, I could understand Nomad on the first read. Doherty took six. In that sense Nomad is the CLEAR winner.

Peace,
Vinnie

Meta =>Yea sure. I bet I know what you would be saying if Brian pulled out first.

get him back, I want my turn at bat.I'm willing to just debate the Paul stuff.

Jubal,

You are wrong. Nomad was raising legitimate issues that Doherty didn't want to deal with. So he chose not to.

But, I found more interesting this statement:

In what way was Nomad's scenario a "theistic Jesus?" I didn't see him argue anything about the existence of God. All he did was argue that Jesus existed. Oh, and that he was baptized.

ilgwamh 1: Why do you ask? What did you think?

ilgwamh 2: Very clever.

Layman: Why would I wanna be wrong? Oh, you mean you have a different opinion. And the fact that, like Nomad, you start from a theist position is totally irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 25, 2001).]

Nomad did not start from the theist position. He never even raised it. His only position was the existence of Jesus. None of his arguments relied on god, miracles, inerrancy, etc., etc.

Regardless, you did not say "we have to get a nontheist in here to argue the point" you said we needed a "nontheistic-but-historial Jesus counterscenario." Nomad's counterscenario was simply the existence of Jesus. Nothing more.

If you just meant to say theists need not apply, fine. Enjoy.

Yes, it is my opinion that you are wrong. Just as it was your opinion that Nomad is to blame for the "failure" (Doherty's quitting) of the debate.

1. Not what I said. Reread #3 of my original comments.

2. Not what I said. I merely requested comments on the counterscenario.

3. Where did I say that? I said they're biased, which frankly is pretty obvious.

4. I described my view as an opinion. You didn't.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 25, 2001).]

I still don't see why people here are getting upset that Nomad didn't debate the points Doherty wanted to debate. If Nomad is right, and if Jesus existed, and if Nomad could have offered good evidence for this, then why bother to debate the subtelties of Doherty's theory? If Jesus existed, Doherty is wrong. His theories about Paul wouldn't even matter. His theory is that Jesus didn't exist. Nomad could fairly use any tactic to prove that Jesus existed and, if he succeeded, render the rest of the debate pointless. I see no problem with the style of Nomad's debating. Why should he be constrained by the arguments of Doherty if he can demonstrate them all to be pointless with a strong counterargument.

Let me give an example here.
Lets say that D says that all animals are extinct and begans listing as his proof Sabertooth Tigers, Wooley Mammoths, and Giant Slothes. N then proceeds to list house cats, elephants, and puppy dogs as proof that not all animals are extinct. Is it really fair for D to fault N for not talking about Sabertooth Tigers, Wooley Mammoths, and Giant Slothes?!?!
Why should N??? He can disprove D's theory without even bothering to talk about what D wants to discuss.


Doherty's theory would be much more interesting and much more defensible if he just watered it down a bit, e.g. layers of Platonic embellishment over a real but near unknowable person.

The really sad thing is, I actually don't think Nomad did a very good job. Not because he didn't deal with Doherty's arguments but because he dealt with them too much.

When I first read this thread, I did not buy that Nomad was deliberately provoking ED to abandon the debate. After reading his latest post, I've changed my mind.

ps - The thumb isn't directed at you NaT; it's directed at Nomad.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 26, 2001).]

Hi nat, and welcome back. And thank you.

Hmm... I hope you don't mind if I tell you that you are probably the ONLY person on these boards that thinks that I spent TOO much time on Doherty's theories.

To be honest, I didn't see any way around it. I couldn't just given a summary case showing the extremely good probability that Jesus existed then call it a day.

The place would have gone even more nuts than it has. In any event, I have found it interesting that so many sceptics want to blame me for Earl's hastey retreat (X2), but I suppose that should be expected in a place called the SecWeb eh?

Thanks again for your support and clarity of thinking.

Be well,

Nomad