Why should I concede it? The selection of the duration IS arbitrary, and is related to the social view of the crime in question. Britannica:

So each society sets a different limit, based upon their view of the act.


It does not have to be murder. Go back to my original point:


I could have used arson, or some other crime here. The POINT, if you please, is that Polycarp is flatly incorrect. We most certainly can use the scientific method on unique events in history.


However, that is the example that I did in fact use, and the one in which you did in fact erroneously invoke statute of limitations. Which, of course, does not apply to murder.

In the case of murder, if all forensic evidence routinely deteriorated to the point of being useless, then it would be impossible to convict on murder. In which case, the unlimited statute of limitations would make no sense (since the rationale for that unlimited time period is the heinousness of murder as a crime).

Forensic evidence, when compared to other kinds of evidence (testimonial, hearsay, inferential, indirect, etc.) is probably the most valuable type of evidence we have - precisely because it is derived from the scientific method. It is testable. It does not depend upon point of view or personality. The results are repeatable in your lab, or in mine, or in anyone else's lab. So all other things being equal, forensic evidence is the strongest kind of evidence that there is. And, because of that, its usefulness and desirability is very high. Its usefulness does not decrease over time. The ability to extract that useful information may decrease, but the inherent usefulness of forensic evidence is still very high.

The fact that you are trying to fill in the gaps and paper over the unknown areas.
The fact that "unknown" or "insufficient evidence" are not acceptable answers for you.


Hmmm. Perhaps I was wrong, then. You may have a point. I agree with you: it is impossible to know what Jesus did, or did not, teach about with any degree of certainty.


Except that historians do not take the liberties that you and Polycarp do, with regards to the secondary and tertiary details. Which is another way of saying that the conclusions you have drawn and the strength to which you adhere to them are inappropriate for the tools in question.

For example: have I heard non-religious historians claim that Jesus lived? You bet, several times in several different books and classes. Have I heard historians go on to further claim that Christ was crucified, buried, and physically resurrected? No, I have not - unless they were christian historians.


If it "worked together," you would not have the majority of christian scholars (or, at least a sizable chunk of them) rejecting the miraculous events, up to and including the resurrection.


No, I am implying that you tried to rebut my original point by stating a tautology.

You complained that we are limited by forensic evidence because such evidence can be lost or misplaced. Well you know what? ANY kind of evidence can be lost, misplaced, or erased - so what. We deal with that and build our conclusions using whatever evidence is left over. Your complaint is just a re-statement of the obvious.


You seemed resolutely dismissive of the commonly accepted criteria that New Testament scholars, from atheists and liberals to Christians and conservatives, use to sort through our New Testament data.


You're lying again. I'll repeat my position for you:

It is the difference between saying, "Christ went to Jerusalem for Passover" and saying "Most of the evidence suggests Christ went to Jerusalem for Passover".

A proper student of texts (ancient or otherwise) understands that the tools for such study are, by definition, not going to lead to the types of strong affirmative statements that are bandied around by theists in support of their faith, or in support of the claims of the bible.




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

Evidently he also understands that no amount of textual criticism can trump the scientific method, when it comes to the question of whether miracles exist or occurred. That's a lesson you would do well to learn.

And, if this fellow is a rational as it appears, he is probably substantially more guarded about his conclusions than Polyfish, who has already assigned probabilities of 90% or more to his three little tests.

That's nice. Oh, but wait, remind me - why should I care? Oh, that's right - here's where you present me with someone else's view and ask me to defend it.

(rest of your strawman deleted).


No, the reality is quite the opposite.


That's nice. I tend to spend my time reading things that can be tested through the scientific method, such as ANE archaeology and natural history.



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

The fact that different societies have different rules regarding statutes of limitatins does not render the concept arbitrary. There is a rationale behind it. And that rationale takes into account a variety of factors, one of which is deteriation of evidence.

As I demonstrated, California has decided to have a four year statute of limitations for written contracts and a two year statute of limitations for oral contracts. Is this distinction arbitrary? No, it is founded upon reason. One such reason is the difficulty in proving, determining, or defening a claim founded upon oral contract is greater as time passes.

So it is far from arbitrary, it is a reasoned distinction.

Pay attention, Layman. You are doing it again: confusing my position.

Go back to my original post. I did not say the concept was arbitrary. I said the timeframe was arbitrary.

The statute of limitations could be 10 years. 20 years. 7 1/2 years. It varies by jurisdiction, by country, and sometimes even by city. Yet the crime is the same.


Yep, it is. Because you can go to another state and find different time frames for the same legal situations.



If deterioration of evidence were the reason for the timeframe, then the statute of limitations for arson (or whatever) would be the same everywhere. Why? Because evidence doesn't deteriorate at different rates, just because you're in Pennsylvania vs. being in Ohio or California.


You've missed the point again. The concept of a statute of limitations, per se,is not arbitrary. The particular assigned timeframes, however, are.

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

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

"Evidently he [E.P. Sanders] also understands that no amount of textual criticism can trump the scientific method, when it comes to the question of whether miracles exist or occurred. That's a lesson you would do well to learn."

Perhaps if you knew who he was you could offer an informed opinion.

No one has asserted that textual criticism has trumped the scientific method. You seem to be setting the two disciplines up as enemies. And you have also ignored the fact that we are not talking just about textual criticism, we are discussing a combination of disciplines, including textual criticism, literary criticism, source criticism, and archeology. So please be clear about which conclusions the scientific method has given us that contradicts the conclusion that textual criticism has given us. Or that all of the other disciplines have given us.

"And, if this fellow is a rational as it appears, he is probably substantially more guarded about his conclusions than Polyfish, who has already assigned probabilities of 90% or more to his three little tests."

Again, your complete ignorance of this field undermines your attempts to effectively comment on it. Perhaps if you read something by one of these scholars you talk about, we could take you more seriously. E.P. Sanders is known for having a rather high degree of confidence in our ability to conduct a historical evaluation of the New Testament documents and events. And these conclusions rest on more than just the "three little tests" that Polycarp laid out A fact I'm sure he agrees with.

The rest of your arguments are abstract arguments that we cannot know anything about history "with any degree of certainty" unless it is proven by the scientific method. These argument, in an of themselves are not conclusions derived from the scientific method, but you seem to hold them up as just as infallible as you consider the scientific method to be.

This attitude is what I meant by "historical armageddon." You emphatically denied it, but it is an apt description. And, it is the route of the uninformed coward. You refuse to engage in a discussion of the evidence. You refuse to even put forth your theory of events. When asked repeatedly which experts, if any, that you have read on these issues you simply neglect to cut and paste the question and ignore it. The most obvious conclusion is that you haven't read much of anything by anybody.

When you have ventured out of your walled fortress you displayed your ignorance. You accused me of lying about the Josephus' miracle account, even though I have given you at least 10 leading New Testament scholars that supported my view. When I started providing the precise cites, you were forced to refer to an online encyclopedia that didn't even support your position. You then made a lame claim about the Arabic version of Josephus, and when I asked for sources, you gave me a link that didn't support your contention. When I followed up and asked you to provide me with some scholars that supported your view, you failed to do so. In short, you have shown your incompetence when it comes to showing what the evidence does say.

There is a wealth of information to be sorted through. Reasonable conclusions to be drawn. Confident conclusions to be drawn. But to do so you need to be informed. Perhaps even read a book by a New Testament scholar.

"You've missed the point again. The concept of a statute of limitations, per se,is not arbitrary. The particular assigned timeframes, however, are."

You must have your own special definition of arbitrary. If they were arbitrary, they would all be the same. But they are not. I could do a comprehensive state by state analysis, but I can assure you that ALL states have different statutes of limitations for different offenses. And they do so for a combination of reasons. One of which is the concern over evidence depreciation. Thus the distinction between the two and four year statute of limitations for oral and written contract disputes. How is that distinction arbitrary? The time frame is LONGER because of the recognized difficulties and evidentiary concerns in adjudicating an oral contract as opposed to a written one.

No, it is not based on the half life of uranium, but it is based on reason.

What utter nonsense.

Anyone who claims the resurrection occurred is doing exactly that.


Wrong on all counts.

1. My arguments are not abstract; they are concrete and clear, with very explicit boundaries.

2. Your second claim is nonsense. It is patently obvious that any argument that says
"certainty of fact is only possible with the sicentific method" is an argument supported by the selfsame scientific method.

3. I also, in my arguments, exercise a degree of caution and guardedness that is not only appropriate, but could also serve as a model for you. I avoid making statements that XYZ did not happen (or that it did). I take the middle position that it is not known. You find this offensive because I will not agree with you that such-and-such occurred. The evidence in your favor simply isn't that airtight. The degree of certainty you aspire to simply requires more evidence than you have to offer. That is your problem; not mine.


It's quite apparent that you are just a more polished version of Josh McDowell - better grammar, but not better arguments.

Huh? And in what dictionary does "arbitary" mean that things are the same?

If they were based solely on a desire to avoid deterioration of evidence, THEN they would all be the same. Since evidence deteriorates at the same rate.

However, statute of limitations is also based upon a desire to avoid clogging the court system with old claims, thus grinding the courts to a halt. And, also upon the legal principle that a claimant has to take an aggressive stance in standing up for his/her rights. If they have not filed within a certain time frame (or if the crime has not been discovered within a given time frame) it is deemed that the matter was too trivial to bother with.



Thus demonstrating the arbitrariness of the timeframe. Here; let me help you again. Britannica:



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

Me: "What makes you think I am uncomfortable with our degree of "forensic" evidence?

You: "The fact that you are trying to fill in the gaps and paper over the unknown areas. The fact that "unknown" or "insufficient evidence" are not acceptable answers for you."

Me Again: The concern I have is that you seem to be implying that an area is "unknown" merely because there is no archeological discovery right on point. And I'm curious, which gaps and I filling in and papering over? Are you saying that applying the commonly accepted criteria of multiple attestation, coherence, dissimilarity, embarrassment, etc. is per se filling in the gaps? That is the problem with your entire theoretical rejection of historical inquiry, it is completely unconnected to the evidence. Sure I can look at the evidence and say we don't know, or it is unclear. How did James become leader of the Jerusalem church when Peter seemed to be the leader? I have no idea. The evidence is insufficient. Was Paul passing on traditions established in the Jerusalem church regarding Jesus? Yes he was. The evidence is strong on that one.

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.