Let me repeat the parrallels, which you failed to address.

They flippantly dismiss the experts in the field. (as you did the many experts I have referenced in support of specific positions. But, in fairness you did accuse me of lying about what they said. At least until I provided exact quotes.)

They claim that the very existence of Jesus is still "dispute" despite the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field. (I haven't noticed that you had gone this far, but you have questioned whether Jesus was even crucified, which is a close second).

They are willing to dismiss commonly accepted tools of historical inquiry to justify their Jesusexistedaphobia.

They dismiss the experts without having read much of their works. (Have you read anything other than the Oxford Companion to the Bible?).

They fall back to what can best be characterized as the uncertainty argument. We can't know what happened because we weren't there.

If you don't make the above arguments, then good for you. If you do, then the parrallels are appropraite.

And you have an annoying habit of only cutting and pasting certain portions of your opponents statements, and responding only to those portions.

And I should modify that this doesn't apply to all skeptics, just those who question the actual historical existence of Jesus.

Perhaps this doesn't apply to you Omendon, but its impossible to know, since you won't venture a statement about what you really believe. So far you've questioned whether the early Christians faced persecution and whether Jesus was crucified. Both of these points, especially the latter, are supported by much historical evidence.

My accusation that you were distorting our opinion had to do with your obsession over the winged serpent. You seemed to imply that the criteria that Polycarp mentioned would somehow lead to our having to consider that reference as genuine because it was in an old book with some accurate geographical references. Neither Polycarp, nor myself, ever said that a few accurate geographical references renders everything in a book valid. In fact, we were discussing the usefulneses of applying further criteria, such as multiple attestation, embarrassment, and dissimilarity. Thus, your example was a distortion of our point.

I know enough about it, Layman. Enough to be able to discuss it - providing you refrain from the mass production of strawmen.

As for my own version of events - as I explained, that is irrelevant.
When it's you making the claims, then an examination and defense of your claims does not involve me offering an alternative hypothesis of events. Whether I can, or cannot, offer such a hypothesis is irrelevant to the question of the flaws in your viewpoints.

But while we're talking about corrections, how about this one which you never retracted:

I take your lack of silence to mean that you don't know what a statute of limitations applies to, and you did not understand what I was talking about. Again.

I don't need to address them, Layman. I'm not defending your latest batch of strawmen. And I'm not letting you change the subject of this thread, just because you feel like doing so.

Go find someone who actually holds these positions, and ask them personally to defend them. Either that, or start a new thread here and maybe someone will come play in your sandbox.

It is enough for me to state that your comparisons to YEC are not parallel, for the following reasons:



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

Omnedon,

You really are a coward.

I am fully aware of the nature of statutes of limitation. I just prepared and will file a Motion to Dismiss an ERISA claim based on that very same legal theory.

There are several policy considerations underlying the imposition of statutes of limitation. One is the desire to encourage plaintiffs to promptly prosecute their rights. Another one, more relevant to our previous discussion, was the recognition that the rules of court make it more difficult to defend, prosecute, and resolve cases after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Memories fade, witnesses die, documents get lost, and circumstances change.

However, it is not quite as arbitrary as you imply. There are different statutes of limitations for different types of claims. This flows from the recognition that different claims implicate different concerns underlying the above mentioned policies.

For example, pursuant to Cal.Civ.Pro. Section 359, a three year statute of limitations applies to claims against directores, shareholders, or members of a corporation.

Claims brought pursuant to an alleged breach of contract founded on a written instrument must be brought within 4 years. CCP Section 337. Oral contracts, on the other hand, must be brought within 2 years. CCP Section 339. This two year difference recognizes the difficulties inherent in a court's attempt to resolve a dispute involveing an oral, rather than a written contract.

Of course, statutes of limitation may be tolled. But even so, there is usually a limit on how long. If a plaintiff is imprisoned, for example, the applicable statute of limitations may be extended, but not beyond two years, even if his incarceration continues.

So. Yes, I know what a statute of limitation applies to. In part, it recognizes the difficulties in proving or disproving events, after a specific amount of time has passed, under the rules of court.

Comparing how we prove things in the court room to how we prove things in history is misleading.


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

And you're a liar. So we're all square then.

I'm just pointing out that you tried to refute my claims about the process of collecting forensic evidence, and its value in science, by appealing to statute of limitations. That was patently stupid.

The legal process of statute of limitations is irrelevant to the scientific and forensic process. But I'm sure you'll continue to bang your head on the wall here, and attempt to show us how it is relevant.


That's nice. However, the point in the discussion where you brought it up was a point dealing with the process of collecting forensic evidence, in the absence of an eyewitness, and whether or not that forensic evidence was scientifically valid and accurate.

By introducing legal theory, you did nothing to address the scientific issues. As I said: patently stupid approach.


All of which are totally arbitrary, as they vary from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and country to ucountry.

And, of course, is totally irrelevant to the question of collecting forensic evidence, in the absence of an eyewitness, and whether or not that forensic evidence was scientifically valid and accurate.

No, it is not. Since the statute of limitations is arbitrary, and since the discussion was on murder (a crime without a statute of limitations), your point was bogus.

I also used the example of Egyptian and Incan mummies, whose life and death circumstances are also derived from forensic investigation, decades or centuries after they are born, live and finally die. And we can do this, regardless of the circumstances of their death (i.e., natural causes or foul play).

Again: your statute of limitations argument was totally bogus, and was caused by the fact that you are reading my arguments too fast, jumping in before you are prepared, and embarrassing yourself.


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

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

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

As I explained to you, the statute of limitaitons is not completely arbitrary. That is why there is a difference of time imposed on oral and written contracts. There is a recognition that certain kinds of events, such as what was said as opposed to what was written, pose different evidentiary burdens.

I disagree that the statute of limitations is irrelevant to your discussion of scientific evidence. The usefulness of forensic evidence also fades over time. Just as with documents, the actual evidence can be misplaced or destroyed. And it also makes a point that I believe Polycarp has been stressing. Even if ALL the forensic evidence survived intact and uncorrupted, it would be insufficient to reconstruct, under the rules of court, what really happened regarding the New Testament events. But we do not have ALL of the forensic evidence we could desire.

I have not disputed the usefulness of forensic evidence, I just realize its limited utility in reconstructing historical events. In part for the same reason courts have a statute of limitations: the actual evidence used in forensic science itself is limited because of destruction and loss, and because it can only reconstruct the barest minimum of the picture. Throw in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, followed up by further destructions and rebuilding for the next 1900 years and you DO run into an evidentiary problem.

I have no quarrel with your example of the use of scientific evidence on mummies. New Testament scholars can, and do, use forensic evidence whenever they can. The fact that you are ignorant of that use doesn't mean that it does not exist. I have written about some recent discoveries myself, as has Nomad. For the most part, it has largely confirmed the events of the New Testament. But it is very limited in what it can tell us about what Jewish peasants were doing 2000 years ago. Thus, the widespread use of the criteria mentioned by Polycarp. Criteria that are used by the experts in the field.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omnedon1:
With my criteria, the truth status of your examples is "unknown".

As I said in my original post several days ago: “Another useful approach be to treat all texts as value-neutral. By that I mean, their truth status is unknown until such time as they can be corroborated by several independent lines of evidence from different disciplines.

You are a coward. You hide behind the “veil of ignorance” because you know what would happen if you ever came out from behind it. Its easier to sit there and criticize other’s beliefs than to say what you actually believe. How do you KNOW that the “truth status of texts is unknown until such time as they can be corroborated by several independent lines of evidence from different disciplines”? Using your criteria for belief you would have to have several independent lines of evidence from different disciplines in order to believe your statement.

You believe hundreds of things which are not subject to the criteria you gave. What did you have for breakfast yesterday? We can’t believe any answer based on your rules. My point is that certitude is not necessary for belief. As I’ve said over and over, we are dealing with probability. We believe things to be true if we have a confidence level of more than 50%. This doesn’t mean we are absolutely certain, but only that we believe it is probable. This is how ALL history works – not in absolutes, but in probability. I’m sure you would agree with me on this point.

Using your techniques we would need to abolish all history majors in our universities because there wouldn’t be enough information to teach more than one class.


As I said: the terms "most likely" and similar guarded terms are inconsistent with the strong claims for "proof" and "evidence". Which means that all these high-sounding claims for proof that you and other theists use should actually be substantially more muted. You have just illustrated my point here.

You continue to prove your tendency toward attacking straw men. Nowhere have I made “claims for proof”. Why do you persist in this behavior? I tell you that we agree on something and you try to tell me that I don’t. You have this pre-conceived notion about what I believe and its tough for you to deal with the fact that I don’t believe what you think I believe.

So, please tell me the level of probability for the truthfulness of my three examples. I’ll even be so kind as to go first and tell you my answers knowing that you probably won’t even give me a straight answer. I’d put the Son of Man and parable teaching at about 95% probability with the issue of Jesus’ family being slightly lower at 85-90%.

Again, I’m not claiming proof for anything. As I’ve said over and over and over and over… We are talking about likelihood. So please be straight with everyone and answer your own question about the “likelihood” of my three examples. Also explain how your criteria is used in arriving at your conclusion. An “I don’t know” answer is unacceptable. We can assign a level of probability to any truth claim and you know it. So step up to the plate and play. The crowd is watching…

Peace,

Polycarp

No, I am not.
I simply prefer to rely upon things that can be known for sure. And I don't label something "likely", or "probably" as true.

Oh, and go to hell, Polycarp.
If you want to start getting abusive, I can hang in there with the best of them, asshole.


Examples? List five.
Or are you just shooting off your mouth again?


I know that, because I was there.
You really are on a fishing expedition, aren't you?

Wrong, as usual. And argument by exaggeration isn't going to get you anywhere.

In history, we simply start from a known base of fact, and then we build upwards from there. But each successive layer is less certain, more guarded, and not something to be called "truth" or "proof" or "evidence". The uppermost layer contains things that we do not know for sure, and there may be substantial debate about.

I realize that uncertainty rankles you to no end because theists crave the seal of evidence as affirmation for your beliefs. However, you cannot rise to the evidentiary bar necessary to qualify.


Unknown probability. Open to being persuaded, as soon as more evidence comes in. Let me know when that happens.


Fine.
Let's see the probability math to back up these statements. Or did you just pull them out of thin air?


Likelihood is an extremely flimsy thing to hang your life upon. Or to ask someone else to agree to.


As I said: unknown probability.

Tough shit.

"I don't know" is exactly the correct way of describing the truth status of these claims here. The truth is that you also don't "know" either - you just think you do.

As with most theists, you can't stand the idea that something you value deeply and hang your entire life on might actually be of unknown or uncertain accuracy.


Not without providing the mathematics to back it up. So let's see your math, Einstein.


You bet they are. Let's see your math, asshole.



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

However, we were discussing murder, which is a crime without any such statute. 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).


Wrong. The amount of information that can be extracted through the forensic process may be reduced over time. But the usefulness of forensic evidence itself does not change.

And, even after time has passed, whatever conclusions a person draws must still be consistent with the remaining forensic evidence. So you're not getting anywhere here.


So what? That's life, Layman. In those cases, you are forced to draw your conclusions and inferences based upon the limited amount of the reamining evidence. With the appropriate guarded qualifications.

Evidently you, like Polycarp, are uncomfortable with that. However, that is the inevitable result of your attempt to reverse-engineer a foundation for your faith. There's a certain minimum set of things that are non-negotiable for you. But you arrived at those items by an act of faith, and are now working backwards trying to find the evidence for them.


That is highly unlikely. For example, if we had the forensic proof for all the events that surrounded the Year 2000 Presidential election, we could reconstruct those events with a very high degree of accuracy, for a court review.

Your statement is not convincing.


Agreed. But then perhaps you should reconsider your claims for proof and evidence.

You proceed from a false basis, which (incidentally) betrays your bias. You assume knowledge of how these "historical events" occurred. And you express your belief that forensic evidence has limited utility in reconstruction those events. But that assumes the conclusion, i.e., you are assuming the framework for that historical event is already known; it's just a matter of finding the supporting framework.

You should instead be starting with the available forensic evidence and work forwards from that to define the historical event.


Of course some of the forensic evidence can be lost. But not all of it has been. Whatever portion of the evidence which has not been lost can STILL be used to help determine what happened. And whatever conclusions are drawn MUST STILL BE CONSISTENT with the remaining available forensic evidence, however much that happens to be.

So I am not sure what your point is here, except to complain that the forensic evidence isn't complete enough to allow you to draw the detailed conclusions you'd really like to draw. Oh well. Perhaps if you looked upon evidence as the actual starting point for history, as opposed to viewing it as just another "apologetic resource", you would realize that your approach is flawed.

You tried to claim that forensic evidence at a murder site (gathered via the scientific method) is not parallel to text. crit. You did this, by appealing to the concept of a statute of limitations and saying that evidence gets lost or misplaced over time. But your argument is a total non-starter for you. I'm talking about the evidence which HAS survived destruction and which CAN be used to make scientific determinations.


No, you don't. Not unless you have an a priori agenda to support some viewpoint. Most historians are unhappy about the lack of evidence for certain periods, but they are also comfortable working INSIDE THE BOUNDARIES PRESENTED BY THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE at hand.

Would reputable historians love to have a richer body of forensic evidence? You bet. But they don't - oh well, get used to it. So they couch their statements carefully.


I'm fully aware of it. What I am objecting to here is your attempt to say that the murder analogy was not parallel because forensic evidence can be lost or misplaced. Well, so can murder evidence. And of course, when I am discussing historical events, I am obviously talking about evidence which HAS NOT been lost or misplaced.



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

Do you concede the point that the statute of limitations is not "totally" arbitrary?

And why should your comparison be limited only to murder?

"Wrong. The amount of information that can be extracted through the forensic process may be reduced over time. But the usefulness of forensic evidence itself does not change.

And, even after time has passed, whatever conclusions a person draws must still be consistent with the remaining forensic evidence. So you're not getting anywhere here."

You are going to have to explain that one to me. If the purpose, or usefulness, of the forensic process is to provide us with dependable information, and its ability to provide us with that information decreases over time, then how is its usefulness not decreased over time? The usefulness remains constant even though it gives us less and less information?

"So what? That's life, Layman. In those cases, you are forced to draw your conclusions and inferences based upon the limited amount of the reamining evidence. With the appropriate guarded qualifications.

Evidently you, like Polycarp, are uncomfortable with that. However, that is the inevitable result of your attempt to reverse-engineer a foundation for your faith. There's a certain minimum set of things that are non-negotiable for you. But you arrived at those items by an act of faith, and are now working backwards trying to find the evidence for them."

What makes you think I am uncomfortable with our degree of "forensic" evidence? I'm the one who pointed it out. And nothing is non-negotiable for me. If you are saying that my faith does not rest on the historical evidence alone, you are right. That is something I have emphasized again and again. But if the historical evidence was contrary to my faith, then I would have abandoned it. That is what prompted my historical studies.

"That is highly unlikely. For example, if we had the forensic proof for all the events that surrounded the Year 2000 Presidential election, we could reconstruct those events with a very high degree of accuracy, for a court review. Your statement is not convincing."

Perhaps you could be more specific? You seem to claim that if we had all of the forensic regarding the New Testament, that we could reconstruct it like we could reconstruct the 2000 presidential election. What forensic evidence would prove Jesus taught in parables about the coming kingdom? Some as yet unknown primitive recording device? And what forensic evidence would prove that Jesus walked on water? Wet sandals?

"Of course some of the forensic evidence can be lost. But not all of it has been. Whatever portion of the evidence which has not been lost can STILL be used to help determine what happened. And whatever conclusions are drawn MUST STILL BE CONSISTENT with the remaining available forensic evidence, however much that happens to be."

I've stated that most of our archeological and papryi discoveries have been consistent with the New Testament. The picture, of course, is incomplete.

"No, you don't. Not unless you have an a priori agenda to support some viewpoint. Most historians are unhappy about the lack of evidence for certain periods, but they are also comfortable working INSIDE THE BOUNDARIES PRESENTED BY THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE at hand."

They are also comfortable with the criteria that Polycarp described above. It all works together. What is your point?

"I'm fully aware of it. What I am objecting to here is your attempt to say that the murder analogy was not parallel because forensic evidence can be lost or misplaced. Well, so can murder evidence. And of course, when I am discussing historical events, I am obviously talking about evidence which HAS NOT been lost or misplaced."

Are you implying that we have evidence that New Testament scholars are ignoring? If so, please specify the evidence? If not, what is your point?

All in all, you seem to be arguing that the only thing we can be confident about in history is that which is confirmed by forensic evidence. 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. Many scholars, such as E.P. Sanders, add to their historical inquiry the assumption that miracles are impossible. Others, such as John P. Meier, do not a priori preclude the possibility of miracles. You seem to agree with E.P. Sanders. But, even so, E.P. Sanders places much faith in the criteria Polycarp discussed. He's not afraid to take examine the evidence in light of these criteria, and when he gets to a miracle, he basically says that the people around Jesus believed he could do miracles.

Too many skeptics will argue tooth and nail that the miracle stories MUST be inventions of the gospel authors, rather than derived from earlier (although perhaps erroneous) sources. However, that is not what the evidence suggests. And the fact that the evidence supports the view that many people that witnessed Jesus believed he performed miracles should not be a reason to cast off the criteria that lead us to that conclusion. Richard Grant, an atheist scholar takes this tact. E.P. Sanders, who assumes the impossibility of miracles takes this tact. Graham Stanton, although a Christian, undertakes a kind of methodological naturalism in his The Gospels and Jesus. Even J.P. Meier is skeptical that the historical inquiry can prove Jesus performed a miracle. He, at the most, believes that the historical inquiry can establish that Jesus, his followers, and his enemies believed that he could. So any attempt to pain the use of these criteria as somehow pro-supernatural is incorrect.

And as much as you indict us Christians for arguing our faith, rather than the evidence. The reality is that too many skeptics ignore the evidence, because it tends to lend some support to the Christian. I've read a wide spectrum of New Testament scholars, including the anti-miracle E.P. Sanders and Graham Stanton. Sanders is actually one of my favorite New Testament authors. I also have been greatly influenced by J.P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, where he defines and employs these criteria in the best way I have ever seen. But most skeptics don't read the likes of E.P. Sanders, who agrees with their presumption that miracles are impossible.

It is the skeptics, yourself included, that have demonstrated their ignorance and fear of New Testament scholarship. It is the Christians on this board who have exposed themselves to and immersed themselves in, those scholars who do not necessarily share their presumptions.

How many books or articles have you read by E.P. Sanders? Graham Stanton? Marcus Borg? J.P. Meier? Ben Witherington? N.T. Wright? Raymond E. Brown? John D. Crossan?