Biff the unclean

No, of course I am not arguing that Paul's conversion is non-historical. But the two accounts conflict. One cannot be true.
Since Paul's conversion on the Damascus road is a straight retelling of a primary Dionysian religous story--even lifting dialogue from Euripides play based on this same story (The Bacchae)--surely we can discount this part of Acts based on plagirism.

Sauron

It wasn't his style that I was commenting upon. It was the clarity of his arguments, and the dispassionate way that he presented them.

And (since you missed it) there is also the challenge to you to provide examples of SD being obfuscatory. Since you failed to do so, I'll take that as an inability to support your claim against him.

Tercel, I've watched your posts "develop" over time. In point of fact, the only reason that you respect Kirby is that your electronic mentor, Layman, respects him. But it is imitation of your role model that we see at work here; not your comprehension of Kirby's arguments.

The only "others" who made such complaints were yourself, Nomad and Layman. SD has respect from both sides of the discussion as being an honest, well-balanced individual. You were frustrated by your inability to provide evidence that matched the level of your claims, and by the weakness of several of Layman (and Meier's) arguments for authenticity; i.e., the argument from embarrassment. I was there; Tercel, I watched it transpire.

That's absolutely ludicrous. SingleDad's speciality was the airtight logical argument; in fact, that was one of his major contributions here - showing everyone how to form such an argument. For you to accuse him of "basic fallacies and assertions" is not only nonsense; it's desperate projection on your part.


Agreed, partially. But there are some topics that will never be easily understood or crystal clear to the man in the street. That is why they require some time spent learning the basics of the topic, before the concise and accurate argument can be understood. A person can't just jump into an argument and expect to contribute in a meaningful way, if they haven't done their time in "boot camp", learning the background of the issue.

In addition, there are guidelines about *any* argument that have to be observed and understood: for example, the need to avoid logical fallacies and/or circular arguments. While someone might not care one whit about the actual topic, they might care quite a bit about a particular logical error being trotted out as evidence.

You understand the need for clear arguments. But you fall down on the need for elementary education in the topic at hand, and you skip out as the need for understanding the guidelines for presentation of an argument. That is why people like SD frustrate you: they bring you back to reality, and remind you of the flaws in your position.

You'll forgive me if I don't give you credit for having the most rational conclusions.


Crap? I don't think so. Many people understood what SD was saying. The fact that you were unable to follow the discussion is (as I indicated earlier) your personal shortcoming; it was not a flaw in SD's arguments.

Perhaps no one other than you NEEDED to spend time working it out. Everyone else had already worked it out, and found that it was airtight. The fact that only you seemed to have problems with it, and you are the only one making vague complaints - perhaps that fact should tell you something.

I can imagine it was more annoying for SD and the rest of the debate participants, when they had to spend time going over the material with you.

Multiple times.

Fine.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Vorkosigan

That would make it a complete fictional construction.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Thanks for the nice comments Tercel, but I fear you may be wasting your time. Since a good part of this thread has been devoted (by Koy, Sauron, Toto, and Intensity) to attacking me personally, it seems that there is little interest in having a rigorous discussion about the issues at hand (as I feared). It seems that many skeptics are more concerned with painting me or other "apologists" in a bad light, rather than providing substantive posts towards the issue at hand.

So please do not feel obligated to defend my character or posting style against the likes of Toto and Sauron. You are doing a good job responding to attempts at serious discussion with those who at least know something about the issue at hand.

Toto

That's very ironic, Layman. I have never attacked your character, only your debating technics and your failures of logic (unless you count "lawyerly" as an attack on your character).

While you were quoted as saying:

And you pat Tercel on the head for attempting to have a serious discussion, when Tercel admits to not having read a book he is happy to attack, never having even considered the conflicts between Paul and Acts, not knowing that the scholarly consensus is that the author of Acts was not a companion of Paul's. . . What kind of serious discussion can that be?

Sauron

That was attempted, Layman. But you quickly descended into the behavior that I described, above. The fact that the discussion rat-holed is largely due to your overbearing ego.

Perhaps you'd like to discuss the ossuary again?

There are still some issues you have failed to address, such as the Israeli Geological Society's not-quite-so-airtight localization of the stone to the Jerusalem area. You also seemed to think that the aerospace engineer who examined the box was applying an scientific principle that was invalid for archaeology?

Right.

Says the man who posted:
Sounds like your analysis is simply subjective, self-serving, uneducated opinion-mongering.


Tercel is trying to deconstruct arguments in a book he hasn't even read.

This is what you consider "a good job responding"?

Layman

Attempted by whom? By you? Where? I have yet to see you substantively address the topic at issue.

I'm sure I will. As soon as more information, analysis, discussion, etc., comes out of the Academic community.

Yes, I'm going to be initially skeptical of his conclusions since he has no experience in evaluating stone artifacts. If others of more suitable expertise or experience find his arguments worthy of discussion, I look forward to reading their analysis.

Most of us are not nice to each other from time to time. The difference is whether we are interested in real discussion. I am. Koy dropped in to sweep away detailed discussion with a one sentence vague and generalized attack. You dropped in to harass me some more and bait me on the ossuary issue. I've discussed Acts and its historicty, authorship, and dating in more detail than anyone else on these boards. Obviously I am interested in substantive dicussion on these issues. Just as obviously you and Koy are not.

If you change your mind and do want to engage in a substantive discussion of the issues, I've started a new thread on an issue that was raised earlier in this thread by Kirby and Toto:


<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000876" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000876</a>

Layman

Nothing in my quote was an attack on character as well. Nor do you seem to have any idea what the context of the statement was. Do you?

I've proven my desire and ability to have a serious discussion about Acts and its historicity, authorship, and date. You have too. So why not do that instead of label me as a "follow of William L. Craig" and other such nonsense.

Yes, I've read one book and a couple of articles by Craig. I've read many more books by many more authors, including Meier, Brown, Crossan, Stanton, Witherington, Van Voorst, and a host of other leading scholars.

Take it up with Tercel. So many of you seem to want to discuss anything but the substantive issues at stake (such as what I think you think about my opinion of Tercel's arguments). If you change your mind, join me in another thread where I have attempted to salvage some real discussion:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000876" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000876</a>

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Sauron

In my comment to you, I was talking about our previous debates: your claim for a pre-Quirinian census under Herod, the waffling position you took on the ossuary, etc. In both of those discussions, things started out well but then de-railed when your ego got in the way.

As for the current topic (i.e., Luke), I have not explored it yet.


Actually, the updated IGS statement that clarifies their earlier comments - a statement that I provided several times earlier, BTW - is all that is needed. Your original position was one of relying upon them as the experts in the geological matters of the ossuary. You should now be able to either defend or retract that position, in light of their amplified statement that clarifies the same comments you were staking your argument upon.

You've already taken a position on the appropriateness of the aerospace engineer's involvement and his method of examining the ossuary. Having already stepped out and done that, I don't understand why you think you need to wait for further analysis, and cannot continue that discussion now?


Ah, yes. Initial cautious skepticism.

But do you have any reason to believe that his principle of examination - normally applied to metallic objects - would be invalid when applied to stone objects?

If not, then it seems that the logical a priori position to take is one of initial cautious credibility. Taking a position of skepticism without any actual supporting justification for caution indicates a unfounded bias towards rejecting the engineer's findings.

2. You failed to address the question of your reliance on the IGS statement.

I think it is more accurate to say that, at *times*, you are interested in real discussion. And sometimes your discussions are quite good.

But as for the desire for serious discussion being a constant character trait of yours - no, it is not. There are also numerous times when you dodge the conversation, preferring to focus on quibbles. And of course, any honest dialogue requires that you admit when you are wrong - an act which is apparently beyond your power. Examples of both available upon request, BTW.


Perhaps I will drop in.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Germane to this thread, MacDonald delivered this at the <a href="http://www.ancientnarrative.com/PSN/articles&reviews.htm" target="_blank">2002 Petronian Society Meeting</a>:

Dennis MacDonald, Claremont Graduate University, "Did Luke Know his Stories Were Fictions?"

In fact, there are some very interesting ideas there. Too bad the damn papers aren't on the (@*#&$ web. When will they start putting stuff out there where all of us can read it? It takes two minutes to put a paper on the web!

Vorkosigan

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>