In a message dated 17/12/00 23:25:57 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
Well, notice you haven't answered anything AGAIN. It is a bit ridiculous
to complain about *my* diversionary tactics.
It is quite interesting to study your posts. Not because of the "fact";
most of it is Bible quotes and apologists. What little there is of your
own, that isn't just paraphrasing what your apologist says five lines
away or assertions is "liberal atheistic evolutionists" stuff and ad
hominem in itself.
but one thing that's highly noticeable is when you can't cut and paste
apologist arguments you shut up pretty quickly or resort to bog standard
theist tactics of impugning my motives ("Oh, he only believes this because
he's convinced miracles don't happen" occurs every few lines), or you
just go round and round in circles. Your commentary on the TF is
quite funny ; your use and rejection of the argument from silence is
comical.
Paul Robson.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Oh, here's another one :-
"Given that hardly anything has survived from the 1st century, what
extra-Biblical notice that was taken of Jesus is remarkable*, and is, if
anything, *more* than I would have expected."
How does this work with your "Why did no-one refute it at the time
if it wasn't true" argument ?
and that documents that refute Christianity weren't actually destroyed
by Christians, but were much less likely to survive because Christians
wouldn't copy them.
and "No. See previous. This is just an argument from silence." which
is your sole refutation to "why did no-one other than Matthew notice
the dead bodies on the wander".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
"Remarkable" is an exaggeration, considering you have actually *three*
documents, even though your list dresses it up to look as if there
were more. This sentence also contains a typical Jonesism, in that
it's a win-win-win situation. One wonders, given that we have
only three documents, what Jones would "expect".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Yet another false dichotomy:
The point is that if Paul doesn't have any principled reason to disagree with
Chris. Paul subjectively accepts some things in the NT and extra-Biblical
evidence for the existence of Jesus, but subjectively rejects others. At
least
Chris is consistent and rejects the lot!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
I have just noticed this absolute howler:
>This passage was cited by Eusebius in its present form
>(Ecclesiastical History 1.11) and the manuscript evidence favors it.
This is referring to the ORIGINAL Josephus quote. I despair.
The justification appears to be nonsensical
"This actually defeats Paul's argument. If the claim is that because
apologists
before Eusebius never quoted from the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) it
never existed, here we have apologists not quoting from it "for about
another 50 years or so" even though it did exist!"
[Jones hasn't sussed that they might not quote from it *until* the
"Eusebius" version with all the Christian bits in became commonplace !]
Then...
>Yet AFAIK almost all scholars accept that the TF itself existed, but that
the
>more explitly Christian parts of it were a later Christian interpolation.
Then...
>A reasonable explanation is that the TF is genuine but Christian apologists
>before Eusebius were reluctant to use it because of the obvious problem
>that Josephus was thought not to be a Christian and it can be interpreted
>sarcastically.
An argument which speaks for itself really....
Then...
>Based on the fact that Josephus was born in Jerusalem in 37AD, only 4
>years after Jesus had been executed, and lived there as a "precocious
>youth" and later a Pharisee, he would have been in an *excellent* position
>to produce evidence against Christianity's central claims about the life,
>death and resurrection of Jesus, if there was any.
[arguments from silence allowed now. Kettle logic again !]
>That Josephus [who Jones claims became a Christian in later life] didn't
>produce any such evidence is itself good evidence that Christianity's
central
>claims were rock-solid.
But, of course, doesn't explain why Josephus wrote little else.
Jones is going round and round in circles here.
Here is the likely scenario.
The TF probably contained, in its original form a reference to Jesus. The
Church Fathers, who quoted Josephus a lot, didn't quote it because it
was not helpful in their claims ; it probably supports the existence of
Jesus as a teacher/preacher/healer but not a miracle worker, resurrected
from the dead. Eusebius, the first person to use the TF about 300 years
or so later, is considered a strong possibility for the insertion itself.
Some
years after that, the revised version became commnplace and apologists
started referring to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
"It is interesting that Paul accepts the real existence of a hypothetical
source
document called "Q" that: 1. "there is not one shred of documentary
evidence that Q ever existed" -"No manuscript or any version of it has ever
been found"; 2. "No church Father ever cited any work corresponding to
what current scholars mean by Q"; and 3. for which "Former Q proponent
Linnemann observes ... `This is the stuff of fairy tales'" (Linnemann, "Is
There a Q?" 19)(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics," 1999, p.619)."
You really ought to read what you post. The last one is pure assertion
because he doesn't like the answer. I find this amusing, simply
because in a previous post you referred to the "notes made by Peter
which Mark used" and so on. Why not apply your standards to this ?
Incidentally, does Giesler quote any of the arguments in favour of
"Q". Would you like me to ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>It is not that I *believe* "in a 6th C. Daniel". The *evidence* is in favour
>of "a 6th C. Daniel".
Of course, most scholars (non fundamentalists) don't agree with this
either. Incidentally SEJ, how do you feel about using someone as
a source who thinks God is not a religious concept ?
>It is the anti-supernaturalistic sceptics (so-called) who are the true
>believers!
????? Apparently the large number of Christian Daniel proponents
(not 6BC) are anti supernaturalistic skeptics !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
> Paul doth protest too much, methinks!
>
> As I said, I will ignore Paul's ad hominem diversionary tactics and
> answer any remaining *issues* he has raised.
>
> Once again I thank Paul for responding to my posts and
> stimulating my research into Dan 9:24-27.
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:12:40 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Paul Robson:
> > >As a postscript, I have copied the same passage again and have noted all
> > >the errors, unsupported assertions, or dishonest argument tactics used
in
> 9
> > >lines.
> > >
> > >So far I have 14 ; some of which are related to others.
> > >
> > >Anyone spot any more ?
> >
> >Steve Jones:
> > I must say I smiled at Paul's claim that *I* posted "unsupported
> > assertions".
> >
> >Paul Robson:
> > In 9 lines there are 14 unsupported assertions, use of debate tricks,
> > inconsistencies etc. I agree, this is funny, especially as I didn't
> > "select" this passage specifically.
> >
> >Steve Jones:
> > But I regard this as just another red-herring by Paul to divert
attention
> > away from the fact that he posted little (if any) actual evidence for
his
> > claims but mostly (if not totally) just made unsubstantiated assertions.
> >
> > So I will not respond to Paul's diversionary tactics but will continue
> > working through his *arguments* to see if there is anything new in them
> > and then respond to same.
> >
> >Paul Robson:
> > Well, I would have thought it was obvious to the most simple minded
> > half wit.
> >
> > Your alleged "arguments" contain so many errors, assertion, dishonest
> > debate tricks etc that they are impossible to respond to, without it
> > getting ridiculous.
> >
> > I found 14 assumptions and errors, which you cannot support but
> > simply assume as a fact.
> >
> > In this particular passage there is one huge error (the dichotomy) which,
> > as usual, you simply ignore.
> >
> > This is how I think you operate.
> >
> > You do not actually read the passage, or attempt to understand the
> > arguments. You simply look for "key words". You then refer to one
> > of your numerous apologetics texts, and simply copy and repeat
> > their arguments. You make no effort to check these arguments are
> > coherent or consistent.
> >
> > Despite your claim to be "answering" my arguments, I think you aren't
> > even READING them. You certainly aren't reading yours.
> >
> > Your use of the argument from silence is quite staggeringly dishonest.
> > But you probably don't grasp why. It is the same basic problem. The
> > function of your "arguments" (as with Daniel) is simply to get from A
> > to B. Once you have done this, you can use different arguments to
> > get from C to D. The minor detail that these are inconsistent does not
> > bother you.
> >
> > "Paul OTOH is working from the basic assumption that Jesus is not the
> > Messiah and supernatural predictive prophecy is impossible."
> >
> > It is nice to see this stupendously tedious Christian cliche dragged out
> > yet again.
> >
> > Paul is working from the assumption that apologists/creationists will
> > say any old crap in an attempt to convince the waverers and wobbly
> > Christians.
> >
> > Paul's argument, is the fact that Jones has quoted three different
> > methods, calculated in different ways, and is apparently trying to
> > defend all three.
> >
> > They can't all work. If you use 360 day years, this is a completely
> > different "discard ratio" to 6 year out of 7, as does using 365 day
> > years, of course.
> >
> > Question for the stupid. What does this tell you about either the
> > beginning or terminus dates ?
> >
> >Paul Robson.
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 18 2000 - 10:53:39 EST