Jason is criticizing me because I “left the discussion” when we argued about whether Romans betrays knowledge of the destruction of the temple. I copied and pasted the thread into Word. It’s 95 pages in length. Nobody that I know of has made a better effort to interact with Jason’s arguments than I have, but it’s still not enough. How long would the thread have to be, Jason, before you might recognize that the reason I left wasn’t related to the force of your arguments or my inability to deal with them?
Overall though I think it’s a useful thread. I reference the thread occasionally at my blog here. What I would suggest to Jason is that to make threads more bearable and shorter he should consider spending more time arguing and less time confidently asserting that he’s in the right and everyone else is wrong. We know you think you’re right Jason. We know you are certain that skeptical arguments are feeble. The question I have is, why do you feel the need to assert your correctness so often?
Just in the course of the discussion on Romans Jason offered the following:
Nothing in the passage suggests the destruction of the temple as a past event.
To assume that the table of Romans 11:9 is a reference to the temple, and that it's already been destroyed, is dubious.
nothing in the context of Romans 11 suggests an application of the theme as narrow as yours.
And you aren’t giving us any reason to interpret Romans 11 as you have.
You had no good reason to interpret Romans 11 as you did in the first place,
You haven't given us any reason to conclude that the table in question is a reference to the temple.
You still haven't shown that a past destruction of the temple is in view.
You're not giving us any reason to think that an association with the temple is in view.
You’re wrong, I’m right. You’re wrong, I’m right. You’re wrong, I’m right. Sweeping and confident claims. I haven’t given any reason for anyone to draw my conclusions. There’s nothing to even suggest such an understanding. What does this behavior really tell us? I’m reminded of a statement from George Salmon.
Indeed with respect to this word certainty I may remark the more people talk about their certainty the less they have. If one of you came in and told me ‘I saw the Prince of Wales just now walking down Sackville street’ I might be a good deal surprised at your news but there would nothing in your language to make me think you were saying anything about which you had not full knowledge. But if you said ‘I am certain I saw the Prince of Wales just now’ I should conclude you were by no means assured yourself of the truth of what you said.