Again, you twist my words. I never used "unsupported speculations." Please show me where I did.
I think the feeling is mutual, because I also never said that you said, quote, "unsupported speculations", unquote. You said "claims with little or no proof", and "unsupported speculations" was just my own rephrasing of this. If this substantially changes the thought of what you said, which apparently it did, I apologize because that was not my intent. I think what led to my interpretation was the perceived subtext that the positions you disagreed with are "claims with little or no proof" in contrast to your own position. Now perhaps PP felt that the evidence he was citing was "proof" (and he generally makes assertions without hedges, and so as I said I agree with you there), but in my case, I hedge my posts a lot, and in this particular thread I never said that my views and opinions are proved or that the evidence I cited constitutes "proof". So in answer to your question:
I stand by my claim that there is more than one plausible explanation. Can you and PP agree to this claim?
I would say, Of course!! Sure, there are more than one plausible explantations, and what I have been discussing is which explanation is more plausible than the other. And while I make conclusions about which explanation is more plausible, and cite evidence which I feel demonstrates this, I try to refrain from saying -- in this matter -- that the evidence proves the case and constitutes proof. And so when I was critiquing PP's view, I said "this doesn't historically establish ...." and "I would definitely not state as a fact...", so again we are not disagreeing with each other on this. When I also critiqued the article you cited, I was attempting to assess whether its explanation or my explanation was more plausible, and whether it "accounts for a wider range of evidence". I would thus see both positions (mine and yours) as "with little or no proof", to be assessed with evidence in terms of plausibility, and I was pointing to evidence that shows (at least) that the theory of the Eucharist as a "Christian Passover" as not proven. So do you agree that both our positions lack true proof, or do you regard your position as proven?
About your objection to what you meant by referring to my practice of "appealing to authority", you specifically made an allusion to citing the theories of flat-earthers to prove the world is really flat, and so naturally I cited the Nizkor site to show that not all appeals to authority are the same, and that what I was doing (e.g. citing JD Crossan who has researched this very question and is a very competent scholar who, of course, is fallible) is not at all equivalent to citing a flat-earther to show that the world is flat, since a flat-earther is not an expert in the relevant field. You may disagree with other aspects of the Niskor definition and say how it differs from your own, but I think it was quite legitimate on my part to cite this definition, which is btw not a mere "internet definition" but that published by Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, professor of philosophy, in a tutorial which is widely accepted. (Do you object to this "Appeal to Authority" as illegitimate?) As for its deficiency for not ruling out the fallibility of experts, of course they're fallible, but that doesn't make citing them fallacious. Arguments need to assessed on their own terms. But I cited an expert to show that my opinion is not just my own unique, idiosyncratic speculation, but one that is based to some extent in the work of someone who has professionally researched this subject -- just as you cited an article by Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph D. to support your opinion. If you weren't referring to my mention of JD Crossan, please let me know what "appeal to authority tactic" you were referring to.
