Assuming the truth of the question at hand isn't noramlly a good way to proceed.

I assume you're unaware of how the regress applies and of how internalists explain their own position. At best, Jesus would be able to handle the regress by his divine, infinte nature. Much like he was able to bear God's wrath.

Another fact that shows your conception that what applies to Jesus has to apply to mere men is a wrong conception, take your claim to "perfect knowledge." I assume this includes some kind of epistemic infallibilism. I think, for creatures, epistemic infallibilism is pretty clearly false. I bet Owen Anderson would agree. So, Jesus would have it, yet critiques of epistemic infallibilism would apply to human creatures.

Another disanalogy, human creatures are not the final authority, there goes your link between Jesus and man!!

To say that man could stop the regress by appealing to Jesus' say so wouldn't answer the question if you understood what the internalists have claimed. The argument takes what they have claimed, uses their own premises, and derives the problem.

Interalism = df "According to premise (I), an essential ingredient of internalism is the requirement (for justification) that there be some sort of actual or potential awareness of something on the part of the subject. Two claims implicit in this premise are: (i) that, according to internalism, actual or potential awareness of something is required and (ii) that, according to internalism, it is such awareness on the part of the subject that is required.

Hence, man can't escape the regress and Jesus could only handle it, not stop it. If you say that for his stoppage to be justified he has to be aware of the justifying features, you don't stop the regress, he handles it. If you say that he doesn't need this critieria, then you deny internalism.

Anyway,

I do not think the regress applies to, say, an externalist. There's no problem of a regress there.

The regress works on internalists. Are you assuming Jesus was an internalist? That begs the question. And, do you have scripture and verse?

And, I wonder why Owen Anderson would laud your method here since you're using Scripture to justify a philosophical position, something he staunchly forbids. Does one need "the Bible" and "knowledge of Jesus" to be able to form an epistemology? Anderson would say, "No."

Anyway, (a) even if Jesus was an internalist he would have the resources to handle the regress, mere man wouldn't (b) none of the ways internalists have tried to stop the regress has anything to do with "perfect knowledge," because that claim, in itself, doesn't "stop the regress," which is why I say that you're unfamiliar with this entire discussion.

I'm also struggling to better answer you since you appear to think that asserting cryptic sentences, backed by dogmatism and unfamiliarity with what you're discussing (as you admit), and an unwillingness to lay out my position, show how what you say is relevant to what I am saying, show how my position is in error; generally, explain yourself, is a proper and helpful way to proceed.

At any rate, I have demonstrated some major disanalogies between Jesus and mere man and therefore showed that even if your position were accurate (I maintain Jesus wouldn't halt the regress he would handle it, but that's based on a proper understanding of internalism which you don't have, reading the artcile would help, though), it isn't enough to exculpate mere man from the critique.

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix