Dutch_labrat

One either assumes the biblical jesus existed, a MJ, or a HJ existed. Since neither position can be proven all are assumptions based on faith and thus a fallacy as far as logic is concerned.

Logically we just don't have enough (if any) really reliable sources on xJ and it is not likely we ever will.

aa5874

What you assert is erroneous.

HJers have made certain claims about a character whom they assert did actually exist.

1. HJ lived in Nazareth.

Such a claim could have been only derived by a FALSE dichotomy, a Logical fallacy, once there is no external credible sources for Jesus living in Nazareth and that the source, the NT, which claims Jesus lived in Nazareth is not regarded as historically reliable by the very same claimant, the HJer.

It must be logical that even if Jesus did exist he could have lived anywhere on earth if we have no credible sources to determine his address on earth.

The claim "HJ lived in Nazareth" is derived from logical fallacies.

By the way, you seem to have no idea of the MJ position.

The MJ theory put forwards the notion that the NT Jesus is NOT based on facts, not based on history, but on BELIEF.

The Jesus stories themselves are PRIMA FACIE evidence that people BELIEVED Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and Christian writers did admit that they BELIEVED the story that Jesus was TRULY the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

And to bolster the MJ theory, we know that Christians worshiped Myth characters like Marcion's Phantom who had no birth and no flesh.

MJers are claiming that the evidence of antiquity suggests that Jesus was only BELIEVED to have existed based on the actual written evidence of what Christians claimed they believed.

Christians of antiquity BELIEVED Jesus was truly the Child of a Holy Ghost.

It is completely logical to put forward the theory that Jesus was MYTH and was ONLY believed to have existed.

J-D

At those links I don't see people saying the things that aa5874 is talking about.

J-D

I don't see where anybody is saying the things you're talking about.

aa5874

It is clear that the historical Jesus is a logical fallacy once the NT is simultaneously the primary source and also an historically unreliable source.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

This is EXTREMELY Important. The Gospels are the PRIMARY source for analysis for HJ but later in the same passage it is admitted that the very NT is NOT historically reliable.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Now, look at the claims of Scholars after it is admitted the NT is NOT historically reliable and that the NT is about the Jesus of Faith.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

We have EXPOSED the FALSE DICHOTOMY of Scholars. Their claims about the historical Jesus is CONTRARY to their own admission that the NT is historically unreliable.

Scholars should have claimed that the historical Jesus CANNOT be reliably re-constructed once it is admitted that the PRIMARY source, the NT, is NOT reliable.

It is simply a FALSE dichotomy, a logical fallacy, that Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John the Baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate when the PRIMARY source, the NT, for those very claims are admittedly UNRELIABLE.

The majority of Biblical Scholars are engaged in False Dichotomies with respect to the historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus CANNOT be reliably re-constructed and this was known for hundreds of years.

johnnyv

Jesus is a Fallos(y)

Diogenes the Cynic

The NT is not a single source, it is multiple independent sources. Those sources agree on few core historical claims about their central character. The HJ theory is not so much that "Jesus of the Gospels existed," but that Jesus of the Gospels was inspired by a real historical figure.

There is no Santa Claus, but it's not a fallacy to say there was really a St. Nicholas.

aa5874

Again, you are engaged in a FALSE DICHOTOMY. The NT is NOT historically reliable. Any claim about the history of Jesus is UNRELIABLE.

Diogenes the Cynic

The more independent historical claims you have, the more likely they are to be authentic. None of the books of the NT are, in themselves, reliable, but they do make a few claims independent of either. It's the multiple independent attestation which bolsters the case for historicity. I don't claim that this is proof of historicity of a given claim, just weight in favor of it until it can be explained how independent sources made the same claims (for instance, that Jesus was crucified by Pilate during the Passover festival).

aa5874

Again, once you admit that "none of the books of the NT are, in themselves, reliable" then all claims about Jesus MUST be UNRELIABLE.

Let me EXPOSE your logical fallacies.

If you say that independent sources in the NT claimed Jesus was crucified then you must admit that independent sources claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, you must admit that independent sources claimed Jesus walked on water, you must admit that independent sources claimed Jesus transfigured, you must admit that independent sources claimed Jesus resurrected and you must admit that independent sources claimed Jesus ascended.

It is clear, based on the very supposed "independent sources", that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

The historical Jesus is a product of Logical fallacies.