avi

Thanks, Toto, excellent. Well written.

aa5874

Let me continue to expose that the HJ theory is a Logical fallacy.

The very first thing that must be clarified in that in the NT Jesus was NOT described as Superhuman.

There is a massive difference between "Superhuman" and "God Incarnate--the Child of a Holy Ghost".

Jesus was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin in gMatthew and gLuke and Jesus was described as God Incarnate the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth who himself EXISTED BEFORE anything was Created.

It is Extremely Critical that we understand how Jesus was described in the Gospels.

Jesus had NO earthly father at all. Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost .

Matthew 1:18-20 - It is ERRONEOUS that Jesus was Superhuman. In gMatthew Jesus was somekind of Holy GHOST.

And, now look at gJohn.

John 1
Jesus was NOT Superhuman but Jesus was of the Holy Ghost of God and God Incarnate. Jesus was God with flesh of a human.

Please, let us deal with the actual WRITTEN evidence from antiquity.

Now, Scholars have claimed the NT is NOT historically reliable.

This is extremely significant.

All characters and events in the NT NEEDS EXTERNAL Corroboration.

This is MOST logical.

In gMark, there is very little or no details of the many of the characters except a charater called Jesus who acted Non-human by walking on water, transfiguring and resurrecting.

There are ADDITIONAL details of Jesus in the NT where he is described as somekind of Ghost the Word that was God.

Are there any credible sources of antiquity that CORROBORATES Jesus of the NT?

Well, we have "Antiquities of the Jews" where a character called Jesus Christ was seen ALIVE after he was supposed to be dead and it was not certain if it was lawful to call Jesus a man.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 corroborates the description of Jesus Christ of the NT.

Now, what source of antiquity mentioned an ordinary person with a human father who was from Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate?

There is NOTHING at all from antiquity about the "historical Jesus".

The "historical Jesus" theory is ILLOGICAL because it is without source, and without corroboration.

mountainman

But we have seen that there is no requirement for anyone in this forum (or elsewhere) to adher to the formalised and restricted definition that formalised logic places on the meaning of this term such that ppl have been demanding ad nauseam of aa5874. See the bolded disclaimer.

Logical fallacy

mountainman

I disagree. The postulates are quite simple, but they are not in any sense vague. The former postulates Jesus had an historical existence as a man or god or a hobbit or in some manner, the latter postulates Jesus did not in any sense whatsoever have an historical existence. The postulates and a range of theories using these postulates are articulated on WIKI:

Historical Jesus discusses attempts to reconstruct Jesus' life using historical methods, such as critical analysis of gospel texts.
Jesus myth theory discusses the theory that Jesus was not a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community.

Note that some Mythical theories do use the HJ postulate. Therefore it has been suggested earlier that the easiest way to differentiate all theories relating to Jesus is with reference to the historicity of Jesus, which may be defined as a percentage between 100% (absolutely certainly historical) to 0% (or NULL) (absolutely certainly NOT historical). Did Jesus really exist in history? Did Bilbo Baggins really exist? Did Bob Marley really exist? Did Harry Potter really exist . Harry and Bilbo might be universally rated as zero percentage historicity, while Bob might get the 100%.

When we turn to the Jesus theories, irrespective of whether Jesus is cast as the divine superman, an influential prophet, a religious leader, an obscure deviant sage with followers, an unknown itinerant preacher, or an obscure PR man for Caesar, it is the historicity of the figure of Jesus (not his social / theological position etc) that should be examined. The less historicity 50%, 25%, 10% etc ascibed by the theory, the less likely Jesus is historical -- in the view of the theorist being examined.

From the perpective of those theories which ascribe to the figure Jesus a historicity of 0% or NULL, the Historical jesus theory looks very much like a logical fallacy, because their arguments will be that we do not have any evidence by which to raise the historicity of Jesus above the zero point.



The job involves examining ANCIENT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.The job involves examining and addressing all the available evidence (admissible to the field of ancient history) by means of the purposeful construction one or more theories in the field of ancient history that utilize either one or the other of these two postulates. The truth or otherwise of postulates, as the integral foundation of various theories of ancient history, are compared by means of analysis and examination (e.g. peer review) of the theories which so employ them.

aa5874 is examining the ancient historical evidence. You are not.

mountainman

It is also not the best explanation of the evidence that does exist. The failure of the various HJ theories (because there are hundreds and thousands of these things) suggests that the underlying postulate, the HJ postulate, is in fact false, and that ancient historians should start examining the possibility that in fact the MJ postulate is the true option.

aa5874

The mere fact that Scholars disagree with the description of Jesus of Nazareth (the child of the Ghost and the Word that was God) in the NT LOGICALLY CONFIRMS that the very Scholars are Blatantly admitting that the NT is NOT credible.

The HJ theory itself is based on the very Premise that the NT is Fiction and MYTH and does NOT REFLECT the "historical Jesus" which it should have.

So when Scholars then claim the "historical Jesus" was born or lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pilate it was LOGICALLY expected that such information was DERIVED from aN EXTERNAL credible and reliable HISTORICAL source of antiquity.

But, amazingly, it was the very UNRELIABLE Gospels that was USED by Scholars as the primary source for HJ which is quite ILLOGICAL.

The theory that Jesus was just an ordinary man OPENLY and LOGICALLY suggests that the Gospels are NOT credible and NOT reliable sources when it is claimed Jesus was some kind of Ghost or the Word that was God and the Creator.

The ONLY LOGICAL conclusion for Scholars was that the "historical Jesus" theory cannot be maintained or advanced due to a lack of sources or evidence from antiquity and should be abandoned just it was sometime earlier.

Logically, the HJ theory MUST Discredit the very Gospels and without a Credible source the HJ theory IMPLODES.

PyramidHead

I would say your sentence is still a false dichotomy, since "creative works of fiction" and "historical passages" are not mutually exclusive. A mix of the two is within the realm of probability. But I'm happy to drop it, as Toto and mountainman suggest, since it's become pedantic.

aa5874

This is the sort of statement from you that I find so troubling.

You know that in the Gospels that Jesus was NOT described as Superhuman yet you make the ERRONEOUS claim in order to show that the HJ theory is NOT a logical fallacy.

Why can't you state EXACTLY what is written in the Gospels?

Jesus was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35.

In gJohn, Jesus was described as the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

By ERRONEOUSLY claiming Jesus was Superhuman then it would appear LOGICAL to assume Jesus was a man.

But, as I have come to realize one MUST take extreme caution here and notice what people write.

The "Historical Jesus" theory INHERENTLY destroys the credibility of the authors of the Gospels.

The "Historical Jesus" theory cannot be maintained by the same source which it INTENDS to destroy.

If the "historical Jesus" was an ordinary man then virtually all the events surrounding Jesus including his birth will be dismissed.

But, Scholars have done the ILLOGICAL.

Scholars have used the very sources they wish to DISCREDIT as their Primary SOURCE for the biography of their "Historical Jesus".

The search for an "Historical Pilate" does NOT discredit the description of Pilate by the Gospel authors.

It is completely LOGICAL to corroborate the "Historical Pilate" SIMPLY by using credible EXTERNAL sources of antiquity like Philo and Josephus. That's all.

The search for an "Historical Tiberius" does NOT discredit the description of Tiberius in the Gospels. It is equally LOGICAL to corroborate the "Historical Tiberius" by using EXTERNAL credible sources of antiquity like Philo and Josephus. That's all.

Again, Scholars did the very ILLOGICAL. They use the very sources whose credibility they WISH to destroy and ADMITTED before hand that the Gospels are UNRELIABLE.

The HJ theory is a product of irrationality of Scholars.

"The Historical Jesus" theory SEEKS to destroy the credibility of its Primary source, the Gospels.

The term "historical Jesus" is of itself a Logical Fallacy.

There is NO known history of antiquity for the "historical" Jesus.

It was EXPECTED that the "Historical Jesus" was based on an HISTORICAL source but it is based on FAITH and ADMITTED UNRELIABLE sources.

The HJ theory is a PERFECT Logical Fallacy.

The "historical Jesus" is WITHOUT history.

PyramidHead

icardfacepalm:

aa5874

The "historical Jesus" has NO history.

The historical Pilate has history outside the Gospels.

The historical Tiberius has history outside the Gospels.

The historical Caiaphas has history outside the Gospels.

The very term "historical Jesus" is a FALSE dichotony since HJ has NO history at all, inside or outside the Gospels.

The "historical Jesus" is in effect, a MYTH.

To develop a PROPER theory one MUST LOGICALLY use CREDIBLE RELIABLE DATA.

The HJ theory was "developed" ILLOGICALLY from UNRELIABLE sources because there is NO history for the Jesus of history.