J-D

If, hypothetically, somebody has misjudged how reliable a source is, that's an error, but it's not a logical fallacy.

aa5874

It is that very "misjudgment" which results in logical fallacies.

It is quite logical that if someone has misjudged some information about any matter that their supposed deductions using the misjudged information will be deemed illogical by those who have not misjudged that very data.

Jesus of the NT was described as the Child of a Ghost but some may have misjudged that information and are involved in false dichotomies claiming that HJ was from Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified when it was a Ghost that did those things.

mountainman

If, hypothetically, somebody has misjudged how reliable a source is, that's an error, but if they then incorporate that misjudgement and error into their theory of ancient history, then such inclusion is perceivable as a logical fallacy - an error in logic.

For example aa5874 is here in the OP arguing that the HJ Theory is a Logical Fallacy. The argument is being driven by the utterly misjudged reliability of the actual evidence being tendered for the THEORY of the HJ. aa5874 has pointed out many times that the HJ theorists are actually presenting evidence for a mythical jesus, who like the Phantom, was a Ghost who walked up and down the new testament before ascending through the clouds to the God-Ship in geocentric orbit above Judaea. None of this evidence, resurrection, walking the plank, bending steel in his bare hands, changing the course of mighty rivers are HISTORICAL FACTS. They are MYTHICAL FACTS.

The HJers have seriously misjudged MYTHICAL sources as HISTORICAL SOURCES, which is an error. However when such an error is then incorporated into a theory of ancient history, is it an error in logic - and in any other words, a logical fallacy.

The HJ theory is not logical, because of (1) its claims, and (2) the evidence being presented (and missing). The HJ Theory never was logical. It was not implemented with logic but with a great deal of authority. Furthermore it has never ever been presented with any LOGIC, but has always been presented by this (delegated church-based) AUTHORITY. The HJ Theory an illogical historical fable, and a monstrous non historical tale, perpetuated by a seriously misguided authority in the field of ancient history.

J-D

It is quite logical that somebody who starts from false assumptions will derive false conclusions from them. No logical fallacy is involved.You have not shown the presence of any of the defining elements of a false dichotomy.

J-D

None of the alleged errors you describe are errors in logic, nor has aa5874 shown the presence of the defining elements of a false dichotomy.

mountainman

Your totally unsupported statement does not address the evidence presented above in the OP, neither do your arguments relate in any manner to hypotheses and theories in the field of ancient history, and/or the interrelationships between evidence (and its genres), hypotheses and theories in the field of ancient history. It is possible that you do not appreciate the logical and methodological differences between Biblical History and Ancient History.

There is no methodology and there is no evidence. Theories in the field of ancient history constructed without methodology and suffient UNAMBIGUOUS evidence are logically unsound to the point of being demonstrated false, unless Jesus did ascend through the clouds and was duly received on the pious bridge of the divine starship, driven by Capt. Monotheistic Stellar God Himself.

J-D

We are discussing logic. Logic is not discipline-dependent. The rules of logic are the same in all domains. What defines a logical fallacy is the same in all fields. It is possible that you do not have an understanding of logic and it is possible that is the reason that you are unable to distinguish what constitutes a logical fallacy. Nothing posted to this thread either by aa5874 or by yourself demonstrates an error in logic by anybody, no matter what other kinds of errors you may possibly have detected.

mountainman

I beg your pardon? Are you serious? You have made a most fundamental logical error. You may be discussing logic, but I am discussing ancient history, its evidence, methodologies, hypotheses and theories. Read the OP carefully. And feel free to start another thread in the Philosophy forum.

aa5874

Logical fallacies produce false conclusions.

1. In the NT, Jesus was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost who lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

2. The NT is an ADMITTED unreliable historical source.

3. Logical deductions require reliable data.

4. Jesus of the NT was NOT described as an ordinary man.

5. The claim by HJers that Jesus of the NT was an ordinary man is quite illogical using the EXTANT ADMITTED UNRELIABLE evidence.

6. It is ILLOGICAL to use ADMITTED UNRELIABLE data to make logical deductions.

PyramidHead

Wrong! Logical fallacies sometimes erroneously produce true conclusions. You really, REALLY have to stop using the word "fallacy" from now on. Just say "illogical" or something.

I don't know much about this debate, but my understanding is that "HJers" aren't saying Jesus existed exactly as the scriptures describe him, but rather that he, like Socrates or the Buddha, probably had some counterpart in the real world who didn't live up to the legend. It's like how people built up stories about Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese emperors, saying they had godlike powers. They didn't have those powers, but the pharaohs and emperors still existed. Thus, you can't just say 'there are miracles in the New Testament, therefore Jesus cannot have existed.' I'm sympathetic to other criticisms of HJ, but not simplistic ones like yours.