FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 26 of 50 « First 162425 26 272836 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-19-2011, 06:52 PM   #251
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
thank you PyramidHead. Well written.



Jesus: = human versus deity, ergo, dichotomy, yes or no?
aa5874 said: 'the term "historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy'. The term 'historical Jesus' is not a dichotomy at all.
"The historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy as the term "Flat Earth".
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:59 PM   #252
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
thank you PyramidHead. Well written.



Jesus: = human versus deity, ergo, dichotomy, yes or no?
aa5874 said: 'the term "historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy'. The term 'historical Jesus' is not a dichotomy at all.
"The historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy as the term "Flat Earth".
The term 'Flat Earth' is not a dichotomy of any kind, and so not a false dichotomy.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:03 PM   #253
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Let me continue to expose that the HJ theory is a Logical fallacy.
I can't. You have to start before you can continue, and you haven't managed that yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Now, Scholars have claimed the NT is NOT historically reliable.
Which scholars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
This is extremely significant.
Why are the claims of these scholars significant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
All characters and events in the NT NEEDS EXTERNAL Corroboration.

This is MOST logical.
There is no such principle of logic.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:06 PM   #254
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.
If the HJ postulate is not supported by the evidence, then we need to find another postulate.
What definition of 'postulate' are you using?
Just the general everyday version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKI

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. That is to say, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
If a postulate is by definition something whose truth is taken for granted, then it is irrelevant whether it is supported by evidence or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
If you have a question you would like to see me answer, you could try asking it, if that's not too straightforward an approach for you.
OK. Supposing we investigate two postulates in the field of ancient history

1) Jesus was an historical figure (HJ Postulate), and

2) Jesus was not an historical figure (MJ Postulate).

Both postulates cannot be both be true. How do we test these competing hypotheses? Thanks J-D.
The first step would be to articulate the two postulates with greater specificity. As they stand they're too vague.
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.
Not specific enough partly because neither postulate specifies which Jesus is being referred to.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:57 PM   #255
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

"The historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy as the term "Flat Earth".
The term 'Flat Earth' is not a dichotomy of any kind, and so not a false dichotomy.
The earth is NOT FLAT. The earth is fundamentally Spherical.

The term "Flat Earth" is of itself a false dichotomy. You don't understand one thing about logocal fallacies and false dichotomies.

The "historical Jesus" has NO history.

The term "historical Jesus" is of itself a false dichotomy once it was ADMITTED by Scholars the Gospels are historically unreliable sources.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 08:20 PM   #256
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Providence, Rhode Island
Posts: 4,389
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
The term 'Flat Earth' is not a dichotomy of any kind, and so not a false dichotomy.
The earth is NOT FLAT. The earth is fundamentally Spherical.

The term "Flat Earth" is of itself a false dichotomy. You don't understand one thing about logocal fallacies and false dichotomies.

The "historical Jesus" has NO history.

The term "historical Jesus" is of itself a false dichotomy once it was ADMITTED by Scholars the Gospels are historically unreliable sources.
PyramidHead is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 08:59 PM   #257
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

"The historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy as the term "Flat Earth".
The term 'Flat Earth' is not a dichotomy of any kind, and so not a false dichotomy.
The earth is NOT FLAT. The earth is fundamentally Spherical.

The term "Flat Earth" is of itself a false dichotomy. You don't understand one thing about logocal fallacies and false dichotomies.

The "historical Jesus" has NO history.

The term "historical Jesus" is of itself a false dichotomy once it was ADMITTED by Scholars the Gospels are historically unreliable sources.
I know the Earth is not flat.

I also know what a dichotomy is. The term 'flat Earth' is not a dichotomy, and neither is the term 'historical Jesus'.

You don't understand one thing about logical fallacies and false dichotomies.

You also haven't explained why you accept what scholars say about the Gospels, or even which scholars you're talking about.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 09:03 PM   #258
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

The earth is NOT FLAT. The earth is fundamentally Spherical.

The term "Flat Earth" is of itself a false dichotomy. You don't understand one thing about logocal fallacies and false dichotomies.

The "historical Jesus" has NO history.

The term "historical Jesus" is of itself a false dichotomy once it was ADMITTED by Scholars the Gospels are historically unreliable sources.
This is Bart Ehrman, an HJ Scholar, in his debate with William Craig.
Quote:
...You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts....

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 10:05 PM   #259
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
This is Bart Ehrman, an HJ Scholar, in his debate with William Craig.
Quote:
...You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts....
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm
Why do you accept Bart Ehrman's word?

And, anyway, when Bart Ehrman says 'not historically reliable', what precisely does he mean by that? What is the meaning of that phrase to Bart Ehrman?
J-D is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 11:19 PM   #260
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
This is Bart Ehrman, an HJ Scholar, in his debate with William Craig.http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm
Why do you accept Bart Ehrman's word?

And, anyway, when Bart Ehrman says 'not historically reliable', what precisely does he mean by that? What is the meaning of that phrase to Bart Ehrman?
Whose words do you accept? I don't accept your words.
aa5874 is offline  
 
Page 26 of 50 « First 162425 26 272836 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.