J-D

You are wrong about how the logic of identity works. I have explained how the logic of identity works in this earlier post:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....72#post6977172

You never responded to that earlier post. The explanation in that earlier post of how the logic of identity works clearly establishes that your whole argument is illogical.

tanya

Do you mean to communicate the notion that every unique verse of Mark, must incorporate the idea from Mark 1:1 into its structure, in order to evaluate the veracity of that particular verse? Is this notion true for all works of fiction? Writing something one time is not sufficient, it must be repeated ad nauseum?

I dunno Shesh, but J-D's opinion above, appears to my eyes, to portray an assertion in what I would call "absolute" terms. I don't observe much wiggle room in his rejoinder to my post. On the contrary, I view J-D's posts as among the most consistently arbitrary, inflexible, and unyielding as any on the forum. Yes, I feel comfortable calling them, "absolute".


Yes, impossible:
a. "human being": by definition, that excludes "son of god" (Mark 1:1).
b. no one, in Jerusalem, two thousand odd years ago, walzed into the temple, having previously announced that he/she was the son/daughter of Yahweh. Such a blasphemer would not have gained entrance. Nope, not possible--until AFTER the destruction of the temple, when the Romans controlled Jerusalem, circa 135 CE.

Sheshbazzar

Lets get this perfectly straight. The Gospels were not written during this mans lifetime.
Neither christian nor atheist makes such a claim, to the best of my knowledge.

Now your claim is -that because someone, somewhere, at sometime thirty to a hundred years or more AFTER this persons death, WROTE that this man was 'the son of Gob', and was 'Gob'.

That simply because someone wrote such drivel years or perhaps as much as a century after his life, that this writing therefore makes it 'impossible' for that man to have ever lived or existed ???

Excuse me, but that conclusion does not seem to be derived from any logical or rational thought process.

Many ancient persons were written to have been God's. Do you also hold that it is 'impossible' men like the Pharaohs of Egypt, or Alexander the Great, to have ever existed because someone, somewhere, sometime wrote down that they were God?

I suppose some woman somewhere once wrote that ELVIS was her God.
Ooops! there goes poor 'ol Elvis. It is 'impossible' for him to have lived because someone, somewhere said he was God!

If I write today; "Barak Obama is God!" will that mean that is IMPOSSIBLE for the man Barack Obama to have ever lived?

If I write today "Tanya who posts on The FRDB Forums, is The Great Goddess, and The Mother of all Living things"
Does that make it become true that there never was any such person as Tanya the Internet poster?

Hey, I already wrote it! Therefore (employing your 'logic') you must have never been born or lived, and CANNOT exist! :Cheeky:






.

aa5874

You don't know how logic works.

I have already explained to you that it is NOT necessary at all for Mark 11.11 to have any statement about Phantoms once it is claimed in gMark that Jesus walked on sea-water and transfigured.

The Jesus in gMark 11.11 is the same sea-water walker and transfigurer in Mark 6. and Mark 9.

In gMark, the character Jesus is a PHANTOM wherever Jesus is mentioned unless you can find a credible source to contradict.

aa5874

What man's lifetime are you talking about?

We have stories about a character that was witnessed by his disciples as he walked on the sea and transfigured so why are you telling us about a man's life?

What man during his lifetime walked on the sea and transfigured?

No Man in his lifetime do those things.

The assumption that Jesus was a man is NOT evidence at all. It is a mere assumption.

The actual written evidence state that Jesus walked on the sea and transfigured.

I REJECT assumptions that the Gospels were not written during "this man's lifetime".

Jesus was a PHANTOM in gMark and the Gospels.

Sheshbazzar

It of course escapes the ability of your small egotistical mind and world;

The stories were not produced contemporary with the setting or the characters appearing within the stories.

The stories were written years latter by people who never met the characters. HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU GET?

And really, what YOU might reject, doesn't mean jack-shit to me.
As you are no authority on anything.

Sheshbazzar

aa5874 was fathered by a GHOST!

aa5874 is ALL KNOWING!

aa5874 is INFALLIBLE!

aa5874 spit in a blind mans eye and healed him.

aa5874 brought the corpse of a dead skunk back to life.

aa5874 walked on water.

aa5874 is the only begotten Son of GOD

No, aa5874 IS GOD Almighty Himself!!!

I have written these things. Because I have written these thing they MUST be TRUE!

These things are MYTHICAL.

Therefore aa5874 is MYTHICAL. There CANNOT be any real aa5874.

aa5874 is a PHANTOM fathered by a GHOST!


(aa 'logic' in action.)

J-D

If you want to repeat that I am the one making an error in logic, I can repeat just as often that you are the one making an error in logic. Since this logical point is fundamental to the whole argument, without some way of resolving it we are at an impasse.

J-D

Not at all. In fact I'm saying the opposite.I'm not sure exactly how you would define 'works of fiction' for the purpose of this text, but the logical approach I've described is applicable to other texts.

I think you may be making the same error of logic as aa5874, an error which I've discussed in an earlier post.

aa5874

Please, name the characters that they could have met. You are F--K--G smart.