aa5874

Why are you posting then if you don't know how to deal with the OP? I really am at a loss with your posts. For days you have been posting and now it seems that from the start you really did not know how to deal with the OP.

avi

The painting is simply a vehicle, like text, to express a concept. In this case, Muhammed's Night Ride on the Buraq to meet with God, we have a scene regarded as of enormous significance to believers of Islam. Chain of reasoning: someone wrote about the night ride, someone else illustrated this written concept. I claim that both parties (author and artist), in this particular episode, knew very well that camels do not fly.

question: J-D's view
why? J-D has challenged aa5874's interpretation of the gospels, and in particular has denied that aa5874's interpretation provides evidence of logical fallibility in the gospels. Fine.

Then, my question is aimed at elucidating an example which does fulfill J-D's criteria for logical fallibility. If J-D has already offered an example, that I have overlooked, then please excuse my post here, and simply identify the post number.....

I agree with you.

They do not have precisely the same meaning. However, that is not what you wrote. You indicated a belief that these words are not synonyms. I provided a reference demonstrating that "in common usage", they are synonyms. Are they exactly equal? NO. I didn't posit that they were. I claimed they were synonyms, in response to your assertion that they are not synonyms. My reference may be outdated, or obsolete, or not recognized by competent authorities, or unsatisfactory for any number of reasons, however, at least I did offer ONE reference. How many references have you provided to the forum, to address your point of view? We need a link to an URL which defends your point of view, namely that "dishonest", "fallacious", and "mythical" are all excluded as synonyms of "false", contrary to what I have found. We also require some kind of explanation, describing the rationale for excluding these words from a list of synonyms of "false", given that they do qualify as synonyms according to at least one credible source..... I presume that you do have some sort of reference, in defense of your position....?

Chaucer provided the link, to the page on the forum where he elaborates, (in my opinion, brilliantly), the HJ hypothesis. In my unlearned opinion, Chaucer's HJ hypothesis, is the same one, identified by aa5874, as "the HJ hypothesis".

Have you read Chaucer's essay? Here's my take on the issue: HJ position asserts a living human who either served as role model for JC, or who was in fact JC, himself. HJ hypothesis, (my summary, not necessarily correct) neither requires, nor encourages acceptance of the gospels in toto. Selective acceptance of certain items as genuine history from the gospels, is asserted, just as with "War and Peace": certain obvious historical facts are in evidence, notwithstanding a central focus of complete myth. (fiction if you prefer).

As I read aa5874's comments on this thread (and elsewhere), I am impressed by the broad thrust of his arguments, rather than focused on analyzing the handful of linguistic traits which are somewhat distracting from his main ideas. The distraction for me is far less significant, than it appears to be for some other forum members, in part, because I lived, myself, overseas for so many decades, and as a result, I have a rather high tolerance for non-native speaker English mistakes or idiosyncrasies, which others find significantly intolerable.

I thank you "J-D" for some brilliant writing of your own, and in particular, for explaining many distinctions, and nuances, about which, I had been unfamiliar. Your posts have been very instructive and helpful....

avi

J-D

I do know how I want to deal with it. I have dealt with it. I have pointed out that you have not made out your case. If you don't like people pointing out that you haven't backed up what you say, then I suggest the solution is that you stop saying things that you can't back up.

aa5874

Well, this is what you wrote.

You seem rather confused.

aa5874

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

Scholars are using the "biography" of the Child of a Holy Ghost that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud in the Gospel as the PRIMARY source for a man/woman called the historical Jesus.

Anyone who attempts to use the description of Satan to assemble the biography of Pilate the Governor of Judea or John the Baptist would have been to be ILLOGICAL.

The THEORY that a man or woman is a figure of history must be based on credible HISTORICAL sources of antiquity NOT on Ghost stories.

For example, in gMark, there is NO description of Pilate but it can be THEORIZED that Pilate was a man based on additional information in gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn if they are used as Primary sources.

It would have been quite ILLOGICAL to claim Pilate was the Child of a Holy Ghost if the Gospels were used as the PRIMARY sources for Pilate.

Again, the birth of Jesus is NOT found in gMark, but once we use the Gospels as PRIMARY sources then the additional information about Jesus in the Gospels show that Jesus was a Child of the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator.

It is quite ILLOGICAL to claim there was a MAN that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate using the Gospels as PRIMARY sources.

The Gospels are PRIMARILY about the Child of a Ghost.

J-D

No, you're the one who's confused. I have 'dealt with' the OP in the way I wanted to deal with it. You challenged me to 'deal with' an article in Wikipedia, and I don't know how you want me to 'deal with' that. I know what I want to deal with, and how; I don't know how you want me to deal with whatever it is you want me to deal with.

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.

mountainman

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.

aa5874

Please, your words are documented.

J-D

On what do you base that claim?aa5874 referred originally to 'logical fallacy', not to 'logical fallibility'. If you want me to give some examples of logical fallacies, here are a few.

No cat has eight tails; every cat has one more tail than no cats; therefore, every cat has nine tails.
The Russians are planners; President Roosevelt is a planner; therefore, President Roosevelt is a Russian, or at least a Russian agent.
War is violent; those who defend their sisters use violence; therefore, they are warriors.

If you search the Web for 'logical fallacy' you will find scores more examples.The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. Words are synonymous if they have the same meaning. Since meaning is dependent on context, synonymy is also dependent on context. When I said that the words weren't synonyms, I said it in context (necessarily), so my meaning had to be that the words were not synonyms in that context. The fact that you can find other contexts in which it's correct to describe them as synonyms does not change that.

If you want a reference, here are some definitions from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition):
dishonest: not straightforward or honourable, underhand
fallacious: containing a fallacy [fallacy: a flaw which vitiates a syllogism]
false: incorrect
mythical: existing only in myth

The existence of different definitions shows that at least in some contexts the words are not synonyms.That remains to be confirmed by aa5874. Chaucer's presentation does not contain the assertions which aa5874 has attacked.If the HJ hypothesis is that some of the statements about Jesus in the gospels are true while others are false (and it remains to be confirmed that that is the hypothesis aa5874 is attacking), then aa5874 has neither demonstrated that that hypothesis is vitiated by any logical fallacy (in the narrow technical sense) nor (more generally) provided any demonstration of its falsehood.

J-D

It is ILLOGICAL to CLAIM that because the GOSPELS contain SOME STATEMENTS about JESUS which are FALSE, it MUST NECESSARILY be the case that ALL the STATEMENTS they make about JESUS are FALSE.