mountainman

Do you know the difference between direct and indirect dependence?

J-D

We still haven't established what you mean by 'the historical Jesus' or 'the HJ'.

J-D

Maybe.

mountainman

Hobbyhorse Junction?

J-D

I know of no evidence for Hobbyhorse Junction.

mountainman

I know of no evidence for the historical jesus

Toto

Please stop posting one liners in this thread. Let it die a natural death. There's nothing more to say.

avi

The word "walk", or ambulation, involves "moving the feet", against a surface which is both sufficiently rigid to prevent collapse in the face of gravity, and sufficiently robust to withstand the force of friction exerted by the human, against this surface to compel propulsion in the desired direction.

Water fulfills neither of these two requirements. It is therefore not logical to conclude that water could serve as an adequate surface upon which to ambulate.

Perhaps it will be more instructive for this thread, challenging the logic of claiming that there exists valid evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, if you will affirm what is a logically necessary truth, rather than denying what you perceive, contrary to intuition, as a logically unnecessary truth, or alternatively, as a logically necessary falsehood, or, finally, as an illogical necessary truth.

Ambulation requires friction. The surface of water in its aqueous state, is insufficiently rigid to permit ambulation. Ergo, it is impossible, both physically, AND logically, to walk on water. Your denial of the existence of a logically necessary truth to this equation, is both illogical, and incorrect.

No. I understand "logically", "necessary", and "truth". If you have some idiosyncratic definition embracing these three words combined, then, NO, I am not aware of how logicians, or anyone else uses this new definition. It does seem to me, that about 200 posts earlier, you, J-D, made a point about communication, affirming a need to communicate using conventional definitions of words....Maybe that was someone else....

How is knowledge, of the manner in which "logicians use the term" "logically necessary truth", or, for that matter, the proper method for analyzing the benefits of the Zoroastrian contemplation of sunrise, germane to the question of whether or not, there exists veracious evidence offering support for the existence of a man who could walk on water?

My reason for mentioning Boolean Algebra, was to juxtapose my idea of what "logic" is, to your statement:

In my opinion, logic is concerned with factual matters, not simply ethereal notions: "ideas". Digital circuits, i.e. physical, factual entities, function only because of logic. Absent the Boolean contribution, we just have some silicon, a pile of sand.

In my opinion, your statement explaining that logic is unconcerned with factual matters, is erroneous. The concept of fallacious, central to this thread, hinges upon an understanding of the distinction between + and -, positive and negative, on and off. It is true, that many, many people believe that Jesus walked on water. It is also true that no human can walk on water. Ergo, there is no basis for claiming that Jesus of the gospels was a human. Humans cannot walk on water. Therefore, the notion, often expressed on this forum, that Jesus existed as a bonafide historical person, is both illogical and false. I do not demand that one describes this situation using the words logical fallacy, if use of such words invokes a concept alien to the meaning to which I imply: the notion that the gospels lend support for the existence of a human who could walk on water is both illogical and false.

avi

aa5874

"The HJ theory is a logical fallacy" is the most ACTIVE thread of all current threads with 347 replies and 2359 views in LESS than a month

A thread titled "Jesus: the cold case" has managed 3 replies in about 3 months.

Examine the STATS.

"The HJ theory is a logical fallacy" is the number ONE thread right now.

Now, let me continue to expose the HJ theory as a logical fallacy. The historical Jesus has no history.

What a False Dilemma!!!

Once Scholars ADMITTED the NT was historically unreliable then they should have FIRST found RELIABLE historical sources for their speculation or imagination called the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

It was COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL for Scholars to assert that there was HJ of Nazareth WITHOUT any credible supporting historical data from antiquity.

A proper theory MUST have supporting FACTS, after all, it should be the FACTS that should have caused the theory to be properly developed.

What are the FACTS to support the historical Jesus theory?

There are NO FACTS.

The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy.

In effect, the historical Jesus is MYTH.

J-D

It is not a necessary part of the definition of 'walk' that only humans do it. Otherwise, none of what you say has been contradicted by anything I've said, so I don't know why you think it's important to insist on this.It does it it's frozen. And even if it's liquid, it still does for members of the family Gerridae.

The extent of the conclusion which can be reached using logic alone is that if water does not fulfil the conditions necessary for being walked on, then it is not possible to walk on water. But logic alone does not tell us whether water fulfils the conditions necessary for being walked on, and so logic alone does not tell us whether it is possible to walk on water--only logic in combination with additional empirical information can tell us that.A logically necessary truth is a statement whose negation is self-contradictory.As I pointed out above, this is not in fact true in all cases, but more importantly, even in those cases where it is true, logic alone, without additional empirical information, is not enough to prove that it is true.I am using the expression 'logically necessary truth' according to its conventional definition. The definition is not new, nor is it idiosyncratic to me. In fact, it's the only way that anybody ever uses that expression.It isn't, and I never said it was.Then we disagree. Can you suggest how we might resolve this disagreement?The concept of a logical fallacy was understood by Aristotle, long before anybody had conceived of anything like Boolean algebra.You may not insist on the description 'logical fallacy', but aa5874 continues to insist on it, despite obviously not understanding what the term means. For that matter, aa5874 has never yet deigned to explain the sense in which aa5874 is using the expression 'HJ theory'. Nor, if it comes to that, have you explained what you understand by that expression.