J-D

Why are you not answering PyramidHead's question?

avi

1. Yes, you are not obliged to acknowledge that a person COULD know that something is FALSE, without knowing how to change the FALSE premise into a TRUE premise. In this case, Pyramid head could recognize that the correct answer was not Copenhagen, but still not know the capital of Brazil.

2. However, that is not the ONLY interpretation, particularly in digital circuitry. There, it is both reasonable, and accurate, to accept as TRUE the idea that ignorance of the TRUTH regarding a component of the defective circuit means, by definition, that one must not acknowledge as FALSE some other aspect of the circuit (aka premise). In other words, indication that one is unable to identify xyz as the cause of a digital circuit problem, means, that one must not reject the abc component as false (without testing). (and if I designed the circuit, then, for all we know, BOTH components are wrong,) We should adopt, in analyzing digital circuit problems, the attitude identified by aa5874, i.e. ignorance of xyz does not imply knowledge of abc, and not assume anything, as PyramidHead had done...)

3. I could ask J-D if he knows the capital of HeNan province in ZhongGuo, and he could reply that he does not know the name. I could then ask him if the name of that provincial capital is ShiJiaZhuang, and he could respond that he is certain that ShiJiaZhuang is not the name of the capital of HeNan, without knowing that ShiJiaZhuang is in fact the capital of HeBei prefecture. That's one situation. Alternatively, J-D could affirm having never contemplated the geography of ZhongGuo, and consequently, having not the slightest idea whether ShiJiaZhuang, is, or is not, the capital of HeNan. In that second scenario, one would be correct to argue that if he does not know the capital, then he also does not know whether choice abc ... xyz is the capital. Pyramid Head had argued in favor of partially ignorance, while aa5874 had argued for total oblivion. Both choices are possible.

4. This issue arose, as I recall, because of J-D's question in reply to aa5874's quotation and interpretation of Matthew 1:18

(note the two changes in the text--how do those two alterations influence, if at all, the interpretation of the text? If no change in interpretation, then why were the changes introduced in the later, Byzantine versions?)

The important point, I suppose, regarding this passage is that JC can not be at the same time a bonafide, ordinary human, conceived and born in typical fashion ("according to the law"), as many adherents of the "historical Jesus" theory propose, and ALSO, concurrently, a spirit, with a ghost as a father.

These two parental lineages are mutually incompatible. Dichotomous, if one wishes. One of them, at least, must be false, i.e. fallacious. The texts, the gospels, cannot be both correct, and incorrect, on this particular issue--the parental lineage of JC.

Let me rewrite aa5874's assertion:

The claim, in accord with the HJ hypothesis, that JC was a genuine human being, born "according to the law", challenges the veracity of Matthew 1:18.
I acknowledge J-D's point, that I am wholly ignorant of logic, for, to my way of thinking, these two statements by PyramidHead, are in logical conflict.

I suppose, in harmony with J-D's style, I should simply claim that Pyramid Head knows nothing of logic, and demand that he learn something, in order to post on the forum.

I will try, instead, to offer a modest elaboration of why I find these two sentences illogical:

Rewriting, to amplify the contradiction:

A-1. Validity has NOTHING to do with TRUTH of premises.

B-1. Validity has EVERYTHING to do with TRUTH of premises.

That wiring diagram will not conduct electricity.

No, but the fact that you posed the question, demonstrates a perspective at variance with the OP.

aa5874 was VERY PRECISE, in offering specific passages designed to illustrate his perspective of fallacious dichotomy.

The OP neither expects, demands, or requires faith. The OP is based upon careful scrutiny of the texts, with clear, careful, unequivocal citations from the gospels, designed to elaborate the perspective, that the HJ theory, as outlined by, among others, Chaucer, in the link which he kindly provided, (thanks!), is illogical, contradictory to the gospels, and fallacious.

Asking the question of whether or not the whole corpus of the gospels must be accepted or rejected is seen, by me at least, as a non-sequitur. Those who wish to argue against aa5874's perspective ought to focus more energy, in my opinion, on examining the original Greek texts cited by aa5874, in the tradition of, and in tribute to, the great accomplishments of Aristotle, and less on David Hume's discredited method of analysis.

avi

aa5874

Well, I have REPEATEDLY stated that there are historical sources of antiquity EXTERNAL of the Canon that mentioned characters found in the Jesus stories.

For example
1. Pilate the Governor of Judea in gLuke is also found in the writings of Philo and Josephus.

2. Tiberius Caesar in gLuke is found in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Suetonius.

3. John the Baptist in the Canonised Gospels is found in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews."

4. Caiaphas the high Priest in the Gospels is found in the writings of Josephus.


It is SIMPLY ILLOGICAL and irrational to attempt to develop a theory about an "Historical Jesus" WITHOUT any credible historical sources.

One cannot develop a FLAT EARTH theory today because one would FIRST need to PRESENT the data and they would NOT be able to do so.

It is the very same thing with the HJ theory at this PRESENT time.

No credible historical DATA of antiquity for HJ can be presented today.

The HJ theory has to be ABANDONED since it is ILLOGICAL to attempt to advance a theory WITHOUT credible historical sources.

J-D

That's an interesting question, which aa5874 will never answer.You have not explained what makes you think that 'according to the law' means 'in typical fashion'.

It is true, though, that having a spirit for a father is not the typical way in which human beings are conceived. More than that, in fact: there are no spirits, so there has never been anybody who had a spirit for a father.If one wishes to change the meaning of 'dichotomous' to mean 'mutually incompatible'. That's not what it means now. It means 'divided into two parts'.Agreed. They can't both be literally correct. At least one of them must be literally incorrect. Of course, they could easily both be literally incorrect.I can't stop you guessing what aa5874 means. But you might be guessing wrong. That might not be what aa5847 means.Matthew 1:18 cannot be literally true. Nobody in this thread said it was, and I have also not yet seen anybody give an example of anybody adopting an 'HJ hypothesis' (whatever that means) who thinks it was.If you want to understand, I could give you some simple examples to illustrate the concept of logical validity which might clear things up for you. Is that what you want?If I were following the style of aa5874, I would say 'We're not talking about wiring diagrams'.So you say. But aa5874 has never confirmed that.

J-D

You have not answered the question which mysteriousworld asked.

aa5874

Let me continue to show that Scholars are engaged in logical fallacies to support the HJ theory when it should have been abandoned due to a lack of credible historical sources.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

So based on Ehrman, the Gospels themselves and the sources for the Gospels are unreliable and contain inventions.

The very HJ theory seeks to corroborate the unreliability of the Gospels from Conception to Ascension.

1. The birth of Jesus is rejected in the HJ theory.

2. The holy Ghost baptism is rejected in the HJ theory.

3. The temptation of Jesus by the Devil is rejected in the HJ theory.

4. The miracles of Jesus using the SPIT and TOUCH technique is rejected in the HJ theory.

5. The walking on the sea is rejected in the HJ theory.

6. The transfiguration is rejected in the HJ theory.

7. The resurrection is rejected in the HJ theory.

8. The ascension is rejected in the HJ theory.

After having REJECTED virtually all of Jesus by the authors of the Jesus stories illogically Scholars are using the Gospels as their PRIMARY sources for HJ.

The gospel texts are admittedly unreliable but Scholars rely on them for the HJ theory which SEEKS to confirm and prove that the Gospel texts are really Unreliable.

The HJ theory is a Logical fallacy.

J-D

It would be illogical to both accept and reject the same story, but it is not necessarily illogical to accept some stories and reject others.

avi

He may, or may not, according to his inclinations. I illustrated the passage from Matthew 1:18, with the two different Greek texts, to show that the question of the historicity of Jesus has many different dimensions, available for discussion--we are not obliged to resort to insulting one another. It is not aa5874's obligation to address the questions I have posed. I offered them, frankly, because I am insufficiently bright to be able to offer an answer to the two questions, myself, and hope that someone with either more intelligence, or more experience, or both, would offer an opinion:

1. how do those two alterations influence, if at all, the interpretation of the passage?

2. If no change in interpretation, then why were the changes introduced in the later, Byzantine versions?


dichotomous - divided or dividing into two sharply distinguished parts or classifications

J-D seems not to comprehend my English:

The two parental lineages are "sharply distinguished". The distinction is sharp to the point that the two different paternal lines represent anti-parallel diversions towards infinity. That's what I mean by use of the word dichotomous: division into two parts, distinguished sufficiently, so as to permit one to conclude mutual incompatibility.

If not "in typical fashion", then, why did Paul mention born under the law? In my opinion, Paul wanted his (Jewish) listeners/audience to appreciate the notion that Jesus' birth was an ordinary, conventional, human birth, fully compatible with all of the traditional Jewish rules and regulations regarding the birth process, notwithstanding Mary's unorthodox method of impregnation. In shorthand, this is known as "typical fashion".

Have you looked at Chaucer's links?
Thank you, no, that's not really necessary, though I would welcome your input.
What I would earnestly appreciate, is your comment on the issue raised.

Offering to "illustrate the concept of logical validity", without however, addressing the issue already raised, is not really appropriate, in my opinion.

The issue, in case it was unclear, is this:

A. The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises.

B. Validity means something very specific in logic: that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

I rewrote these two passages, simplifying them, to amplify the message:

A-1. Validity has NOTHING to do with TRUTH of premises.

B-1. Validity has EVERYTHING to do with TRUTH of premises.

That's the example, which requires your clarification, because, to my way of thinking, at least one of these two sentences/premises is wrong. Maybe they both are.....

avi

aa5874

Well, Scholars reject the baptism story but still accept the baptism.

Examine the baptism story in gMark. The baptism of Jesus was extraordinary with a Holy Ghost like a DOVE.

Mark 1:9-11 Scholars REJECT the story about the baptism of Jesus in Mark1.10-11 and still without any external credible historical sources claimed HJ was baptized by John.

It is NOW exposed that Scholars REJECT the baptism story and ACCEPT the baptism WITHOUT any credible evidence.

It was an ILLOGICAL thing to do.

Logically, Scholars should have REJECTED the baptism until credible sources of antiquity can be found.

That was the LOGICAL thing to do.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

J-D

I think I've had enough experience of discussions with aa5874 to form a judgement.Insults are supposed to be reported to the moderators.Of course it's not an obligation.I don't know. But one possibility is that it was a mistake.I understand what you mean. I also understand what 'dichotomous means. You don't. But it's probably not important at this point.I don't know. I don't know what that writer (whether it was Paul or not) meant by that phrase.I understand what your opinion is. I just don't see the basis for it.Yes.What would you welcome my input for if you don't want to understand?Your rewriting of 'B' changes its meaning. B means something different from B-1. A-1 and B-1 contradict each other, but A and B don't.