Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The very first Historical Jesus Theory was authored by Eusebius

What leads you to say that?

Eusebius himself,

You have not cited the words of Eusebius you are referring to.

The words of Eusebius to which I and many others have referred to ad nauseum in this forum for years to are to be found in the opening chapter of the Early Christian Church History.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The words of BIG E AUTHORED between 312 and 324 with revisions

HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA
Book I.
Chapter I. The Plan of the Work.

1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called1 have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

3 It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation2 of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.3

4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise,4 for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived. From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

5 Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers,6 we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

6 This work seems to me of especial importance because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of historical research.

7 I have already given an epitome of these things in the Chronological Canons7 which I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I have undertaken in the present work to write as full an account of them as I am able.

8 My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation8 of the Saviour Christ,-which is loftier and greater than human conception,

9 -and with a discussion of his divinity9 ; for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin of Christ's dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.

What he says there, even if it is true, is that he is the first to attempt to write a history of the Church from its origins to his own time, not that he is the first to write a 'historical Jesus theory'.

What's the logical difference?

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If the HJ theory is not a logical fallacy then someone should be able to provide unambiguous evidence

Everything in history is ambiguous, and subject to individual interpretation/subjectivity because it is not scientifically reproducable. No one can go back in time to verify what has happened. You will never get unambiguous evidence. It is unreasonable to require it.

I am happy to run with a multi-colum spreadsheet into which the evidence can be indexed - one column for unambiguous evidence, and a second column for ambiguous evidence. However the problem is that when the list is prepared and we have say 100 entries sitting in the ambiguous column, it still leaves unanswered the argument that the HJ theory has no historical evidence. Those who think that it is not unreasonable to require some unambiguity in the evidence may therefore be entitled to regard as a logical fallacy.

Faith is insufficient evidence.

Are you aware of any unambiguous evidence for any theory? You mentioned before two 'postulates' (rather than 'theories', if the distinction is significant in this context): can you cite any unambiguous evidence for either of them?

Can you?

aa5874 · 07-24-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, are you not the one who claimed Logic is NOT concerned with FACTS?

LOGIC is DIRECTLY DEPENDENT upon FACTS.

You have ZERO idea what LOGIC is.

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ZERO IDEA WHAT LOGIC IS.

I am resolute because you claimed Logic is NOT concerned with Facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

..Logic is concerned with the relations of ideas, not with matters of fact.

You are COMPLETELY wrong. You assertion is LOGICALLY false.

It is LOGICAL fallacies that are NOT concerned with FACTS.

It is FALSE dichotomies that are NOT concerned with FACTS.

It is the "Criterion of Embarrassment" that Scholars use that is NOT concerned with Facts.

An HJ Scholar, Bart Ehrman, used a FALSE dichotomy called the criterion of embarrassment (dissimilarity) to claim HJ was baptized by John when the HJ theory is based on the premise that the New Testament does not give an accurate account of Jesus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Quote:

....The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus.....

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus

Quote:

...Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."...

How illogical!! It was a Child of a Holy Ghost that was baptized by John in the NT and when Jesus was baptized by John, even in the NT, he was a NOBODY and UNKNOWN by John or the Jews.

The very HJ theory itself DENIES reliability of the NT and suggests the Jesus story itself may have been invented.

The HJ theory itself suggests that the NT is NOT historical facts.

It is CLEAR that False Dichotomies and Logical fallacies like the "criterion of embarrassment" are NOT concerned with facts.

I stand by what I said. LOGIC is directly dependent on Facts.

You don't seem to understand that it is FALSE dichotomies and Logical fallacies that are NOT concerned with facts.

The HJ theory is a Logical fallacy. The HJ theory is NOT concerned with facts only with BELIEF.

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It is possible that there was a historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but resembled in some or many respects the gospel Jesus.

Conversely it is also possible that there was no historical Hesus and that the books of the new testament (both canonical and non canonical) are simply exemplars of pious fiction from a later century. What does the evidence actually say to us without the church-organ-music?

J-D · 07-24-2011, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.......

You are the one who does not understand logic. But that was obvious from the beginning.

You have not demonstrated that this is obvious anywhere above, you have merely asserted this to be so, from some perceived authority as a self-confessed logician defending the historical jesus theory from sinking beneath the patterns of the waves of ancient historical evidence.

What would you suggest is an appropriate method to determine who understands what logic is?

J-D · 07-24-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The very first Historical Jesus Theory was authored by Eusebius

What leads you to say that?

Eusebius himself,

You have not cited the words of Eusebius you are referring to.

The words of Eusebius to which I and many others have referred to ad nauseum in this forum for years to are to be found in the opening chapter of the Early Christian Church History.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The words of BIG E AUTHORED between 312 and 324 with revisions

HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA
Book I.
Chapter I. The Plan of the Work.

1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called1 have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

3 It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation2 of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.3

4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise,4 for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived. From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

5 Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers,6 we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

6 This work seems to me of especial importance because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of historical research.

7 I have already given an epitome of these things in the Chronological Canons7 which I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I have undertaken in the present work to write as full an account of them as I am able.

8 My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation8 of the Saviour Christ,-which is loftier and greater than human conception,

9 -and with a discussion of his divinity9 ; for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin of Christ's dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.

What he says there, even if it is true, is that he is the first to attempt to write a history of the Church from its origins to his own time, not that he is the first to write a 'historical Jesus theory'.

What's the logical difference?

That depends on how you define 'historical Jesus theory'. So far none of the definitions offered by you or by anybody else have been equivalent to 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'.

J-D · 07-24-2011, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, are you not the one who claimed Logic is NOT concerned with FACTS?

LOGIC is DIRECTLY DEPENDENT upon FACTS.

You have ZERO idea what LOGIC is.

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ZERO IDEA WHAT LOGIC IS.

I am resolute because you claimed Logic is NOT concerned with Facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

..Logic is concerned with the relations of ideas, not with matters of fact.

You are COMPLETELY wrong. You assertion is LOGICALLY false.

It is LOGICAL fallacies that are NOT concerned with FACTS.

It is FALSE dichotomies that are NOT concerned with FACTS.

It is the "Criterion of Embarrassment" that Scholars use that is NOT concerned with Facts.

An HJ Scholar, Bart Ehrman, used a FALSE dichotomy called the criterion of embarrassment (dissimilarity) to claim HJ was baptized by John when the HJ theory is based on the premise that the New Testament does not give an accurate account of Jesus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Quote:

....The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus.....

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus

Quote:

...Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."...

How illogical!! It was a Child of a Holy Ghost that was baptized by John in the NT and when Jesus was baptized by John, even in the NT, he was a NOBODY and UNKNOWN by John or the Jews.

The very HJ theory itself DENIES reliability of the NT and suggests the Jesus story itself may have been invented.

The HJ theory itself suggests that the NT is NOT historical facts.

It is CLEAR that False Dichotomies and Logical fallacies like the "criterion of embarrassment" are NOT concerned with facts.

I stand by what I said. LOGIC is directly dependent on Facts.

You don't seem to understand that it is FALSE dichotomies and Logical fallacies that are NOT concerned with facts.

The HJ theory is a Logical fallacy. The HJ theory is NOT concerned with facts only with BELIEF.

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ZERO IDEA WHAT LOGIC IS.

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The very first Historical Jesus Theory was authored by Eusebius

What leads you to say that?

Eusebius himself,

You have not cited the words of Eusebius you are referring to.

The words of Eusebius to which I and many others have referred to ad nauseum in this forum for years to are to be found in the opening chapter of the Early Christian Church History.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The words of BIG E AUTHORED between 312 and 324 with revisions

HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA
Book I.
Chapter I. The Plan of the Work.

1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called1 have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

3 It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation2 of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.3

4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise,4 for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived. From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

5 Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers,6 we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

6 This work seems to me of especial importance because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of historical research.

7 I have already given an epitome of these things in the Chronological Canons7 which I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I have undertaken in the present work to write as full an account of them as I am able.

8 My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation8 of the Saviour Christ,-which is loftier and greater than human conception,

9 -and with a discussion of his divinity9 ; for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin of Christ's dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.

What he says there, even if it is true, is that he is the first to attempt to write a history of the Church from its origins to his own time, not that he is the first to write a 'historical Jesus theory'.

What's the logical difference?

That depends on how you define 'historical Jesus theory'. So far none of the definitions offered by you or by anybody else have been equivalent to 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'.

A table above lists a spectrum of positions that define the HJ and the non HJ theories, and cites authors who have writen books on their "Historical Jesus Theories". These many many books are generally treated to represent an exposition and definition at the detail level of every and all historical jesus theories that have been collected and written ever since Eusebius first wrote his many books, the opening chapter of one I have cited above.

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What would you suggest is an appropriate method to determine who understands what logic is?

Which logic?

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID.

What did you say?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.