aa5874

<edit>

Can't you read that Scholarly reconstruction of HJ is based on the "gospel texts as the primary source for his biography".

The very claim that the MAN HJ was of or lived in NAZARETH, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified under Pilate is a MOST BLATANT indication that Scholars did INDEED use the Biography of the Child of a Holy Ghost in the gospels.

In the gospels, ONLY Jesus the Child of a Holy Ghost lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John the Baptist and was Crucified under Pilate.

<edit>

Do you even understand what "biography" means?

Do you even understand what "Primary source" means?

avi

Thank you J-D. I appreciate your effort. I believe you are genuinely trying to clarify the situation.

I apologize, again, for being rather dense. The definition of "logical fallacy" which you have provided, above, offers food for thought.

It is certainly very different from my perception of the definition, and so, perhaps I am not so far off the mark, in trying to understand why we are having so much disagreement on this issue of whether or not the gospels support the "postulate" of an HJ. I did not realize until today, (by way of illustration of how far away my thinking is, from the majority of forum participants), that a "postulate" was presumed TRUE, I had assumed it was just another word for "hypothesis", and not a synonym for axiom, which I had thought, from geometry days, was something absolutely true, and certainly not a parameter associated with the entirely corrupt, non-uniform, and contradictory texts from the gospels.

So, to clarify, when I write, regarding some piece of text found in one or more of the four gospels, "logically fallacious", what I mean to express, (contrary, I think to what you have, apparently, thus far imagined,) is that, in my opinion, the author of said text, is deliberately writing fiction, components of which may indeed represent genuine truth, but much of which, is utterly, intentionally false.

Your idea, J-D, that one must not employ the term, "logically fallacious", based simply on a perception of dishonesty in the text, is somewhat difficult for me to fathom, in effect, I may well have exceeded my diving depth here. I believe I have reached my nadir with respect to philosophy.

I am reminded of the story of Mohammed flying on al-Buraq, a camel, to visit God, at night....As I understand it, now, certainly not 48 hours ago, it would have been incorrect, had I expressed the thought that such an assertion were "logically fallacious" (because of course, camels don't fly). I remain puzzled, though, about how I should describe this activity: For me the notion of Mohammed, or anyone else, flying on an airborne camel, is untrue, false, dishonest, boring, illogical, and counterintuitive. If I were to put all those descriptors into a pot, and stir, with an ounce of enthusiasm, I suppose I would be left with a new formula: "logically fallacious".

I await, eagerly, your explanation of how something can be both false (or impossible) and, yet, logical. Twice previously, in this thread, I did provide the illustration of a man born without lower extremities, and did request your clarification of how this individual could undergo bilateral resection of the lower extremities. To my way of thinking this is an example of how it is not correct for you to write that something can be both "illogical", and "impossible", but not fallacious. One simply cannot perform a resection of lower limbs, when none are present to begin with. Accordingly, for me, someone who writes, or speaks, of an intention to perform such a procedure, resection of non-existent lower limbs, is behaving in a logically fallacious manner.

avi

J-D

Yes, I can read that.No, it isn't.I can't find any verse in the gospels which says that.Yes. Do you?Yes. Do you?

J-D

If you are expressing the opinion that some parts of the Gospel texts were written by people who knew they were not true and who wrote them with the conscious intention of deceiving people, then my reaction is that that may or may not be so. I don't have a definite view. If that is what you mean by 'logically fallacious', then I stand by my view that you're using the expression in a very unusual way. I think that using words in ways which are different from the way other people use them tends to hinder communication, but I can't prevent you from making that choice.

Self-contradictory statements can be described as logically impossible (although it's not logically impossible for people to make self-contradictory statements). A statement which is inconsistent with independently known facts may describe a state of affairs which is impossible, but that's not the same as logically impossible. It is logically impossible for a statement which contradicts itself to be true.

aa5874

Well based on what you wrote the HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

One cannot use the biography of the Child of a Ghost as the primary source for a man/woman called HJ.

If Scholars use the biography of the Child of a Ghost in the gospels as the primary source for a man/woman then they should use the description of Satan to presume there was an "Historical Devil".

In gMatthew both SATAN and Jesus, the child of a Holy Ghost, were on the pinnacle of the Temple when Satan asked him to Jump.

J-D

No, not necessarily so on the basis of what I wrote.There is nothing logically impossible in doing so. A document which contains some statements known, guessed, or assumed to be false is not precluded by logic from being used as a primary source.It is logically possible for a document to contain both false statements and true statements.

avi

A. "that": I had better underline it:
1, does "that" refer to my opinion, *that some parts....", OR, does "that" refer to your conclusion regarding my supposed opinion--"my reaction"?
2. fiction, e.g. Tolstoy War and Peace, or Snow Country by Kawabata, contains accounts of the lives of various characters, people who never lived, but are described in great detail. We don't use the terms "deceptive", or "not true", in describing such writing. We call it, fiction.
3. In my opinion, the gospels are works of fiction, nothing more.They are deliberately false, i.e. the authors knew very well that no person has ever cured blindness by spitting on the eyes of a blind man, The Gospels are a collection of fictional vignettes, of varying quality.

B.
1. of what? of my opinion, as you have described it, or, of the notion, regardless of who has articulated the point, that the substance of the gospels is myth?
2. You don't have a definite view? Really?
Do you mean to write, here, that you are not sure whether or not blindness can be cured by spittle?
Are you uncertain whether or not a person can wave their hands about, and thereby cure epilepsy?
What is it that you have an indefinite view of?
3. If you have no definite view, may I inquire whether you have found any meaningfulness by participating on this forum? Has your time spent here been productive in terms of assisting you to identify more clearly, your definite view of the gospels?

C.
You may be absolutely correct, here, J-D. For sure, my use of English is at variance with several other forum participants, as detailed previously.

I would, however, ask that you offer a link to a dictionary that refutes my definition (n.b. not one that falsifiies my perspective!!!):

i. epilepsy is not cured by hand waving;
2. the gospels report that epilepsy is cured by hand waving;
3. therefore the gospels contain false information.

In my view, the gospels were written by folks who were fluent in Greek, and knew the distinction between truth and fiction.

Accordingly, the gospels are fallacious: fallacy: avi

J-D

As I now understand you, you are expressing the following view: 'Each Gospel, as a whole, was composed as a fictional work, understood by the writer or writers to be fictional and not intended by the writer or writers to be taken by readers as non-fictional.'

My reaction to the statement in the quotation marks there is that the statement may or may not be true, and that if you would like me to discuss it further I would like you to begin by giving some explanation of your reasons for holding that view.

You can find various definitions of 'fallacy' here:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...acy+definition

As I acknowledged before, there are different uses of the term (as there are with most terms), some broader and some narrower (as is true with many terms).

Earlier references on this thread were to a 'logical fallacy', and the use of the qualifier 'logical' with the word 'fallacy' points to the term being used in a narrower sense.

In any case, I do not think that the term 'fallacy', even in its broadest senses, is applied to works of fiction. If you adopt a usage of the term which makes it appropriate to say, for example, that Alice's Adventures In Wonderland is a fallacy, you will find yourself seriously at odds with the way other people use the term.

avi

Umm. NO I don't claim to know the intentions of the writers of the gospels.

this is not my view, at all. Perhaps it is your view???

What is your view???

oops, you didn't answer that question from the last post.....

hmmm... Seems, looking back, that you answer selectively, ignoring some, addressing others..... kind of hopscotch....

avi

aa5874

Again, I really don't know what you are arguing about once you admit people can make false dichotomies.

Please, were are dealing with what Scholars have claimed about the "historical Jesus".

Scholars are using the gospels as the PRIMARY source to find a human being referred to as the "historical Jesus".

Scholars accept all the characters in the NT called disciples, and Pilate, Tiberius, Caiaphas, John the Baptist, King Herod, Philip tetrarch, and Paul as human beings.

Scholars also accept demons, devils, Satan, the Holy Ghost, the God of the Jews and the angel Gabriel as non-human beings in the NT.

Scholars accept virtually all the characters in the NT as described EXCEPT Jesus Christ and also reject most of what he did.

The theory that a character described as a Ghost was really a man NEEDS external corroboration and there is none.

The HJ theory therefore can only be maintained by logical fallacies.

It is logically possible for a document to contain ILLOGICAL statements.

It is logically possible for a theory to be based on Logical Fallacies.

You have also written that False conculsions can be derived from logical fallcies.

It is therefore possible that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

Based on all you have written so far, you have shown that is extremely possible that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy.