Toto

Many have tried to explain this subtlety to aa5874, but have not gotten through.

It is worth saying that HJers try to extract historical data from an obviously mythological tale without any external evidence of the existence of Jesus. Historians outside of the HJ guild do not agree that this is a valid technique. Those Egyptian Pharaohs and Chinese emperors have hard primary evidence that at least shows that they existed.

aa5874

Please, be rational. I need you to demonstrate how Logical Fallacies can sometimes erroneously produce True conclusions.

You appear to be tying yourself in knots.

You are actually demonstrating that you are engulfed by false dichotomies.

You don't even seem to realize that your assertion that "Logical fallacies sometimes erroneously produce true conclusions" is beyond the scope of Logics and reason.

Well, you can't just say Jesus may have existed because there are stories about a character described as the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

You can't just say those things.

The characters in the NT Jesus stories have been DESCRIBED by the authors.

1. Tiberius was described as Caesar.

2. Pilate was described as Governor.

3. Caiaphas was described as High Priest.

4. John was called the Baptist.

5. Gabriel was called an angel.

6. Satan was called the Devil.

7. Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

I will LOGICALLY say what the authors wrote about Tiberius, Pilate, Caiaphas, John, Gabriel, Satan and Jesus.

I will LOGICALLY say that the NT contains Stories about the Child of a Holy Ghost, Satan, an angel, the God of the Jews with a Governor, and High Priest.

That is simply logical.

Now, where is the history for the historical Jesus?

If there was history for HJ then I would have LOGICALLY said what the authors wrote about HJ.

But, there is NONE. No history for HJ.

Logically, I have nothing to say about HJ.

Those who have something to say about HJ are engaged in logical fallacies.

It was the Child of the Holy Ghost that lived in Nazareth.

Logically, I can say what the authors wrote about Jesus.

What can you logically say about HJ?

PyramidHead

Premise 1: All basketball players are humans.
Premise 2: LeBron James is human.

Therefore...

Conclusion: LeBron James is a basketball player.

This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, yet produces a true conclusion, since LeBron James happens to be a basketball player.

"Engulfed by false dichotomies" is now my Facebook status.

Nobody is making that leap. The fact that Jesus was in a story does not, by itself, provide evidence of his existence. Nobody thinks it does.

Given your grasp on logic and fallacies, I wouldn't give yourself that much credit.


I don't know, and I don't claim to know.

aa5874

I did NOT make any claims about LeBron James.

Don't you see what you are doing?

You are EMPLOYING your own logical fallacies.

We are dealing with the HJ theory and you are constantly introducing your own false dichotomies about characters that no-one has even mentioned.

Please, please, please.

It is claimed that "HJ" lived in Nazareth based on ADMITTED UNRELIABLE sources where a character Jesus Christ was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Please, show how it was LOGICALLY derived that HJ lived in Nazareth based on UNRELIABLE sources that a Child of the Holy Ghost of Nazareth lived in the same place.

That is all.

I see LeBron James on TV but I have never seen HJ.

PyramidHead

Ohhh, I get it now... you're unable to rationally process examples and analogies. Well, that's too bad for you.

J-D

I beg your pardon? Are you serious? You have made a most fundamental error in reading. Read the OP carefully. It does not refer to the methodology of ancient history, but it does make an assertion about logical fallacy. If you don't want to discuss logical fallacy, feel free to start another thread.

J-D

LOGICAL FALLACIES do produce FALSE CONCLUSIONS. But it is also POSSIBLE to produce FALSE CONCLUSIONS without committing any LOGICAL FALLACIES. LOGICAL PROCEDURES do not DEPEND on the TRUTH of ASSUMPTIONS. LOGICAL PROCEDURES can be applied BOTH to TRUE ASSUMPTIONS and to FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. The APPLICATION of LOGIC produces ONLY TRUE CONCLUSIONS from TRUE ASSUMPTIONS, but LOGIC can EQUALLY be APPLIED to FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and produce EITHER TRUE CONCLUSIONS OR FALSE CONCLUSIONS. LOGICAL FALLACY is IDENTIFIED not by the use of FALSE ASSUMPTIONS but by the production of FALSE CONCLUSIONS FROM TRUE ASSUMPTIONS. The production of FALSE CONCLUSIONS from FALSE ASSUMPTIONS is not an INDICATOR of LOGICAL FALLACY.

J-D

Please be rational. I need you to demonstrate that you know what 'fallacy' means.

Incidentally, the idea that the conclusion of a fallacious argument must be false is itself a fallacy, the argument from fallacy.

Toto

Maybe some red fonts would help get your point across.

mountainman

Let me read the OP carefully again. The OP starts with "The HJ theory ...". In case any readers are in the dark about this acronym "HJ", or were wondering what this "HJ" directly refers to, it is the "Historical Jesus theory" and as such must implicitly rely upon the methodology of ancient history, unless one is approaching the HJ theory with implicit reliance upon the methodology of Biblical history. The methodologies employed by ancient history and biblical history are quite different. You have not demonstrated yet to my satisfaction that you are aware of the differences.

It is also worth listing some of the criteria and methodologies used by Biblical Historians (not ancient historians) - see “Bayes’ Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method — Adjunct Materials by Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.

Eusebius the very first Biblical Historian submitted the very first Historical Jesus theory for peer review c.324 CE - he had no rivals but he did have many continuators. However we should by now be very much aware that Eusebius's reputation as a competent chonographer (leaving aside his reputation as an historian) is quite sullied, and is essentially ridiculed by competent ancient historians.