Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-01-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

I'd pay more attention if both logic and historical evidence were discussed together.

steve_bnk · 08-01-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

I'd pay more attention if both logic and historical evidence were discussed together.

There is no historical evidence. In the end all the arguments are conjecture.

J-D · 08-01-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

I'd pay more attention if both logic and historical evidence were discussed together.

You don't want to discuss any evidence.

J-D · 08-01-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is IMPERATIVE that people here understand that "validity" of an argument REFERS to the Structure of the argument.

For example, in gMark, we find the name "Pilate" but there is NO description of "Pilate".

In gMark, there seem to be all kinds of CREATURES. There are Angels, Unclean Spirits, a Son of God, Satan, a Holy Ghost, a God of the Jews and other characters that acted like human and some that acted like Spirits, that is, walking on water, transfiguring and resurrecting.

In order to make a VALID LOGICAL argument that Pilate in gMark was a FISHERMAN then it can be EASILY and LOGICALLY recognised that such an argument SIMPLY needs a CREDIBLE historical source EXTERNAL of gMark.

gMark does NOT state Pilate was a FISHERMAN.

Logically, if there are NO credible sources that show that "Pilate of gMark" was a FISHERMAN then the argument is INVALID.

Without a SOURCE for Pilate the FISHERMEN the argument LOGICALLY collapses.

On the other hand, if one ARGUES that "Pilate in gMark" was a Governor of Judea then again such an argument NEEDS a credible source of antiquity to be LOGICALLY VALID.

There are credible sources of antiquity that mentioned a character called Pilate who was a Governor of Judea.

[U] Examine Philo's "On the Embassy to Gaius" XXXVIII[U]

Quote:

....... Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea.

He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city....

An argument that "Pilate in gMark" was a Governor in Judea is a VALID argument.

Now, there is a character called Jesus Christ in gMark and it is claimed that Jesus WALKED on the sea, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day. In fact, in gMark, Jesus told his disciples he would be killed and RESURRECT on the THIRD day.

Scholars are arguing that Jesus in gMark was ACTUALLY just an ordinary man in real life ( the historical Jesus) who did NOT walk on the sea, did NOT TRANSFIGURE and was NOT resurrected on the THIRD day.

Scholars have immediately DISCREDITED the author of gMark.

Examine the words of a Scholar and Professional Historian called Bart Ehrman in a debate with William Craig.

Quote:

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.

These are not historically reliable accounts.......

For Scholars to have a VALID argument that Jesus in gMark was an ordinary man
( the historical Jesus) they MUST FIRST secure a CREDIBLE source of antiquity which show there was an ORDINARY man living in Nazareth which MATCHES some part of the Gospel Jesus stories.

Scholars have UTTERLY FAILED to produce the credible DATA from antiquity to VALIDATE their argument .

The HJ argument as it stand right now is LOGICALLY INVALID.

The HJ argument has ZERO LOGICAL structure.

So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage leaf to make an apple pie; and a great she-bear coming up the street popped its head into the shop. What! No soap? So he died; and she, very imprudently, married the barber; and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblilies, and the Garyulies, and the grand Panjandrum himself, with the little round button on top; and they all fell to playing the game of catch-as-catch-can till the gunpowder ran out of the heels of their boots.

mountainman · 08-01-2011, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

I'd pay more attention if both logic and historical evidence were discussed together.

You don't want to discuss any evidence.

See Post #485

Lists of "Claimed Evidence" for the HJ spectrum of theories

Claims of evidence start with the books of the NT canon, which aa5874 is claiming are really evidence of some sort of mythical cloud-ascendor and fictional resurrectee. External corroboration and claims start with mention in Josephus and deteriorate with each claim. The C14 is of no assistance to the HJ model, and in fact is another indicator that the mystery of christian origins has its story set very late in antiquity. Claims of evidence introduce the Eusebian history as integrous, but besides being labelled as the "most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity", Eusebius does not even have a respectable reputation among ancient historians as a competent chronographer.

mountainman · 08-01-2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

I'd pay more attention if both logic and historical evidence were discussed together.

There is no historical evidence.

The gJudas has been C14 dated between 220 and 340 CE. Something was happening in the Gospels Market between these two dates, but may have had nothing to do with an HJ.

J-D · 08-02-2011, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

I'd pay more attention if both logic and historical evidence were discussed together.

You don't want to discuss any evidence.

See Post #485

Lists of "Claimed Evidence" for the HJ spectrum of theories

Claims of evidence start with the books of the NT canon, which aa5874 is claiming are really evidence of some sort of mythical cloud-ascendor and fictional resurrectee. External corroboration and claims start with mention in Josephus and deteriorate with each claim. The C14 is of no assistance to the HJ model, and in fact is another indicator that the mystery of christian origins has its story set very late in antiquity. Claims of evidence introduce the Eusebian history as integrous, but besides being labelled as the "most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity", Eusebius does not even have a respectable reputation among ancient historians as a competent chronographer.

Exactly like I said, you don't want to discuss any evidence.

steve_bnk · 08-02-2011, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You don't want to discuss any evidence.

See Post #485

Lists of "Claimed Evidence" for the HJ spectrum of theories

Claims of evidence start with the books of the NT canon, which aa5874 is claiming are really evidence of some sort of mythical cloud-ascendor and fictional resurrectee. External corroboration and claims start with mention in Josephus and deteriorate with each claim. The C14 is of no assistance to the HJ model, and in fact is another indicator that the mystery of christian origins has its story set very late in antiquity. Claims of evidence introduce the Eusebian history as integrous, but besides being labelled as the "most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity", Eusebius does not even have a respectable reputation among ancient historians as a competent chronographer.

Herodotus creatively filled in the blanks did he not?

aa5874 · 08-02-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Claims of evidence start with the books of the NT canon, which aa5874 is claiming are really evidence of some sort of mythical cloud-ascendor and fictional resurrectee. External corroboration and claims start with mention in Josephus and deteriorate with each claim. The C14 is of no assistance to the HJ model, and in fact is another indicator that the mystery of christian origins has its story set very late in antiquity. Claims of evidence introduce the Eusebian history as integrous, but besides being labelled as the "most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity", Eusebius does not even have a respectable reputation among ancient historians as a competent chronographer.

This thread is NOT really about the TRUTH of the matter, i.e whether there was an HJ or not, this thread is about the LOGICAL VALIDITY of the HJ argument or theory.

Once the HJ argument is found to be LOGICALLY INVALID then the HJ argument cannot be advanced. It MUST be abandoned.

1. The Gospels according to Scholars are UNRELIABLE sources.

This is an EXTREMELY significant ADMISSION.

Once Scholars admit the Gospels are UNRELIABLE then credible EXTERNAL corroboration of antiquity is NEEDED for ALL characters and events in the GOSPELS.

Now, EXAMINE the dilemma for Scholars. They have made another STARTLING ADMISSION.

2. The SOURCES for the Gospels are ALSO UNRELIABLE.

So, the characters and events in the Gospels require credible EXTERNAL SOURCES but the VERY sources are UNRELIABLE.

The argument by Scholars that there was an HJ of Nazareth, who was ordinarily baptized by John and crucified under Pilate CANNOT be logically pursued when BOTH the Gospels and the SOURCES of the Gospels are ALL UNRELIABLE.

This is a Scholar and Professional Scholar called Bart Ehrman in a debate with William Craig.

Quote:

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.

These are not historically reliable accounts.......

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...of_the_Gospels

Quote:

...The Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman notes that many current verses were not part of the original text of the New Testament. "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries,".....

So, even if a Scholar argues that there was an HJ from Nazareth then there will be NO external source to support such an argument.

The sources to support any argument about HJ are UNRELIABLE.

I can examine the argument that Pilate in the NT was a Governor of Judea by using credible sources of antiquity.

I cannot examine any argument about HJ because there are NO credible sources of antiquity to support any HJ argument.

The HJ argument is logically INVALID, a product of Logical Fallacies and MUST be abandoned.

Toto · 08-02-2011, 09:07 AM

The moderation staff has observed that this thread has degenerated into repetition, non sequiturs, hobby horse riding, and a link to soft porn. It is time to put this thread out of its misery. It is closed.

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

08-02-2011, 09:07 AM	#500
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The moderation staff has observed that this thread has degenerated into repetition, non sequiturs, hobby horse riding, and a link to soft porn. It is time to put this thread out of its misery. It is closed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.