mountainman

It has been customary when discussing the evidence in this forum that both postulates refer to the Jesus as described in the books of the New Testament. But wait, you dont participate in the discussion of evidence at all, do you? Discussion of the logic without reference to the evidence is a hobby horse called pedantic rhetoric. Time to dismount.

mountainman

In general discussion logical fallacy does not necessarily have to have the specific technical definition that it does in Philosophical Logic discussions. This has been pointed out numerous times. Feel free to open another thread in the philosophy forum, where it belongs.

mountainman

Pay attention - Anyone who has been reading this forum for more than 2 months understands the answer to this question. A table was provided earlier which listed scholars and their positions on the Gospels. Why do your questions invariable amount to going round in circles without exhibiting any indication that answers have already been provided earlier in this thread?



Pay attention and dont jump the gun. Bart Ehrman's words are being considered.



See "historicity".

J-D

I don't recall asking you to accept my words. Why do you not answer my questions?

J-D

Does that mean the two postulates you are referring to are to be interpreted as follows?
1. The accounts given in the books of the New Testament referring to a character called Jesus are historically accurate in every detail.
2. It is not the case that the accounts given in the books of the New Testament referring to a character called Jesus are historically accurate in every detail.
Because if those are the two postulates it's very easy to do a comparative evaluation.
IF.

J-D

'Fallacy' is used in a looser and more general way than 'logical fallacy'. If all that is meant is 'fallacy' in a general sense, there is no need to use the more restrictive expression 'logical fallacy'. The idea that references specifically to 'logical fallacy' have nothing to do with logic looks dubious on the face of it--why use the word 'logical' if you're not referring to logic? aa5874 has repeatedly insisted on referring not just to fallacy but to logical fallacy, and more specifically to 'false dichotomy'. 'False dichotomy' is one particular kind of logical fallacy, with a specific technical meaning, but aa5874 obviously fails to understand it.

J-D

Pay attention. I didn't ask you which scholars you were talking about, I asked aa5874 which scholars aa5874 was talking about. Even if you know what you mean, that doesn't mean that aa5874 means the same thing. Obviously aa5874 can't be accepting all the scholars in your table as authoritative, since they have incompatible positions.Pay attention and don't jump the gun. I was asking about aa5874's position, not yours.Where? And, much more importantly, why?

avi

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dichotomy
di·chot·o·my

1.
division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.
2.
division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action.
3.
Botany . a mode of branching by constant forking, as in some stems, in veins of leaves, etc.


di·chot·o·my
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy


Definition of DICHOTOMY

1
: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>
2
: the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated
3
a : bifurcation; especially : repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem)
b : a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches
c : branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches
4
: something with seemingly contradictory qualities <it's a dichotomy, this opulent Ritz-style luxury in a place that fronts on a boat harbor — Jean T. Barrett>

Examples of DICHOTOMY

Her essay discusses the dichotomy between good and evil in the author's novels.
<her outfit is a sartorial dichotomy: an elegant gown and ratty old tennis shoes>
The amusing spectacle of the recent presidential vote in Florida should remind us of the persistence of the federal-state dichotomy. —Eugene Genovese, Atlantic, March 2001

Origin of DICHOTOMY

Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos (see dichotomous)
First Known Use: 1610

Definition of DICHOTOMOUS

1
: dividing into two parts
2
: relating to, involving, or proceeding from dichotomy

J-D:

1. Thank you for your participation in this thread. You have taught me a lot, and I appreciate it.

2. My question, above, remains unanswered. I fail to comprehend, notwithstanding your excellent labors, how it is possible for an activity, or action, which is impossible to perform (amputation of lower extremities on a person born without lower extremities) can still be viewed as logical.

I am repeating your point, here, again, in the hopes of learning your response:

Or, more appropriately, please do explain, J-D, how one can claim the quality of logical, when applied to an activity (walking on water, comes to mind) which is physically impossible.

3. As this branch of the forum is concerned primarily with biblical fallacies, or claims thereof, please understand that for many of us, the Greek roots to a word are important, in my own case, to learn, but in the case of many forum participants, to use, as naturally as I use English.

Greek roots to an English word, in this case, dichotomy, suggest to me, the importance of remaining faithful to the understanding of the meaning of that word, in Greece, a couple thousand years ago. I don't claim to know that meaning, (i.e. how the word "dichotomy", or "dichotomous" was used 2000 years ago, nor, for that matter, even today. I rely upon dictionaries to inform me of such matters. However, not all forum participants are as uneducated as I am, and some of them, perhaps you yourself, are both literate in, and comfortable using Greek.

Since you have a different use for the same words, it will help us to better communicate if we both make an effort to understand the other's usage. I urge you to try and improve our faulty logic, by writing your explanations of why our formulations are incorrect, and then, rewriting the same IDEAS, in "proper" English, i.e. English which accords with your own definitions, since ours, or at least, mine, are viewed as inadequate. Can you please explain, whether or not the handful of dictionary provided illustrations comply with, or deviate from your own definition of dichotomy?

avi

mountainman

No. Nothing like it. The subject of your statements needs to be Jesus, not the NT since the NT is only a fraction of the admissible available evidence.

mountainman

The table represents a spectrum of positions on the HJ and the non HJ (i.e. the MJ) which is idependent of aa5874, you, I and most of us in this forum. If you have been following aa5874, he is arguing that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy, and is therefore arguing against the spectrum of HJ positions (the 1st 3 positions in the table).


The H in HJ stands for "History", not Logic.