aa5874

You have NOT done what you claimed. You have NOT identified one single error in my argument. You have stated that we are at an IMPASSE which implies that you CANNOT establish any logical error in argument.

Your own statement have DESTROYED your fallacious claim.

Please, Please, look at your OWN statement.

I cannot regard you as credible when you blatantly and publicly make statements that are self-contradictory and fallacious.

Please, IDENTIFY the logical error or stop making claims that are unsubstantiated.

J-D

In the immortal words of Hank Scorpio: 'My butt is for sitting, not for kissing'.A textbook on logic should do the job. Pick up the first one you can find.I note that you don't offer any reference or authority.Yes, in the same way that I described before, as a textbook on logic will confirm.Yes.Then I suggest you look for one. I doubt you will find any reference on the subject of logic to agree with your position that logic applies to fiction in exactly the same way it applies to reality.It was relevant to the post I was responding to.I didn't say it did.No, it's not 'by definition'. What definition? Where? I understand that that is your position, but you have never justified it.I have explained the logical error already. You don't change it from being an error by repetition, no matter how many times you repeat it or how much emphasis you add.

Your problem with logic is probably related to your repeated difficulty in understanding the use of the word 'if'. A statement which begins 'If X ...' does not become improper just because 'X' (whatever it is) happens to be true; nor does it become improper just because 'X' (whatever it is) happens to be false. Yet you make both kinds of objection. I wonder what kind of usage of 'if' you regard as proper.

J-D

I showed the logical error which makes your whole argument fallacious in this post:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....72#post6977172

tanya

I know of no textbook of logic, but I know something about the logic required for successful operation of power supplies, and what you have written above, that the "logic" changes, ("depending on whether it is an actual failure of a genuine power supply, or an hypothetical description of a fictional power supply"), is not correct.

Please note, C2 is defined as being 100 nanofarads, while C1 is 10 microfarads.

These two values do not change, 10 microfarads and 100 nanofarads, depending on whether or not this is a computation as part of a theoretical exercise, or field work repairing a defective power supply.

No statement contradicting this perspective in any textbook of logic, is going to alter that fact. The logic required to design and construct, or repair, power supplies, is not dependent on what someone may or may not have written in some textbook praising or ridiculing philosophers.

Mark 1:1 is set in stone, not unlike this wiring diagram. Claiming that the "rules" or "laws" of logic, dictate unique treatment of variables, depending on whether or not those variables are real or hypothetical, is untrue, in my experience. Since you are the one making this absurd claim, it is on your shoulders to furnish a reliable published source explaining such nonsense. Are there other forum members who support this myth? For all I know, J-D's next argument will claim that time is not fixed, but changes according to velocity, and that light bends in a gravitational field....What is the world coming to?

If you imagine that I err, and that, in fact, the logic needed to repair a real power supply with a defective C2, is different from the logic needed to assemble de novo this same power supply, from scratch, then, you need to cite, not a textbook of logic, but a textbook of physics, or E&M engineering.

tanya

Well, for starters, I didn't introduce "if". You did.

I didn't write anything about "if".

I wrote that EVERY reference to jesus in Mark refers to the Jesus defined in Mark 1:1.

You evidently wish to dispute that fact. You wish to ask, what IF, .... where the query focuses on some hypothesis contradicting Mark 1:1, namely, interpreting Jesus NOT as the son of God, a deity, a divine creature, a phantom, as you write, but rather, as a conventional flesh and blood human being of the spaceship earth.

I have zero interest in such questions, with those "if's".

Do I require an authority to support my view that Mark 1:1 (Byzantine version, only) identifies Jesus as son of Yahweh?

Or, do you mean, I require someone to confirm that EVERY reference in Mark's gospel, to Jesus, refers to the same
Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ θεοῦ
?

So, when I read "Huck" in the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, am I obliged to find someone to serve as a reference, to defend my claim that "Huck" is none other than "Huckleberry Finn"?

Or, perhaps you mean, that I need a scholar to support my claim that " θεοῦ", here refers to Yahweh?

What do I require an authority to claim? Can you clarify that?

aa5874

NO, NO. You don't know how logics work.

You have made over 100 posts and cannot IDENTIFY one single statement about Jesus in gMark that IS historically accurate and have ADMITTED that statements in Sinaiticus gMark CANNOT be historically true.

You have DONE EXACTLY what I wanted you to do in over 100 posts.

You have even FORCEFULLY admitted that you have NOT mentioned any statements about Jesus in the Gospels that are historically accurate

Look at the number of times you have admitted that statements about Jesus in the Gospels CANNOT be historically accurate.

Post #106 by J-DPost #165 by J-DPost #170 by J-DPost #189 by J-DPost #326 by J-D
Post #329 by J-DPost #331 by J-DPost #389 by J-D You have SUPPORTED my thread all along because you don't understand how Logics work.

You did NOT ever mention an historically accurate statement about Jesus to disturb my theory that gMark is the Perfect HJ argument Killer.

You had OVER 100 chances.

If you knew how LOGICS work you would have known that you NEEDED to Present a credible historically accurate statement about Jesus in gMark to disturb my theory.

You have demonstrated that you don't know how Logics work.

You had over 100 posts and you have failed.

Logically, gMark as it is presented cannot be an historically accurate document.

Logically, gMark cannot be used for historical purposes WITHOUT external corroboration.

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

That is how LOGICS work.

J-D

It is not correct to say that things which do not exist must be subject to the same laws of physics that apply to things that really exist, and you have not cited any textbook which makes such an assertion.

J-D

You chose to quote statements by me in which I used the word ‘if’ and to dismiss them as ‘nonsensical gibberish’ and ‘improperly written’. If you didn’t understand my statements, then your evaluation of them is unfounded, but since I used the word ‘if’ in those statements, you don’t understand them if you don’t understand how the word ‘if’ is used.

Either you want to discuss what I said or you don’t. Don’t try to have it both ways.I didn’t say that you require a reference or authority. I noted that you had responded to my explanation of how logic works by challenging me to provide a reference or authority but also by disputing it and taking a contrasting position on how logic works without providing any reference or authority of your own. In other words, you were not yourself conforming to the standards you were applying to me.

J-D

No, no. You have demonstrated that you do not know how logic works.

aa5874

So far I have Identified SEVENTEEN events in gMark that are ABSOLUTE FICTION, that is, those events as presented are FICTION whether or not Jesus did exist.

Those SEVENTEEN events have ZERO historical value.

But, it must always be remembered that it was Apostle Peter who told the author of gMark those ABSOLUTE FICTION stories according to the Church and its writers. See "Against Heresies" 3.1.1.

It is therefore MOST laughable when gMark is examined based on the Premise that it was the Apostle Peter who PREACHED about the gMark Jesus to Jews and Gentiles.

The very same Peter who VEHEMENTLY denied THREE TIMES ever knowing Jesus in gMark is the same character who told the author of gMark that Jesus WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Cursed a tree that it died, healed incurable diseases with Spit,and Raised the dead.

The Church and its writers have IMPLICATED the Apostle Peter.

The Apostle Peter was a MONSTROUS LIAR based on the very Church and its writers since the stories are Absolute Fiction and MUST be false whether or not Jesus did exist.

Examine the LIES of Peter in gMark based on the Church.


LIE 1. Mark 6.48-49 where Jesus was WITNESSED as he walked on the sea.

LIE 2. Mark 9.2-3 where Jesus Transfigured in the presence of his disciples and was talking to the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

LIE 3. Mark 16.6 where a man in white clothes claimed Jesus was risen.

LIE 4. Mark 1.10-11 The Baptism with the Holy Ghost Bird and the TALKING heaven.

LIE 5. Mark 2.5 where a man was INSTANTLY cured of Palsy.

LIE 6. Mark 3.5 where a man's withered hand was INSTANTLY healed.

LIE 7. Mark 4.39 where Jesus VOCALLY and INSTANTLY calmed a sea-storm.

LIE 8. Mark 5.13 with Jesus, the Pigs and Demons.

LIE 9. Mark 5.41 with the raising of the dead girl.

LIE 10. Mark 6.42 with feeding of the 5 thousand men and 12 baskets of left-overs.

LIE 11. Mark 7.34 the INSTANT healing of the deaf and dumb with Spit.

LIE 12. Mark 8.9 the feeding of the 4 thousand men and 7 baskets of left overs.

LIE 13. Mark 8.25 the healing of the Blind man.

LIE 14. Mark 9.7 with the TALKING cloud at the transfiguration.

LIE15. Mark 9.25 with the INSTANT healing of the dumb and deaf epileptic.

LIE 16. Mark 10.52 with the INSTANT restoration of sight to the blind.

LIE 17. Mark 11.20 with the killing of the FIG tree by a curse.

gMark has ZERO credibility and WITHOUT corroboration for Jesus and the disciples.

The Apostle Peter PREACHED he SAW Jesus transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

Peter was a Monstrous Liar.

The Emperor Julian recognised the Lies over 1500 years ago.

"Against the Galileans" The Emperor warns his audience and readers. The Jesus stories of the Apostle Peter have induced men to believe the Monstrous tale is the truth.

gMark is the Perfect HJ argument killer.

gMark CANNOT be historically accurate as it is Found in the Extant Codices.