Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 01:42 PM

It has been brought to my attention that the HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy.

Once it is assumed that the description of Jesus in the NT is false and that he did NOT say or do what is written then the same NT cannot be used as the very source for the "historical Jesus".

If the NT is false or unreliable then Jesus could have been a "talking bacteria or holy ghost worm".

Juststeve · 06-28-2011, 04:31 PM

Were such a standard applied consistently it would be difficult to conclude that most specific persons from antiquity existed since almost all historical documents are unreliable to one extent or another. Perhaps a less simplistic approach is called for.

Steve

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Were such a standard applied consistently it would be difficult to conclude that most specific persons from antiquity existed since almost all historical documents are unreliable to one extent or another. Perhaps a less simplistic approach is called for.

Steve

The "historical Jesus" was derived from REJECTING the history of Jesus in the writings of antiquity.

It is a LOGICAL FALLACY to reject historical details of Jesus in order to re-construct or make claims about the history of Jesus from the very source that has been dicredited.

Logical Fallacy 1.

HJers do not believe the story about Jesus of Nazareth in the NT but believe HJ was born in Nazareth.

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 05:49 PM

If some claim that they do not believe a story then they cannot simply imagine their own story and claim it is the truth.

Examine this logical fallacy.

"I do not believe the Jesus story and in the story Pilate was a Governor but I believe Pilate was a fisherman therefore Pilate was a fisherman".

HJers are committing the very same logical fallacies.

HJers do NOT believe the story that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem and but BELIEVE he was born in Nazareth therefore Jesus was born in Nazareth because they believe so.

HJers SIMULTANEOUSLY discredit the source they believe.

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 09:49 PM

The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy.

Another Logical fallacy

HJers do not believe that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin but believe Jesus was fathered by a man therefore the Jesus story should have claimed the father of Jesus was a man because they believe so.

J-D · 06-28-2011, 09:55 PM

What is your definition of 'the HJ theory'?

aa5874 · 06-28-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What is your definition of 'the HJ theory'?

A logical fallacy.

mountainman · 06-29-2011, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What is your definition of 'the HJ theory'?

A theory in the field of ancient history in which the figure of "Jesus" makes an appearance with an index of historicity greater than zero.

J-D · 06-29-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What is your definition of 'the HJ theory'?

A logical fallacy.

What is your definition of 'definition'?

aa5874 · 06-29-2011, 07:32 PM

Another logical fallacy
HJers disagree with the Jesus story in the NT and believed Jesus was a man therefore they assert Jesus was a MAN.

06-28-2011, 01:42 PM	#1
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy It has been brought to my attention that the HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy. Once it is assumed that the description of Jesus in the NT is false and that he did NOT say or do what is written then the same NT cannot be used as the very source for the "historical Jesus". If the NT is false or unreliable then Jesus could have been a "talking bacteria or holy ghost worm".

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

06-28-2011, 04:31 PM	#2
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Were such a standard applied consistently it would be difficult to conclude that most specific persons from antiquity existed since almost all historical documents are unreliable to one extent or another. Perhaps a less simplistic approach is called for. Steve

06-28-2011, 05:49 PM	#4
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	If some claim that they do not believe a story then they cannot simply imagine their own story and claim it is the truth. Examine this logical fallacy. "I do not believe the Jesus story and in the story Pilate was a Governor but I believe Pilate was a fisherman therefore Pilate was a fisherman". HJers are committing the very same logical fallacies. HJers do NOT believe the story that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem and but BELIEVE he was born in Nazareth therefore Jesus was born in Nazareth because they believe so. HJers SIMULTANEOUSLY discredit the source they believe.

06-28-2011, 09:49 PM	#5
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy. Another Logical fallacy HJers do not believe that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin but believe Jesus was fathered by a man therefore the Jesus story should have claimed the father of Jesus was a man because they believe so.

06-28-2011, 09:55 PM	#6
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	What is your definition of 'the HJ theory'?

06-29-2011, 07:32 PM	#10
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Another logical fallacy HJers disagree with the Jesus story in the NT and believed Jesus was a man therefore they assert Jesus was a MAN.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.