aa5874

You made two contradictory statements about LOGIC which PROVES you have NO idea what LOGIC is.

The records will show that you have NO idea what LOGIC is.

J-D

Logic is concerned with the relations between ideas--specifically, as I said earlier, with patterns of reasoning--not with the content of specific ideas. There's no contradiction.

Anyway, whether I'm right or wrong, you've produced no evidence that you know anything about logic.

aa5874

Now, you have EXPOSED your confusion. You have changed again.


How illogical!!! You don't know if you are right or wrong about LOGIC so you really don't what you are talking about.

Please, first find out what LOGIC is.

I told you that you are confused about LOGIC.

Now, back to the OP.

Once Scholars ADMITTED the NT was historically unreliable the NEXT LOGICAL step was to find credible historical sources of antiquity for a man/woman of Nazareth that was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

If NO credible historical sources for the man/woman of Nazareth can be found the NEXT LOGICAL step was to ABANDON the HJ theory as an UNSUBSTANTIATED claim based on Belief or Imagination.

So, as it stands right now, the historical Jesus has NO history.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

mountainman

Conclusions which have been derived via analysis and a theory from evidence, or the lack of evidence,
and postulates, which are sometimes stated, but often omitted (yet nevertheless implied), are two different things.

It does not take much time at all to read through the Jesus theories 1 to 4,
and it is clear that in each case, the historical jesus is both a postulate and, in a varying scale, a conclusion.


How can the use of postulates be a device to avoid serious discussion? Did Euclid avoid the serious discussion of geometry? (Your statement appears to be a logical fallacy.)

aa5874

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

Bart Ehrman is engaged in logical fallacies.

Bart Ehrman should know that the birth of Jesus as described in the gospels MUST be inventions yet he claims it is hard to imagine the baptism of an INVENTED character was INVENTED.

How illogical can Bart Ehrman be!!!

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

J-D

You may be confused, but I'm not. There's no change. Those statements agree with each other.I am right. But even if I weren't, you still wouldn't know anything about logic.Please, you find out what logic is.I told you that you don't know anything about logic.You still have not given any explanation at all of how you decide what is a reliable or credible source and what is not.

J-D

I know that. That's my point.It can't be both. It has to be one or the other.Postulates define the scope within which discussion can take place. Euclid's postulates define the scope of Euclidean geometry and exclude consideration of non-Euclidean geometry. There's no problem so long as everybody involved in a discussion accepts the same postulates, or is prepared to accept them as postulates for the sake of the discussion. Once somebody wants to question one of the postulates, the discussion can only continue by ceasing to treat it as a postulate. If I say that I am not willing to accept a particular statement as a postulate, and if you then insist on its acceptance as a postulate, you are avoiding serious discussion of that statement.

J-D

If a story about a character's birth is invented, it does not necessarily follow that every story about that character is invented. It is possible for false stories to be invented about real characters.

aa5874

I am dealing with Logics. You don't understand Logics.

If a story about a character's birth is invented then the following is Logically true.

1. The story may be wholly invented.

2. Invented stories may contain embarrassing details.

3. False stories about a character discredit the source of the stories.

Now, let us deal with the OP that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

1. Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was described as the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator.

2. Pilate in the NT was described as the Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius.

3. Scholars claim the NT is historically unreliable.

4. There are NO credible historical sources of antiquity external of the NT that mention a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

5. There are credible historical sources of antiquity external of the NT that mention a character called Pontius Pilate as a Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius, Philo and Josephus.

6. It is LOGICAL to deduce or theorise that there was a character called Pontius Pilate who was governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius based on the HISTORICAL facts.

7. It is NOT logical to deduce or theorise that Jesus of the NT was a human of Nazareth without any credible historical sources when he was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost.

8. A proper theory needs FACTS or credible data.

9. The historical Jesus of Nazareth has NO historical facts or credible data.

10. The historical Jesus is a false dichotomy--"Jesus of history is WITHOUT history"

J-D

I am dealing with logic. You don't understand logic.If a story is invented, then the story is invented. That's valid logic.That depends on what you mean by 'embarrassing'.That depends on what you mean by 'discredit'. The fact that one story is false does not prove that other stories from the same source must also all be false.In some parts of the New Testament, but not in others. I don't know of any part of the New Testament that makes all those claims.In some parts of the New Testament, but not in others.Just because scholars claim something does not prove that it is true.You have still not explained how you decide which sources are credible and which are not credible.You have not explained why you think Philo and Josephus are credible sources.It depends on which premises you deduce that conclusion from.It depends on which premises you deduce that conclusion from.You have not explained how you decide which data are credible.You have not explained how you decide which data are credible.You do not know what a dichotomy is.