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] 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.

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.

none_

boredom.
are you saying it was not possible to fabricate stories 2000 years ago?
how do you know those who fabricated the story didn't have sufficient leisure time?

aa5874

You are yet to VALIDATE your argument with credible data from antiquity about YOUR HJ.

1. Scholars had ALREADY admitted the Gospels are UNRELIABLE sources.

2. Scholars have ALREADY admitted that the SOURCES for the Gospels are ALSO UNRELIABLE sources.

3. There are NO credible sources of antiquity that mentioned a man/woman of Nazareth who was Baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

How in the world are you going to VALIDATE your argument for HJ WITHOUT credible DATA?

The HJ argument is NOT LOGICALLY VALID.

The HJ argument is a product of logical FALLACIES.

steve_bnk

I don't know , as I said it is not prpovable. However life was hard. People didn';t work a 40 hour weerk with liesure time. You couldn't work part time and live off cheap fast food while writing your novel.

The gospels show a knowledge of Jewish culture. Whoever wrote it from scratch would have to know Jewish culture, law, history, and religion. Narrowing the potential author candidates further.

Not imposible, but I lean towards an HJ as the root source. Something happend. Initially the Romans saw them as heretic Jews until they developed their own idenity as Christans late in the first century.

They would have to fabricate it, and then sell it tio enough peole to create a movement.


As to why, it is a fundmental question that needs more than a fip response.

steve_bnk

Buddhists have the same problem, there is no contermporayy coroboration of the existence of the Buddha character.

aa5874

Your argument is LOGICALLY INVALID.

The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, who walked on the sea, was TRANSFIGURED and was resurrected on the THIRD day and these claims do NOT require a knowledge of Jewish culture, law, history and religion.

And, you appear to have forgotten that the Gospels are NOT historically reliable sources which is the EXACT description of Myth fables.

1. Myth fables are NOT historically reliable sources.

The Gospels are NOT historically reliable sources.

2. The Sources for Myth Fables are UNRELIABLE sources.

The Sources for the Gospels are UNRELIABLE sources.

Examine the words of Bart Ehrman, a Scholar and a Professional Historian.

We have been through this many times already.

The argument for an HJ is logically INVALID or a product of logical FALLACIES.

Toto

Moderator's note: this thread has become too painful for me to continue reading. If you think it needs attention, PM me or report the post.

:banghead:

none_

you talk as if the story didn't exist until it was on paper.
I heard that it (the story not the character) was floating around as oral tradition for some time.
I figured you would not understand that boredom is a motivator.

steve_bnk

Heard from who?

But yes, an HJ from which an oral tradition whcih grew and embellished with retelling.

none_

several people have said the story originated with oral tradition.
HJ is biblical jesus.
if there was a man that inspired the story then the story is about that man and the story is about biblical jesus.
so is there any evidence that biblical jesus was a man?