Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PyramidHead · 07-06-2011, 01:51 PM

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you think it's ever permissible to accept some parts of a historical document while rejecting others?

aa5874 · 07-06-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you think it's ever permissible to accept some parts of a historical document while rejecting others?

You promote logical fallacies.

Which part of any Gospel story is the history of the so-called "historical" Jesus when the Gospels are historically unreliable?

The parts that you accept?

J-D · 07-07-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

....Mark says the disciples thought Jesus was a ghost, but clearly he was not. Mark is adoptionist. His Jesus gets imbued with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, and then the spirit splits on him at the cricifixion....

Do you see your own False dichotomies. They are so blatant.

Once the author of gMark claimed Jesus was walking on the sea and was WITNESSED by the disciples then gMark's Jesus is NOT human but only appears in the form of man.

The disciples in gMark WITNESSED Jesus acting outside the realm of human beings.

The mere claim that Jesus was imbued with the Holy Ghost cannot make an ordinary man walk on water and WITNESSED walking on water.

The Jesus of gMark acted as non-human.

An ordinary man claiming to be filled with Holy Ghost cannot transfigure and WITNESSED to be transfigured.

[

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mark does not claim or imply that Jesus was God or the offspring of God. God allowed him to do magic, but God wasn't Jesus. Mark makes it clear that God and Jesus are different entities, both in 14:36 ("...take this cup from me...not my will but yours...") and in 15:34 ("Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?")....

Please, please, please. Just look at what the centurion claimed after Jesus said "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

Mark 15.39

Quote:

... And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

It was those very words which made the centurion realize Jesus was TRULY the Son of God in gMark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...Transfigured into the "son of man," - the Messiah, not into God.

A transfigured Jesus who was abandoned by God on the cross....

Again you provide more erroneous assertions. I would have at least expected that you would have made claims that are supported by gMark

Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and RESURRECT on the THIRD DAY.

Mark 9.31

Quote:

For he taught his disciples.... The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him...... he shall rise the third day.

Examine Mark 16.6.

Mark 16.6

Quote:

...Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was CRUCIFIED. He is RISEN......

It is clearly that gMark's was NOT an ordinary man. The author implied Jesus was the Son of God and wrote that Jesus acted OUTSIDE the realm of humans.

You simply don't even understand the Jesus story in gMark.

It is simply this.

The Jews, and even the very disciples of Jesus, thought he was human, even though he supposedly did phenomenal miracles but found out that he was NOT human at all when he was RAISED from the day on the THIRD day just as he predicted.

The Jesus character in gMark was not human but was a product of Myth.

HJ is a False Dichotomy.

How can you have an "historical" Jesus and no history of him?

By employing logical fallacies.

The people who say that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya and the people who say that Barack Obama is a Christian born in Hawaii are talking about the same Barack Obama. It is not logically possible for all the things that different people say about Barack Obama to be true. But that does not prove that there is no Barack Obama or that everything people say about him is false. It's logically possible that both the people who say he's a Christian and the people who say he's a Muslim are wrong, but it's also logically possible that some of them are right.

It's logically possible that some of the statements about Pilate in the New Testament are true and others are false. It's also logically possible that some of the statements in the New Testament about Jesus are true and others are false. Logic alone cannot settle the point.

If different statements in the New Testament contradict each other, then logic alone can tell us that they can't all be true. But logic alone can't tell us that they're all false. Logic alone can't even tell us whether two statements in the New Testament were written by the same person or by different people. Logic alone can't tell us whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written by one person or by two different people or by three different people or by six, or by ten, or by a hundred.

There are plenty of things in the New Testament which are obviously false without being logical fallacies. Lots of statements are false without being logically fallacious. Any argument that a statement which is not true must be a logical fallacy is itself an example of the fallacy of false dichotomy.

J-D · 07-07-2011, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus character in gMark was not human but was a product of Myth.

HJ is a False Dichotomy.

How can you have an "historical" Jesus and no history of him?

By employing logical fallacies.

In any other words, by presenting fiction as historical truth.

Presenting fiction as truth is a misrepresentation, but it's not a logical fallacy.

To accept instances of pious forgery by an historian as history is a logical fallacy.

It's an error, but it's not necessarily a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

See Momigliano.

No, I can't see Momigliano. Where is he?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The operative word is DENOUNCE.

No, it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Ardashir did it in the 3rd century. Constantine did it in the 4th century. Muhammad did it in the 7th century. All had recently risen to military supremacy. Religion is true for the common people, false for the wise, very useful for the ruler. What's new under the sun?

Not you peddling your absurd opinions, that's for sure.

In ancient history it is a logical fallacy to confuse opinion (belief) and evidence.

It may be a methodological error, but that does not necessarily make it a logical fallacy.

mountainman · 07-07-2011, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus character in gMark was not human but was a product of Myth.

HJ is a False Dichotomy.

How can you have an "historical" Jesus and no history of him?

By employing logical fallacies.

In any other words, by presenting fiction as historical truth.

Presenting fiction as truth is a misrepresentation, but it's not a logical fallacy.

To accept instances of pious forgery by an historian as history is a logical fallacy.

It's an error, but it's not necessarily a logical fallacy.

It is an error in logic, not pity, to accept instances of pious forgery by an historian as history. It is logical not to accept instances of pious forgery by an historian as history.

Furthermore, it is also logical and fitting and proper, according to advice of the ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano, to denounce such pious forgery, and to show it no pity whatsoever.

PyramidHead · 07-07-2011, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you think it's ever permissible to accept some parts of a historical document while rejecting others?

You promote logical fallacies.

Which part of any Gospel story is the history of the so-called "historical" Jesus when the Gospels are historically unreliable?

The parts that you accept?

I have no dog in this race. I'm just saying you don't know what a fallacy is. Other than that, could you answer my question with an answer instead of another question?

aa5874 · 07-07-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You promote logical fallacies.

Which part of any Gospel story is the history of the so-called "historical" Jesus when the Gospels are historically unreliable?

The parts that you accept?

I have no dog in this race. I'm just saying you don't know what a fallacy is. Other than that, could you answer my question with an answer instead of another question?

Well, I have no dog also.

And I am saying that you PROMOTE logical fallacies when you accept UNRELIABLE sources as history WITHOUT external corroboration. That is all.

aa5874 · 07-07-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The people who say that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya and the people who say that Barack Obama is a Christian born in Hawaii are talking about the same Barack Obama. It is not logically possible for all the things that different people say about Barack Obama to be true. But that does not prove that there is no Barack Obama or that everything people say about him is false. It's logically possible that both the people who say he's a Christian and the people who say he's a Muslim are wrong, but it's also logically possible that some of them are right....

You seem not to understand the difference between an erroneous CLAIM and a FALSE DICHOTOMY.

People can make erroneous claims about anyone but the HJ, the historical Jesus is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. There is NO history for the Jesus of "history".

In other words the historical Jesus is a product of Myth.

HJ of itself is DERIVED from logical fallacies.

In the NT, it was Jesus the Child of a Holy Ghost that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified.

Claims about actual living persons may be proven to be false but the assertion that there was an HJ and that HJ was from Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified using UNRELIABLE sources is totally ILLOGICAL.

PyramidHead · 07-07-2011, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The people who say that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya and the people who say that Barack Obama is a Christian born in Hawaii are talking about the same Barack Obama. It is not logically possible for all the things that different people say about Barack Obama to be true. But that does not prove that there is no Barack Obama or that everything people say about him is false. It's logically possible that both the people who say he's a Christian and the people who say he's a Muslim are wrong, but it's also logically possible that some of them are right....

You seem not to understand the difference between an erroneous CLAIM and a FALSE DICHOTOMY.

People can make erroneous claims about anyone but the HJ, the historical Jesus is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. There is NO history for the Jesus of "history".

In other words the historical Jesus is a product of Myth.

HJ of itself is DERIVED from logical fallacies.

In the NT, it was Jesus the Child of a Holy Ghost that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified.

Claims about actual living persons may be proven to be false but the assertion that there was an HJ and that HJ was from Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified using UNRELIABLE sources is totally ILLOGICAL.

Respectfully, the capitalization of entire words is not helping your credibility, especially when you continue to use those words incorrectly.

The fallacy of False Dichotomy is not a logical fallacy to begin with; it's an informal fallacy. False Dichotomy is committed when the arguer presents two options as if they are the only possibilities in the situation at hand, when there may be shades of grey in between, or completely different possibilities.

Kind of like saying that one must either accept the entire New Testament as fact or reject the entire New Testament as fiction. Now, where have I heard that claim being made?

mountainman · 07-07-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Kind of like saying that one must either accept the entire New Testament as fact or reject the entire New Testament as fiction. Now, where have I heard that claim being made?

From the pulpit?

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

07-06-2011, 01:51 PM	#61
PyramidHead Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Providence, Rhode Island Posts: 4,389	You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Do you think it's ever permissible to accept some parts of a historical document while rejecting others?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.