Toto

We need a smilie for "point flies over head."

aa5874

A proper theory is developed from RELIABLE data.

It is ILLOGICAL to use ADMITTED UNRELIABLE data to develop a proper theory.

The HJ theory is IRRATIONAL or in other words a Logical Fallacy.

aa5874

Let's continue to show that the HJ theory is ILLOGICAL, a False Dichotomy, a Logical Fallacy.

The Historical Jesus has NO history. The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

Since the author of gMark gave very little or NO details for many of the characters found in his story it is LOGICAL that any CORROBORATION of any character in gMark MUST be FOUND EXTERNAL of gMark.

The author of gMark made mention of ANGELS and DEMONS therefore any character in gMark may also have been an angel or a demon.

Sinaiticus Mark 1:13 It is NOT Logical to assume the biography of Pilate because the author did NOT write anything of Pilate.

All that is LOGICALLY needed is to look at other sources to get DETAILS of Pilate.

In the ENTIRE gMark, the author did NOT name the High Priest during the time of Pilate.

Sinaiticus gMark 14 Again, what is the LOGICAL approach to get DETAILS about the High Priest during the time of Pilate?

Is it NOT logical to USE other sources to Get details of the High Priest during the time of Pilate?

Well, in gLuke Caiaphas was an High Priest during the time of Pilate and corroborated by Josephus.

The theory that Caiaphas was a High Priest in the gMark story is a PROPER theory and is derived LOGICALLY.

But, the character called Jesus in gMark appears to be NON-human, he WALKED on the Sea, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead.

It is IMPERATIVE that other sources be used to get DETAILS about the Jesus in gMark.

So far, we found Details of Pilate and the High Priest in other sources NOT found in gMark.

What can we find out about this Jesus in gMark?

1.In gMatthew, Jesus Christ was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

2. In gLuke Jesus Christ was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

3. In gJohn Jesus Christ was God.

4. In Josephus, Jesus Christ was SEEN alive on the THIRD day and it was NOT known if it was lawful to call him a man.

The non-human actions of Jesus in gMark has been CORROBORATED by other sources of antiquity and Jesus was DESCRIBED as NON-HUMAN.

AMAZINGLY, the characters Pilate, the High Priest and Jesus in gMark are mentioned by other sources of antiquity and their DESCRIPTION matches the gMark story.

gMark is a story about Jesus the Child of a Holy Ghost of Nazareth based on other sources of antiquity.

Why then have Scholars continue to "theorize" that the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels was a figure of history when gMark CLEARLY showed that Jesus of Nazareth acted Non-human?

Well, Scholars really have NO HJ theory. It is their BELIEF that they are using as the supporting evidence.

Scholars must know It is ILLOGICAL to use BELIEF as EVIDENCE.

Scholars MUST know that if Jesus was just an ordinary man that the Gospels MUST be UNRELIABLE.

The HJ theory inherently SEEKS to destroy the credibility of the very Primary source for HJ.

Scholars know that they really have NO credible source of antiquity for their HJ theory and MUST use false dichotomies as EVIDENCE.

A proper theory is BASED on RELIABLE data.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

If the Gospels are UNRELIABLE and state Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate then it MUST be LOGICAL that such data cannot be trusted.

mountainman

In another thread Philosopher Jay discusses the evidence and demonstrates that the theory of an "Oral Tradition" based on the postulate of an historical jesus is a logical fallacy.


The historical Jesus as defined in the canonical books of the greek new testament made his appearance very very late in the peace, and without any "oral tradition" to prepare his way in advance of the publishers of the "New and Strange Religion".

With the chronology, it has been proven time and time again NOT to trust Eusebius, since his formalised reputation as a chronographer could not be saved. There are therefore only three options:

a) (late?) 2nd century
b) 3rd century
c) (early) 4th century

Not one of these chronological options supports any of the theories in the entire spectrum of an historical Jesus - as defined in the table above - , because in all cases the evidence is ambiguous and late. In any other words the historicity of jesus is apperceivable to be viewed as either zero of null, prior to a Greek canonical book publication event with a chronology of either a, b or c.

mountainman

If the HJ theory is not a logical fallacy then someone should be able to provide unambiguous evidence for the existence of the historical jesus before the end of the 2nd century of the common era, and before the beginning of the 4th century when the books of the Jesus Story were widely published to the ROman Empire.

What is this unambiguous evidence upon which so much interest is to be focussed? The murals of Dura-Europos? It is up to those who argue for positive historicity to index the items of evidence that increment this historicity from the ground state of zero.

Or is it the case that the HJ Theory was and is supported not by the argument of logic from the evidence, but only by the argument (absent the evidence) from authority?

In these times of the 21st century, the evidence can be the only arbitur. So aside from the authority of Eusebius, where is any evidence to substantiate the logic of the the claim that the HJ story did not appear until very late antiquity out of the Greek quantum vacuum, along with a pandporas box of heresies invented by the incumbent orthodox Christian heresiologists to stamp out the antichristian controversies?

aa5874

Well, this is the THIRD quest for the "Historical Jesus". It must be OBVIOUS by now that a THEORY MUST fail ALL the TIME if there is NO credible DATA to support it.

The HJ theory is a KNOWN failure because it is NOT rational.

The HJ theory is based on IMAGINATION not LOGICAL assumptions.

Logical assumptions are based on Credible and Reliable Data.

The HJ theory SEEKS to DESTROY the very Primary Sources on which it depends.

The HJ theory will always FAIL Because it is ILLOGICAL.

It is ILLOGICAL to base a theory on ADMITTED unreliable sources.

TedM

Everything in history is ambiguous, and subject to individual interpretation/subjectivity because it is not scientifically reproducable. No one can go back in time to verify what has happened. You will never get unambiguous evidence. It is unreasonable to require it.

aa5874

Well, please refrain from making your OWN SUBJECTIVE AMBIGUOUS claims if everything in history is ambiguous.

Why can't you even understand that if everything in history is ambiguous that all your claims of CORROBORATION of HJ are ambiguous?

You have placed yourself in an irrational position.

Your position is a perfect example of a logical fallacy or false dichotomy.

Examine your OWN logical fallacy.

"Everything in history is ambiguous but the "historical Jesus" is CORROBORATED by "Antiquities of the Jews" which is SUBJECTIVE and AMBIGUOUS and may have been forged".

You need to step back and see your OWN logical fallacies if you consider there is AMBIGUOUS history for the SUBJECTIVE "historical Jesus" which may have been forged.

J-D

Which scholars, and why do you accept what they say?

J-D

aa5874 said: 'the term "historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy'. The term 'historical Jesus' is not a dichotomy at all.