aa5874

What you say appears to be ILLOGICAL.

You want to have fun with the wrong guy.

I don't play games with TedM.

Now, please review my request.

You must know I would have investigated your claims for credibility and that I don't play games with what you say.

In my investigation it has been brought to my attention that John 21 may be a forgery and may have been written sometime after Tertullian's "Against Praxeas" or sometime AFTER the end of the 2nd century.

Again based on my investigation, it is reported that John the disciple of Jesus DIED 100 years earlier or at around the end of the 1st century.

Now Examine Tertullian's "Against Praxeas" 25 Tertullian in "Against Praxeas" 25 is referring to the very LAST verse of John 20.31.

John 20:31 - Many, many books are attributed to Tertullian and he did NOT use John 21 in any of them.

TedM, you seem to have presented a whole chapter, John 21, which was forged at least one hundred years after the supposed death of the assumed disciple called John.

I don't accept forgeries or questionable sources as credible evidence .

You want to have fun with the wrong man.

Perhaps you can play with the evidence from antiquity. Have fun.

The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy.

J-D

aa5874 referred more than once, specifically, to the fallacy of false dichotomy, but has never once shown the presence of the defining elements of that fallacy in anything anybody has actually said on the subject at hand.

aa5874 has never said that the reference to 'false dichotomy' was incorrect and that the word 'fallacy' was only being used in the vaguer or more general sense of 'error'. In a narrower sense, 'fallacy' is not synonymous with 'error'. I will continue to assume that the word is being used in a narrower sense until aa5874 says that, despite the specific earlier references to 'false dichotomy', this is not the case.

mountainman

Hey TedM,

When one is in the process of debunking the myopic viewpoints of religious apologists from first principles, the postulates need to be selected carefully because you will always be running with them. In this case, it is the postulate of the historical jesus which is being debunked, since this postulate itself is a logical fallacy with respect to the evidence available to support it. All the various types of Historical Jesus theories - the spectrum of them - are reliant upon the HJ postulate.

Best wishes


Pete

TedM

AA, I am fairly convinced that you are dead serious here, but you really might benefit from lightening up. Life is short.


Sure, I fully expected you to point this out, and I'm not interested in it. Nevertheless, you didn't say your stated criteria was insufficient upfront, so I have nothing to back down on.

Just giving what you asked for..

little late


Well, I still enjoyed it. A little. I feel a little guilty too though because I don't like to upset people, even you aa.


Ah, thanks again! I can always count on you to be dogmatic. Take care and remember not to take yourself too seriously. No human is perfect, right? You've said so yourself.

aa5874

For the sake of clarity, let us look at the term "Historical Jesus".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Well, let us now examine the BIOGRAPHY of Jesus of Nazareth in the NT and see if it is LOGICAL to presume Jesus of Nazareth was a man.

Examine Matthew 1.18-20.

Matthew 1:18-20 - So, the PRIMARY sources the Gospels, described Jesus as the Child of a Holy Ghost.

It is ILLOGICAL to use the description of Pilate the Governor to describe Tiberius the Caesar in the NT.

It is ILLOGICAL to use the description of Caiaphas the High Priest to describe John the Baptist in the NT.

It is ILLOGICAL to use the BIOGRAPHY of the Child of a Holy Ghost in the NT for the Biography of a Man NOT found in the NT.

It is SIMPLY Logical that Scholars should have used EXTERNAL CREDIBLE sources of antiquity for HJ and NOT the biography of a Ghost as their PRIMARY source or events in Ghost stories where the Ghost walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

mountainman

If the HJ postulate is not supported by the evidence, then we need to find another postulate.

J-D

What definition of 'postulate' are you using?

J-D

Logical or illogical, NOBODY has used the BIOGRAPHY of the child of a Holy Ghost in the NT for the BIOGRAPHY of a man NOT found in the NT.There is no LOGICAL FALLACY in considering the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY that SOME of the statements in the NT are FALSE while OTHERS are TRUE.

mountainman

Just the general everyday version.

J-D

If a postulate is by definition something whose truth is taken for granted, then it is irrelevant whether it is supported by evidence or not.