Toto

This thread has so many replies because most of them are of the form

You don't understand logics!
NO YOU don't understand logic.

:banghead:

How often do you need to repeat this? Why are you doing this? Do you think you are persuading anyone?

avi

a. could be a true story about a real character:
B. could be a false story about a fictional character:
c. could be a true story about a fictitious character;

So, there are the four logical possibilities, spelled out.

Does the evidence point to one of the four scenarios as most likely?

The person who accepts the concept of biblical inerrancy, will choose (a), i.e. Jesus was a real historical person, who indeed walked on water. The gospels accurately record a genuine historical event, as Jesus walks out to the boat, frightening the men, who imagine that he is a phantom.

To my way of thinking, we start with the description of the character, and learn that his father was a ghost. That is what I call: a clue.

The clue signals to the reader, that everything else, that follows, is make-believe, a story, a myth.

J-D asks us to interpret each statement in the gospels separately, and this may in fact be exactly the correct, honest approach to take, in assessing the validity of the gospels.

I don't adhere to that approach, for a couple of reasons:
first: I believe that most of the gospels have been interpolated, edited, redacted, modified, or changed--take your pick.
secondly: I believe that any good story always incorporates a few genuine elements, to flavor the otherwise dreary plot.

I am very certain, that careful, detailed, analytical scrutiny of the four gospels would indeed recover some golden nuggets of honesty and truth.

However, the fact remains, that a simple store mannequin, decked out in a superbly crafted, hand made, wool suit, imported from England, is still just a plastic hoax.

avi

aa5874

Please, you are really a waste of time. It is NOT logical that every passage in the NT would have the same information the Child of the Ghost.

Examine Matthew 1.18Examine John 1 Examine Mark 9Examine Luke 24 In the NT Canon, it is LOGICAL and reasonable, like any other story book with multiple versions that each author of the Jesus story would not write the very same details or in the same order.

In the NT, Jesus was not described as a man but the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God, the Creator, who transfigured, walked on water, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

It was expected that those who claimed that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth already had credible historical SOURCES to substantiate their claim but they had NOTHING but their imagination and speculation.

It is QUITE illogical for Scholars to have used imagination and speculation as historical facts.

Logical deductions are derived from facts or credible data.

The HJ theory was NOT derived from credible historical facts or credible data but from logical fallacies and fiction.

mountainman

I think you are in error since it appears to me that the Jesus theories 1 to 4 are all implying an historical jesus, and are therefore all using the postulate of an historical jesus. Their conclusions on the category or nature of this historical jesus are all different, as defined in a spectrum of theories. In some cases the type of historical jesus is radically different. Different conclusions about the HJ from the one HJ postulate.

Conversely and equally the same applies to Jesus theories 5 to 8, which start with the non HJ postulate, and reach differering conclusions as to the way the non historical jesus story evolved on planet Earth.


Here are two statements:

(1) Jesus was an historical figure
(2) Jesus was not an historical figure.

Which of these statements would you not be willing to accept as a postulate in the field of ancient history?

J-D

I'm having difficulty seeing how it could be possible for there to be a true story about a fictitious character.You haven't explained how you're choosing your starting point.

Also, neither the story in Mark nor the story in John says that Jesus's father was a spirit, although both the story in Matthew and the story in Luke come close to doing so.

Matthew says that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Mark says nothing about his conception or birth, but says that the the Holy Spirit descended on him when he was baptised. Luke says that Gabriel came to Mary and told her that she would give birth to the Son of God after the Holy Spirit came on her. John says nothing about his conception or birth or about his baptism by John the Baptist but says that John the Baptist testified that the Holy Spirit came down on Jesus.The beginning of a story is not necessarily the most important part. The fact that a story begins with a false statement does not prove that all of what follows is false, or even that most of what follows is false.Thank you!That is possible. But if anything that makes it more likely--certainly not less likely--that any or each of them is a combination of true and false stories, or a true story to which false material has been added, or a false story to which true material has been added.I cannot tell whether aa5874 would agree with that.

mountainman

Hi avi,

I think that is an equal minded analysis.

Best wishes


Pete

J-D

Please, you are really a waste of time.You haven't explained what makes you think that the New Testament canon should be treated as a storybook with multiple versions of the same story by different authors. Come to think of it, I don't know of any examples of books like that.

I have seen that some people suggest that the four Gospels were all compiled by the same author or team of authors.

I have seen that some people suggest that each of them was written by a separate single author and that they were put together into the same collection later on.

I have seen some people suggest that a Gospel started as a document written by a single author but was changed later by other writers who added, changed, or deleted material.

I have seen some people suggest that a Gospel was created by combining material from separate earlier sources.

I have seen some people suggest that one of the Gospels, or perhaps an earlier version of it, was a major source for another Gospel.

I have seen different people suggest different reasons for the differences between the Gospels.

How the Gospels are evaluated could be affected by which of these different views is adopted, and you have not explained which view you adopt or why.In the New Testament, Matthew says one thing, Mark says another, Luke says another, and John says another--not to mention the other books which come after that. You have not explained why you add them all together.You have not explained how you decide which are credible sources and which are not.Valid logical deductions from true premises must also be true. Valid logical deductions from false premises may be either true or false. It is possible to tell whether the process of deduction has been carried out in a logically valid way without knowing whether the premises are true or false.You still have not explained what you mean by 'the HJ theory'.

J-D

Not all the statements contained in a theory are postulates of the theory.I would not postulate either of them.

aa5874

Please deal with the OP. J-D is attempting to DERAIL my thread but I won't allow him.

You have NOT address the fact that J-D is CONFUSED and have made CONTRADICTORY statements about LOGIC.

J-D's post are RECORDED.

I really don't know why you have NOT even attempted to explain what LOGIC is to J-D.

Now, let me continue to show that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

The historical Jesus has NO history, no source and no corroboration.

If we examine gMark, it will be noticed that there is very very little details of many characters.

For example, in gMark there is hardly any description of Pilate.

If details of Pilate is needed then some other source MUST be used.

When one examines gLuke it is found that there is a character called Pontius Pilate the Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius.

Can it be LOGICALLY argued that Pilate was a either a Fisherman, or the Jewish Messiah, or an Angel, or the Emperor of Rome or the Child of Ghost because there is NO description of Pilate in gMark?

NO at all.

The description of Pilate in the NT is the very details that is NEEDED to do an historical SEARCH for Pilate.

Logically, WITHOUT the details of Pilate then it would be EXTREMELY difficult to search for Pilate.

It is the author of the story who PROVIDE us with the description of his characters.

Pilate was described as a Governor of Judea.

What is the description of Jesus in the NT?

Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator.

This is the PRECISE detail of Jesus that is NEEDED to LOCATE him.

But, Scholars are looking for an ordinary man of Nazareth

It is NOT logical to look for an ordinary man of Nazareth in the NT.

Where else can we look for the man/woman of Nazareth, baptized by John and crucified by Pilate?

How can we LOGICALLY develop a theory WITHOUT sources and corroboration?

We cannot.

The historical Jesus theory suffers the same FATE.

The historical Jesus theory cannot be logically developed without sources and corroboration.

aa5874

Why are you making yourself look so bad? How many times must you make such blatant erroneous claims?

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

It is ILLOGICAL to use the biography of one character for some other unknown character.

Jesus of the NT, the Child of a Ghost, lived in Nazareth after he was born in Bethlehem.

HJ is NOT even of the NT. HJ is UNKNOWN.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.