Mageth

1) Mount everest is in Nepal.

2) George Washington never went to Nepal.

3) Therefore, George Washington never climbed Mount Everest.

OR

1) Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay of Nepal were the first human beings to climb Mount Everest in 1953.

2) George Washington died in 1799.

3) Therefore, George Washington never climbed Mount Everest.

That was easy.

Not_Registered

How do you know George Washington never went to Nepal.
How do you know those two people were the first to climb Mount Everest.
Maybe the source that gave you this information is not credible.

Not_Registered

If that's all your using is your word to prove things then:
1) The Bible tells Jesus' life
2) The Bible never tells of Jesus denying divinity
3) Therefore, Jesus never denied divinity.

OR

1) Drivel
2) Babble
3) Gibberish
4) Malarkey
5) Therefore, Jesus never denied divinity.

Llyricist

And to your whole point (it's not an argument actually) ....we all say SO right back.

You haven't even provided any evidence that he was accused of claiming to be God, so the whole denial issue is moot.

Yeah , Yeah ... IF this and IF that and IF the other thing..... so what? The point stands that the gospels WERE written with an agenda, they are KNOWN to omit what they don't like, so the absence of any positive attribution is probitive of ....NOTHING.

We CANNOT assume that something not included in the gospels didn't happen. Jesus didn't exist between the ages of 12 and 30 by your logic.

Mageth

And why am I not surprised?

No; the argument (which was mine originally, repeated by Sven and supported by Llyricist) is a fully rationable, reasonable, plausible argument, based on evidence, not a "speculation". A "speculation" would be, for example, that "Jesus was an alien from Alpha 9".

So ya'll are just speculating that maybe it did happen (it being Jesus' denial) but just wasn't included in the gospels.

No; we are arguing that, if it did happen, then it's reasonable to assume that it would not have been included in the Gospels.

And, to my knowledge (and Llyricists, etc), there is no report of Jesus' ever denying he said he was God. We haven't claimed that there was such a report. However, this fact does nothing to give any substance to your argument because, as it has been well pointed out, your argument has no substance to begin with.

No one here has claimed, even once, that there is anywhere a record of Jesus denying that he claimed to be God. And no one needs to produce such a record to "disprove" your position. (And, I'd note, that as it is you that's posing the argument, it's your responsibility to prove it, which you have not done (and cannot do), not ours to disprove it).

Your position doesn't need to be "disproven" by us. It's prima facie substanceless from the get-go, as has been pointed out to you many times. Namely, there is also no "report" that Jesus was charged with or crucified for claiming to be God, so your "argument from no denial" is, as you put it, moot. It's baseless. It's substanceless. It's dead. It's a non-starter. Get over it.

Yes, you've said that, and everyone here agrees with it, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

However, TO EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE BUT YOURS, apparently, your argument is DEAD anyway.

No; your argument is DEAD. It's baseless. It's substanceless. It's given up the ghost. It's buried and rotting in the grave of all bad, flawed, baseless arguments. It's stinking up the place. It doesn't even deserve to be graced with the title of "speculation."

<snipped pointless and substanceless rambling>

Toto

Not_Registered: this is not how the argument goes. It is:

1. If Jesus had affirmatively denied his own divinity at the trial in front of Pontius Pilate, there most likely would have been a record of it, since at least one of his followers or his enemies would have made a record of such a significant event.

2. There is no record of it.

3. Jesus probably did not deny his own divinity.

You can argue about the degree of probability, but the argument is logically sound in this form.

Mageth

"There is, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, no report of Washington ever going to Nepal. Therefore, as an attorney might say, the burden of proof is on YOU. Unless YOU can supply me with some document that shows Washington went to Nepal then my position is what stands because it hasn't been disproven and it is what we have today as fact. Fact being that there is no record, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, that reports Washington going to Nepal."

"There is, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, no report of anyone climbing Mt. Everest before Hillary et al. Therefore, as an attorney might say, the burden of proof is on YOU. Unless YOU can supply me with some document that shows someone climbed Mt. Everest before Hillary et al then my position is what stands because it hasn't been disproven and it is what we have today as fact. Fact being that there is no record, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, that reports anyone climbing Mt. Everest before Hillary et al."

However, note that Washington never denied the charge that he claimed to be the first person to climb Mt. Everest, on a clandestine visit to Nepal in 1751. That, I suppose, should be taken as evidence that perhaps he was the first person to climb Mt. Everest.

Aah, because the history books, encyclopedias, etc. do not include a report that Washington went to Nepal and climbed Mt. Everest, nor do they report Washington explicitly denying that he went to Nepal and climbed Mt. Everest, then we must assume that it's entirely possible that Washington went to Nepal and climbed Mt. Everest. And, of course, the absence of the denial is support for the argument that he did go to Nepal and climbed Mt. Everest.

The history books also neither confirm nor deny that Washington was the first man on the moon; therefore, we must keep open the possibility that he was. And, of course, since we can't produce a denial by Washington that he was the first man on the moon, that should be taken as evidence that perhaps he was the first man on the moon.

Toto

Could someone explain to me why this thread should not be shipped to ~Elsewhere~ ? Is there any redeeming social value here?

Not_Registered

Wrong. My logic was that you need actual PROOF to say something happend. There was no PROOF of Jesus' ever denying divinity so one can't say he ever did. In other words, if you want to say something happend you've got to back it up with proof of it happening, not just say well no one knows...maybe..maybe. Using the logic given by your statement about Jesus not existing between 12 and 30, then the vast majority of the people in the world don't exist between 12 and 30 because no one included them in an article or wrote about them during that part of their lives. But now your leaning on extremely prepostorous comments to be your argument. Obviously the proof of their existence between 12 and 30 is the fact that they exist at 30. Now your reaching for something to stand on. That's like someone saying maybe private planes that arent tracked by radar disappear inflight and travel to a 2nd universe. You wouldnt know cause you dont track them with your eyes from lift off the landing. Come on man, OBVIOUSLY....OBVIOUSLY the plane doesn't disappear to 2nd universe and OBVIOUSLY...OBIVOUSLY Jesus existed between 12 and 30.

I touched on the issue of evidence showing that Jesus was accused of being God earlier. I'll take your stand and "I won't reiterate", and don't blame me. If you want to see the discussion of that go look at some of the earlier post. I already admitted that that was a good point (the point that maybe Jesus wasn't crucified for claiming to be God). But, I also had a rebuttal to that, but "I won't reiterate."

Not_Registered

I see Mageth you are using my logic now and see that I am correct and you are wrong....TO MY KNOWLEDGE