J-D

The first step would be to articulate the two postulates with greater specificity. As they stand they're too vague.

I suspect that if they were articulated with greater specificity I wouldn't have any suggestions about how to test them. Maybe I would, though. It depends on how the job's done. I do know that articulating them with greater specificity is the essential first step.

J-D

Please, my words are documented.

aa5874

One cannot investigate an unknown unidentified character of antiquity.

What was an "historical Jesus"?

What did an "historical Jesus" do?

Where did an "historical Jesus" live?

Why do we need to look for an "historical Jesus"?

One cannot just look for an ancient man or woman without some known identity or description from some credible source.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth was UNKNOWN to the Jews in the NT even as Christ or Savior.

Examine the entire gMatthew and gMark and remarkably we are faced with the harsh reality that Jesus of Nazareth, the Child of the Ghost, did NOTHING significant in Nazareth.

Why do we need to look for an "historical Jesus" when we don't even know his real name?

It must be logical that if the NT is historically UNRELIABLE that there may have been no character named Jesus in Nazareth and that the ENTIRE Jesus story was fiction.

It must be logical that once the NT is ADMITTED to be unreliable the "historical Jesus could have been anyone with any name from any place at any time who did anything.

It is LOGICAL that the name Jesus (Savior )may have been an EMBELLISHMENT and that the character called Jesus was known as an IDIOT because he made idiotic claims.

The term "historical Jesus" is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

No ordinary man (man or woman) with a human father has the biography of Jesus in the Gospels.

Once it is admitted that the Primary sources, the Gospels, are UNRELIABLE then the term "historical Jesus" is irrational. We might as well look for an "historical Idiot" of unknown location.

J-D

It's not a dichotomy at all, so it can't be a false dichotomy.

aa5874

Let me continue to expose that the HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy.

Let us examine gMark.

There is a character called Pilate in gMark but there is NO description of Pilate except for the name "Pilate".

This is how "Pilate" is introduced for the first time in Sinaiticus gMark.

Sinaiticus gMark 15 Now, if a person had only read about Pilate in gMark then LOGICAL questions would be, "Who was Pilate in gMark? Did he really exist in gMark? When did this Pilate lived? Is Pilate a myth or a figure of history in gMark?

It is most LOGICAL that gMark cannot answer any biographical questions about "Pilate".

The author of gMark wrote NO description of Pilate at all.

1. This is EXTREMELY significant and must NOT be forgotten. Scholars do NOT accept the Gospels as reliable historical sources.

Pilate could be ANYONE, real or imagined, from ANYTIME who LIVED at any place and could have done anything or nothing once the Gospels are UNRELIABLE.

So whatever is said about Pilate in the Gospels may be ERRONEOUS.

In Sinaiticus gMatthew the author wrote that Pilate was a Governor.

[b]Sinaiticus gMatthew 27 We have additional information about Pilate in gMatthew.

Pilate is called Pontius Pilate the Governor but Scholars claim the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE so we still MUST find an EXTERNAL corroborative source for Pontius Pilate the Governor.

Are there any corroborative source of antiquity that mentioned a character called Pontius Pilate the Governor?

Philo the Jew of Alexandria appears to be a corroborative source for Pontius Pilate the Governor in the Gospels.

Philo's "On the Embassy to Gaius" XXXVIII So, we have found an external source of antiquity, Philo the Jew, that appears to corroborate Pontius Pilate as Governor.

It is therefore RATIONAL or LOGICAL to theorize that in the Gospel Pilate was a figure of history based on Philo.

It MUST be LOGICAL that All characters in the Gospels NEED external non-apolgetic corroboration before they can be accepted as historical.

But, HJ poses an additional hurdle.

The Gospels, the supposed Primary sources for the biography of HJ, do NOT mention an ORDINARY man with a human father.

It is ILLOGICAL to use UNRELIABLE sources for HJ when there is NO ordinary man with a human father of Nazareth that was baptized by John and was crucified by Pilate in the same gospels.

The very Gospels are NOT a corroborative sources for HJ.

Extant External non-apologetic sources do NOT even mention any ordinary man or woman that lived in Nazareth, that was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate.

The HJ theory is IRRATIONAL, without Logics, without source, without corroboration, and can only be maintained by Logical Fallacies.

The THEORY of an "historical Pilate" is completely rational, with sources, with corroboration and is maintained by evidence of antiquity.

Pilate was a Governor in the Gospels corroborated by Philo.

Jesus was the Child of a Ghost in the Gospels.

Who was HJ in the Gospels?

A logical fallacy.

PyramidHead

Seriously, I'm with you on most of these points. I'm just telling you for your own good that every time you want to say "logical fallacy," say "incorrect statement" or "failed hypothesis" instead. It will make people listen to what you have to say a lot more. A logical fallacy is a specific thing, and certain technical conditions need to be met before anything can be called one. You can still say HJ is "illogical" in the common meaning of the word (unreasonable, incoherent, inconsistent), but "fallacy" means something different than "falsehood". This thread has really been about semantics, which J-D and I are partly responsible for, but if you would correct this simple mistake you would get a lot more readers taking you seriously, in my opinion. You could also lose the artificial EMPHASIS gimmick.

avi

thank you PyramidHead. Well written.

Jesus: = human versus deity, ergo, dichotomy, yes or no?

false: because there is no credible evidence that either a human, called Jesus of Nazareth/Capernaum/Bethlehem, nor the deity called "the messiah", ever walked the planet earth.

The "evidence" relied upon, by Chaucer, and others, to propose a human Jesus, is argument, rather than data. In particular, Chaucer's reliance upon the writings attributed to Josephus, is "wishful thinking" in the extreme.

avi

PyramidHead

False dichotomy is colloquially an "all or nothing" kind of reasoning failure. If you don't vote Republican, you must be a communist. Sally never got her tonsils taken out, so she must be terrified of doctors. Jesus is portrayed as a superhuman, so he must have been invented from whole cloth. Those are examples of false dichotomies.

avi

Thanks for explaining that to me. Obviously, I did not understand the proper definition of false dichotomy.

While I understand, now, I hope, why it is that you would not view my explanation of dichotomy as satisfactory, I would like, nevertheless, to take issue with your example, quoted above.

You give this as an illustration of a "false dichotomy", implying that there is some alternative explanation, at least as reasonable, if not more so, than the notion that Jesus is a fictional creature. I certainly disagree with you, if that is an accurate characterization of your opinion.

How about this sentence,instead, a modification of your own idea:

Jesus is portrayed in the gospels, as someone possessing supernatural abilities, therefore, those written accounts which so describe him, must represent creative works of fiction, rather than historical passages, because humans do not possess supernatural abilities.

Is my sentence, as I have written it, a modification of yours, above, now a false dichotomy, in your mind?

It is very interesting to me, that those who would criticize aa5874, for ostensibly misusing logic, grammar, and vocabulary, possess themselves rather idiosyncratic definitions....Describing my sentence above, if you do, as an illustration of a false dichotomy, would be a fitting finish, to my participation on this thread, since at that point, I would find it improbable that I could either contribute or benefit further from engaging on this topic.

avi

Toto

Come on, avi.

This is the question:

Jesus is portrayed in the gospels, as someone possessing supernatural abilities, therefore, those written accounts which so describe him, EITHER must represent creative works of fiction WITH NO BASIS IN HISTORY, rather than historical passages, because humans do not possess supernatural abilities, or REFLECT AN ACTUAL PERSON AND/OR EVENTS BUT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED WITH THOSE SUPERNATURAL ASPECTS.

Let's stop wasting time on this non-issue.