J-D

You have never shown any supporting reliable data for a 'historical Pilate' theory because you have never shown any 'historical Pilate' theory. You have never shown any supporting reliable data for a 'historical Tiberius' theory because you have never shown any 'historical Tiberius' theory. You have never shown any supporting reliable data for a 'historical Caiaphas' theory because you have never shown any 'historical Caiaphas' theory.

J-D

You have not cited the words of Eusebius you are referring to.You have not specified which historical evidence you are referring to.You have not cited any specific statement by any specific ancient historian.You have produced no evidence of this general agreement.You have not cited Richard Carrier's actual words.

aa5874

There is something radically wrong with your assertions. You appear to have some kind of problem.

Are you NOT aware that it is THEORISED by Scholars and Historians that there were characters called Pilate, Tiberius and Caiaphas in the 1st century.

What are you attempting to achieve by your bizarre posts?

Are you NOT aware that Pilate the Governor is found in the writings of Philo and Josephus?

Are you NOT aware that Tiberius the Emperor is found in the writings of Philo, Josephus, and Suetonius?

Are you NOT aware that Caiaphas the High Priest is found in the writings of Josephus?

You appear to be either naive or lack basic understanding of the HJ/MJ issues.

J-D

You have not shown where any scholar or historian has referred to 'the historical Pilate theory'. You have not shown where any scholar or historian has referred to 'the historical Tiberius theory'. You have not shown where any scholar or historian has referred to 'the historical Caiaphas theory'.

It is true that there were characters called Tiberius in the first century. It is equally true that there were characters called Jesus in the first century.

aa5874

You seem to be wasting my time. Please get familiar with characters of antiquity that are theorised to have existed and are corroborated by sources of antiquity.

There is no credible source of antiquity that mention a man or woman that was born or lived in Nazareth that was Baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

It is ILLOGICAL or IRRATIONAL for Scholars to claim there was an HJ of Nazareth who was Baptized by John and crucified by Pilate WITHOUT any credible historical data.

It was a Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God, and the Creator of heaven and earth that was Bapized by John and was crucified under Pilate. See Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, and John 1.

It is reasonable and LOGICAL to THEORISE that there was an historical Pilate the Governor, an historical Tiberius the Emperor, an historical Caiaphas the High Priest based on credible historical sources like Philo, Josephus and Suetonius.

A proper theory NEEDS credible and reliable data.

There is ZERO credible historical sources for a man/woman of Nazareth that was Baptized by John and crucified by Pilate.

The HJ theory is ILLOGICAL, BASELESS and is DERIVED by blind FAITH.

A man/woman could have lived any where that was baptised by John and may NOT have been crucified under Pilate.

Please EXPLAIN what is the LOGICAL reason why Scholars claim HJ was Baptized by John?

Because it was embarrassing for an ordinary man to baptise an ordinary man.

How illogical!!!

J-D

No, you seem to be wasting my time.I have.You have not explained what you mean by a 'credible source'.You have not explained what you mean by 'credible historical data'.No, it was not.You have not explained what makes those sources credible.You have not cited the scholars you ar referring to or the statements they have made.

aa5874

It is clear to me that J-D is just wasting time.

But, let me show him that Scholars use EMBARRASSMENT to claim HJ was baptized by John.

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

I really do not know what is J-D's problem.

I would encourage him to get familiar with what Scholars claim about HJ.

It is ILLOGICAL or a LOGICAL Fallacy to theorise that it was embarrassing for an ordinary man to baptise an ordinary man/woman therefore the man/woman was likely to be baptized.

The HJ theory is a LOGICAL Fallacy.

It is totally logical and rational that Fiction stories may contain embarrassing scenes and that embarrassing scenes are not found only in historical accounts.

The HJ theory is without credible sources, without corroboration and without logics.

J-D

It is clear to me that you are just wasting time.I would encourage you to get familiar with how logicians use the term 'logical fallacy'.Nobody has theorised that.Nobody has argued to the contrary.

avi

Thank you for correcting my punctuation errors:

I should have written:
"Do you acknowledge that a person with bilateral, lower extremity, amelia could neither physically, nor logically, walk on water?"

I have now rewritten my question, in a format, which I hope will be more agreeable for your consideration. Can you now answer the question posed?

Maybe the question should be repeated:

Earlier, you indicated, as I recall, agreement that it was both physically, and logically, impossible to amputate the lower limbs of someone born without them.

I am asking you here, to verify, that it is also logically impossible for someone born without lower limbs to walk on water.

...
...
I hope that I am using the words "logical contradiction" in a manner harmonious with respect to cultural and linguistic tradition:

It clearly is inadequate, else you would have answered the question posed: is it "logically impossible" for a person with amelia of bilateral lower extremities to walk on water?
? what? I claim that ambulation, whether on land or water, (on planet earth, with its particular gravitational force,) requires friction, the force exerted between the terra firma, the terra unyielding, and the human attempting to walk on the surface of this planet. Are you denying this fact?

"it's not a logically necessary truth." ????
You mean that there are categories of truth ????

What is the property of truthfulness that some situations confer logical necessity in association with "the truth", and other situations deny that same logical necessity?

To me, this argument of yours is nonsensical. It appears to be a method of obscuring the argument, not clarifying the issues.

I ask again, do you deny the fact that ambulation requires friction, the amount of which, on the surface of water, is inadequate to overcome the force of gravity?

The historical Jesus argument claims that Jesus was a human. If he had been a human, he would have obeyed the laws of physics, and sunk in Lake Galilee, instead, he ambulated across the surface of the lake, clearly a supernatural act, performed in defiance of rational thought, then, and now.

So, if I have understood you correctly, J-D, you agree with the fact that an amelic individual scheduled to undergo amputation of both lower limbs next Tuesday, represents a logical contradiction, but the same person, scheduled to participate in a marathon race on Tuesday, next week, does not represent a logical contradiction?

That perspective is quite strange to me. I cannot fathom what you are thinking.


How about this then, (I agree that my sentence above had been written carelessly):
The attribute of friction is insufficient and inadequate, for any body of fresh water, in an aqueous phase, on planet earth, to support ambulation, by a human of any dimension. Therefore, no human, with or without, normally functioning lower extremities, can walk on water.

I don't know which books those authors had read, but they seemed to know something of Greek civilization, culture, and language, so I would suppose that it was not unreasonable to assume that they had been educated by folks who had read Plato and Aristotle, both of whom wrote about logic.

I would turn it around, and argue that I see no reason to assume that literate native speakers of Koine Greek, i.e. the authors of the gospels and "Paul's" letters, would not be familiar with the intellectual contributions of the ancient Greek scholars, who had written half a millennium earlier.

May I finish the sentence?

The logical contradiction is that one cannot ambulate on water, due to insufficient friction between the lower extremities and the surface of the water. Gravity exerts a far more potent force, sinking us, before even one single step can be initiated.

Unlike the unfortunate amelic person, we do possess both lower extremities, but they are of no utility, in ambulation across a body of fresh water (in its liquid phase on planet earth), because of inadequate friction, between human lower extremities and the surface of the water.

avi

J-D

1. It is logically impossible for somebody without feet to walk (on water or anywhere else)--in the literal sense of the word 'walk', since that literal sense entails moving the feet.

2. I am not denying that ambulation requires friction, I am denying only that that is a logically necessary truth. Yes, there are different categories of truths. Some are logically necessary, some are not. As I said, if you want to discuss logic then I respectfully suggest that you need to acquire more explicit knowledge of the subject first.

3. As far as I can see it isn't inadequate friction which prevents humans from walking on water. There's enough friction for humans to swim through water. There's also enough friction for members of the Gerridae ('water striders') to walk on water. I'm not familiar enough with the physics to be sure, though. What I do know is that it is an empirical question, of physics, and not one of logic. Logic is concerned with the relations of ideas, not with matters of fact.