Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-28-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

QUOTE]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?

I would not postulate either of them.

The question was not what you would postulate. The question was what you would not be willing to accept for consideration and discussion as a postulate in the field of ancient history or if you prefer in the field of Biblical Studies. That's partly what this forum is about - the discussion of theories and postulates in these two fields.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop posting one liners in this thread. Let it die a natural death. There's nothing more to say.

"The HJ theory is a logical fallacy" is the most ACTIVE thread of all current threads with 347 replies and 2359 views in LESS than a month

...

Examine the STATS.

"The HJ theory is a logical fallacy" is the number ONE thread right now.

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?

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

I am dealing with the OP by pointing out how you have never made clear what it is supposed to mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

I have not contradicted myself. You think I have because you are the one that is confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D's post are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

1.....Logic is concerned with the relations of ideas, not with matters of fact.

2.....Logic is no more concerned with the content of specific ideas than it is with specific questions of fact. It is concerned with patterns of reasoning.

3.....Logic is concerned with the relations between ideas--specifically, as I said earlier, with patterns of reasoning--not with the content of specific ideas.

Those statements do not contradict each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

I really don't know why you have not even attempted to explain what logic is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

Only if you suppose that those statements are true. Yet clearly they can't be. However, those are not the only descriptions of Jesus given in the New Testament. Other descriptions are given as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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?

Jesus is described in parts of the New Testament as coming from Nazareth, as having been baptised by John, and as having been crucified on the orders of Pilate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

You have not explained how you decide which sources to accept and which to reject.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

You still have not explained what you mean by 'the HJ theory'.

Why are you making yourself look so bad?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

How many times must you make such blatant erroneous claims?

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

Quote:

...The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] These reconstructions are based upon historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived....

You quoted that before. I read it when you quoted it before. It is not an answer to the question 'What do you mean by "the HJ theory"?'

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

The Gospels do not all agree that Jesus was the child of the Holy Spirit and they do not all agree that he was born in Bethlehem, although I think they do all agree that he lived in Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

You still have not explained what you mean by 'HJ'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

QUOTE]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?

I would not postulate either of them.

The question was not what you would postulate. The question was what you would not be willing to accept as a postulate in the field of ancient history or if you prefer in the field of Biblical Studies. That's partly what this forum is about - the discussion of theories and postulates in these two fields.

If it makes a difference, I would not accept either of them as a postulate.

mountainman · 07-28-2011, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Jesus theories numbered 1 to 4 are based on the postulate that there was a real (historical) jesus, whereas the Jesus theories numbered 5 to 8 are based on the postulate that there was not.

No, they aren't. Generally speaking, the positions people take about the story of Jesus are conclusions they derive (rightly or wrongly) from evidence, and therefore not treated as postulates.

Conclusions which have been derived via analysis and a theory from evidence, or the lack of evidence,
and postulates, which are sometimes stated, but often omitted (yet nevertheless implied), are two different things.

I know that. That's my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It does not take much time at all to read through the Jesus theories 1 to 4,
and it is clear that in each case, the historical jesus is both a postulate and, in a varying scale, a conclusion.

It can't be both. It has to be one or the other.

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.

Not all the statements contained in a theory are postulates of the theory.

Most people know that.

mountainman · 07-28-2011, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If it makes a difference, I would not accept either of them as a postulate.

Well it may make a difference. Why would you not accept either of these two statements as a postulate, and what would be an example of a statement of a postulate in the field of BC&H, related to Jesus and history and the new testament which you would accept for consideration?

J-D · 07-28-2011, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If it makes a difference, I would not accept either of them as a postulate.

Well it may make a difference. Why would you not accept either of these two statements as a postulate, and what would be an example of a statement of a postulate in the field of BC&H, related to Jesus and history and the new testament which you would accept for consideration?

I would not accept either of those statements as a postulate because I see no need to accept either of them as a postulate. If you're interested in the resolution of a controversial issue it makes no sense to me to abort the discussion of it by taking an answer to it as a postulate. I guess I accept as a postulate that the modern English texts of the New Testament generally publicly accessible are reasonable translations of the earliest Greek manuscripts, although even there I'm willing to pay attention if somebody wants to put forward an argument against that, which I guess might make it not strictly a postulate. What do we need other postulates for?

aa5874 · 07-28-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D's post are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

1.....Logic is concerned with the relations of ideas, not with matters of fact.

2.....Logic is no more concerned with the content of specific ideas than it is with specific questions of fact. It is concerned with patterns of reasoning.

3.....Logic is concerned with the relations between ideas--specifically, as I said earlier, with patterns of reasoning--not with the content of specific ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Those statements do not contradict each other.

It is False and illogical that Logic is NOT concerned with matters of fact.

PyramidHead · 07-28-2011, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D's post are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Those statements do not contradict each other.

It is False and illogical that Logic is NOT concerned with matters of fact.

Please support this statement, since it is in direct contradiction to what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

aa5874 · 07-28-2011, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D's post are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Those statements do not contradict each other.

It is False and illogical that Logic is NOT concerned with matters of fact.

Please support this statement, since it is in direct contradiction to what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

You do NOT appear to understand the difference between "TRUTH" and "FACTS".

You previously made a statement which was a logical fallacy.

You claimed that you honestly did NOT know the capital of Brazil yet claimed that it was NOT Copenhagen.

Once it is the TRUTH that you do not know the capital of Brazil then it was ILLOGICAL for you to say it was NOT Copenhagen.

And if it was NOT the TRUTH that you do not know the capital of Brazil then it was LOGICAL for you to say it was NOT Copenhagen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.