aa5874

And, another logical fallacy "It wasn't a Child of a Ghost that lived in Nazareth so it must have been HJ"

mountainman

That the Historical Jesus theory must be, even to some small extent true, is a logical fallacy. We have already seen how much of a mess Eusebius (who first proposed such a ridiculous theory) got himself into with pious forgery hand over fist and completely erroneous chronography.

J-D

If somebody said that, it would be fallacious reasoning, but nobody said that.And if anybody said that, it would be fallacious reasoning, but nobody said that, either.But that is not an example of fallacious reasoning.

aa5874

Please tell us what is said about HJ. It is you who have NO idea what you are talking about.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is accepted as a fact, or MUST have existed, based on the NT the very same UNRELIABLE source.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is NOT being questioned by HJ Scholars.

HJ Scholars do NOT look for the historical Jesus of Nazareth they only try to determine what he did and said.

In effect, HJ Scholars are asserting that it could NOT have been the Child of a Ghost that lived in Nazareth so it MUST have been HJ.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

J-D

I don't KNOW. I don't know ANYBODY who says ANYTHING about HJ. PLEASE tell us SOMEBODY who says SOMETHING about HJ.I have SOME idea what I am talking about. I am NOT sure what you are talking about. When I ask you, you do not ANSWER.There is no LOGICAL FALLACY contained in that STATEMENT.There is no LOGICAL FALLACY contained in that STATEMENT, either.NOBODY has said that.

aa5874

I simply do not believe you.

In any event, If you don't really know what is said about HJ then it is ILLOGICAL for you to say that the HJ theory is NOT a logical fallacy.

You are really wasting my time.

First find out what is said about HJ and then I may be able to help you.

J-D

I know that YOU have repeatedly posted things here which YOU have SAID are LOGICAL FALLACIES but which are NOT in fact LOGICAL FALLACIES.

I also KNOW that YOU have committed LOGICAL FALLACIES yourself by using the FALLACIOUS argument from fallacy.

If YOU want to help and STOP WASTING YOUR TIME, you should post some EXAMPLES of things that people have actually said about HJ.

aa5874

Please do NOT attempt to derail MY thread.

You have ALREADY admitted that you don't know what people say about HJ. You MUST know those things FIRST.

Please get familiar about what is said about HJ if you want to argue that the HJ theory is not a Logical Fallacy.

I have already given you some links. Please educate yourself about HJ.

Again, HJ Scholars are asserting that it was NOT a Child of a Holy Ghost that lived in Nazareth it was a man even though they admit that the same very NT is historical UNRELIABLE.

HJ Scholars do NOT look for HJ but only look for what he did or said.

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

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

J-D

YOU have NEVER shown that YOU know what people SAY about HJ. YOU must show that YOU know FIRST.Please demonstrate FAMILIARITY with what is SAID about HJ if YOU want to argue that the HJ theory is a LOGICAL FALLACY.You have NOT GIVEN any links to people saying the things you allege they say.I have SEEN it, but I do NOT see any QUOTES there matching the things YOU SAY that HJ scholars say.

aa5874

Well, I can't help you if you don't see and you don't know what people say about HJ.

I can see and I know what people say about HJ.

I tried to help you.

Again, after all I have SEEN and KNOW about what people say about HJ I have come to the realization that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

HJ Scholars do NOT present any credible source of antiquity for their claim that HJ was a man who lived in Nazareth when Jesus of Nazareth was the Child of a Ghost.

It is HIGHLY ILLOGICAL to claim that a character described as the Child of a Holy Ghost was really just a man.

It must be LOGICAL that Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy Ghost Child, could have been a myth character in a story that people of antiquity simply believed was true.

One can Falsely Assume the supposed Peter the apostle was a real 1st century character but it is a Logical Fallacy to assert WITHOUT any reliable sources that a character described as a Ghost Child was really a man.

The HJ theory is a Logical Fallacy.

You don't know and don't see what people say about HJ so don't attempt to even argue about the OP.