Toto

I suggested it might belong in E, but got objections. And people keep dragging it out.

avi

Writing as one who clearly is not the sharpest tack in the carpet, allow me to express some thoughts here:

a. I don't know what is meant by "E". That letter however, holds very unpleasant memories of bygone days at school......

b. With regard to logic: umm well, I don't claim to understand some of the nuances expressed here by PyramidHead and J-D.

In particular, I frequently encounter the word "quote", as in "no one said xyz"
but, here we are WRITING, not speaking, so, that is perplexing to me.....

c. What I take away from this thread is that the words "logical fallacy" have different meanings to different folks.

I prefer, the simpler method of expression: "illogical", or "counter-intuitive", or, even better: "unsupported by the data".

Of course if one has no data, then, it is difficult to express oneself in that fashion.

What kind of data do we have, to support the HJ theory, as that theory has been articulated on this forum, though not necessarily on this very thread, and certainly not by speaking.....?

I claim we have ample evidence of mythical behaviour described in the gospels, such as devils and demons, and so on....so, for me, these four gospels are simply Koine Greek novels.

I admit that I do not understand why it should be important to insist on the concept (which I also deny understanding) of "logical fallacy" to explore this fundamental contradiction: Gospels identified as "historical" though they manifest, very clearly to my eyes, at least, evidence of fiction, not history.

I obviously do not know the proper terminology to argue the point, but, I will avoid the terms "logical fallacy" like the plague itself, and simply assert that historical treatises tend not to exaggerate human accomplishments, and rarely transport living, breathing, ordinary human beings into the realm of supernatural capabilities.

avi

PyramidHead

Agreed!

TedM

Hey aa, the historical Jesus very well may have come from Nazareth. After all, it's in the gospels, and we even have some other evidence for it's existence in the older days...have fun!

J-D

Has that theory been articulated on this forum? By whom, where, when?

aa5874

Ok, then look at the EXACT Logical Fallacy from PyramidHead.

It is ILLOGICAL to claim you know what you actually don't.

If you don't actually know the capital of Brazil then knowing the capital of Denmark does not help you.

PyramidHead's assertion is an illogical fallacy, a false dichotomy, once he does NOT know the capital of Brazil.

And further, PyramidHead's logical fallacy is more easily detected if no-one knew the capital of Brazil.

And finally PyramidHead MUST know the capital of Brazil to assert that it cannot be Copenhagen

But, this thread is NOT about logical fallacies from PyramidHead.

Once you agree that False conclusions may be produce by Logical fallacies then you have NOT affected by theory at all.

You have merely augmented it.

It is my view that HJ is a FALSE conclusion.

Based on your own words a False conclusion may be produced by Logical Fallacies.

It is my view that HJ was a False conclusion which was PRODUCED by Logical Fallacies.


Again, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

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

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Many Scholars are mentioned like Craig Evans, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman and others.

These Scholars illogically accept an historical Jesus of NAZARETH using the NT that described Jesus of Nazareth as NON-historical while admitting the NT is not even reliable.

Please Explain why the HJ theory is NOT an illogical fallacy?

mountainman

Eusebius submitted the first HJ theory for peer review at Nicaea c.325 CE. Ever since then the HJ theory has been a popular articulation of apologists and proselytes and "Biblical Scholars". There has been an endless procession of articulation on this forum of the HJ theory. Where have you been? The philosophy forum?

J-D

If you assert that you know something when in fact you do not know it, then your assertion is false, but the falsehood is NOT NECESSARILY the product of FALLACIOUS reasoning.You have failed to DEMONSTRATE the presence of the elements of a FALSE DICHOTOMY.That is NOT a logically necessary truth.FALSE CONCLUSIONS are sometimes produced by fallacious reasoning and are sometimes produced without fallacious reasoning. YOU have failed to SHOW that this is a case where FALLACIOUS REASONING has been employed.BUT you have FAILED to provide SUPPORT for this view. You have asserted it, but you have not backed it up.Please explain why you have FAILED to provide support for your view that it is a LOGICAL FALLACY?

J-D

What avi said was that the theory had been articulated on this forum. I asked by whom, where, when, it had been articulated on this forum. You have not shown by whom, where, when, it was articulated on this forum.

mountainman

Use the forum search function. Search for "Historical Jesus Theory". This is not a sheltered workshop for philosophical logicians.

A Century of Controversy over the Foundations of Mathematics

You may think you do. If you read this lecture very carefully you may change your mind.