J-D

I'm not taking a view.

But I'm still not understanding your view.

You say that you don't claim to know the intentions of the writers of the gospels, yet you said earlier that the gospels were 'deliberately false', which is a judgement about intention.

You also compared the Gospels to works of fiction (and even named a couple of example). But works of fiction, by definition, are written in the knowledge that they contain statements which are not factually true but with no intention that readers should take them as factually true. People who write things knowing that they are not factually true but intending that they be taken by readers as factually true are not, generally speaking, writing fiction in the usual sense but rather attempting a fraud, scam, or deception of some sort. The two activities are generally distinguished.

J-D

I am arguing about which statements (or sequences of statements) are false dichotomies and which are not.Please, you have not cited anything which scholars have claimed about the 'historical Jesus'.If they are doing so, it is not necessarily a logical fallacy.So you say, but I haven't seen you give any examples of scholars doing that. I don't know what precisely the scholars say and I don't trust you to represent their views accurately.So you say, but I haven't seen you give any examples of scholars doing that. I don't know what precisely the scholars say and I don't trust you to represent their views accurately.So you say, but I haven't seen you give any examples of scholars doing that. I don't know what precisely the scholars say and I don't trust you to represent their views accurately.I know of no rule of logic to that effect.It is logically possible for a document to contain both some statements which are logical and some statements which are illogical.It is also logically possible for a theory to be free of logical fallacies.It is logically possible that it is not a logical fallacy and it is logically possible that it is a logical fallacy. It is logically possible that it is true and it is logically possible that it is false.I don't know what you mean by 'extremely possible'.

aa5874

I want you to deal with the HJ theory itself.

Once there are no credible external sources for a character of antiquity, man or woman, then it is HIGHLY ILLOGICAL to use the biography of a Child of a Holy Ghost in the NT when by using such a source it implies that the gospels are fiction.

Can't you see that it is ILLOGICAL to use the descrpition of Tiberius in the NT for some UNKNOWN character?

Can't you see that it is ILLOGICAL to use UNRELIABLE sources for history?

Without any credible historical sources for HJ then the HJ theory is FAITH based.

Faith is ILLOGICAL.

avi

Do you have knowledge (I do not) that the authors of the four gospels did not gain financially from production of the four texts?

Since the church has been collecting money from those hoping to reach paradise for a great many centuries, I think it can be said that, at least since the church was organized, under Constantine, there has been a financial gain associated with church functions, particularly related to distribution of the gospels.


Yes, I do not possess knowledge of what anyone else does, or why they do it. I stand by my affirmation that the gospels are "deliberately false". deliberate, because the same stories are reiterated in modified form, but fundamentally unchanged in MM&L. False because the folks writing the gospels understood, very well, that one does not cure blindness by spitting.

Well, that seems appropriate, in a setting where one is uncertain about the choices.

Is it genuinely beneficial to take daily vitamin supplements? "I am not taking a view", seems reasonable, because the author of this statement is very busy with important duties, and consequently, has not been able to investigate the claims, for or against....

Is it correct to claim that the gospels represent myth? "I am not taking a view", seems less reasonable, because of the presence of an overwhelming focus of dishonest/false/untrue statements contained therein.

The choice is genuinely simple: either the texts support mythical constructs, or they do not....

avi

J-D

As stated by whom, where, when? I can't deal with it if you can't help me to find it. Otherwise I might end up dealing with something different from the thing you want me to deal with.It is not logically necessary that using a document as a source implies that it is fiction.I haven't seen anybody do that.Dividing all possible sources into 'absolutely reliable' and 'absolutely unreliable' is an instance of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

J-D

Both writers of fiction and fraudsters sometimes gain financially from their activities, but the two categories are distinct.Then you are making an assertion about their states of mind, their knowledge and intentions.'False' and 'dishonest' are not synonyms, and 'mythical' is not synonymous with either of them.I'm not sure what you mean by the expression 'support mythical constructs', partly because I'm not sure what kind of 'support' you have in mind.

aa5874

Why are you writing as if you don't understand what is meant by the term the historical Jesus?

I will show you again what the term historical Jesus refers to and see if you continue with your denial.

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


I have NOT made any claims of "absolute reliable" or "absolutely unreliable" sources so I don't know what you are attempting to do here.

I am dealing with the HJ theory and that it is a Logical Fallacy so if you don't know about the HJ theory or what Scholars say about HJ then why are you posting?

I really don't understand what you are doing.

You have ADMITTED that false conclusions may be produced by Logical fallacies yet appear seem reluctant to admit that it is possible that the HJ theory is a Logical fallacy.

It is ILLOGICAL to use KNOWN UNRELIABLE sources about the Child of the Holy Ghost for history.

J-D

So there's an article on Wikipedia which says these things. You want me to 'deal with it'. Deal with it how? You are the one who says there's a logical fallacy. You show where it is.Because I can read what you are posting.I have told you that before. I am pointing out that you have not made out your case.I said it before and I'll say it again. It is logically possible that it is not a logical fallacy and it is logically possible that it is a logical fallacy. It is logically possible that it is true and it is logically possible that it is false.You have not demonstrated that it can be known that every statement in those sources is false.

avi

I believe, correct me if I err, that you made that same request about 100 posts ago, and Chaucer kindly pointed out his own, thorough, proficient, detailed discussion of this theory, on this thread, with at least one link to his prior exposition of the theory.

If you don't remember, or understand, then a search for posts made by Chaucer will highlight both our current thread, and his prior discussion as well.

I have offered an assertion about their knowledge, but not their states of mind, nor their intentions.

Perhaps you could employ some other text, rather than the Gospels, if it is irritating to "take a view" on that collection of texts.

How about Mohammed's night ride on Buraq?

Does this marvelous little painting fulfill your own criteria as an example of logical fallacy? If not, in what ways does this lovely, Persian, miniature illustration from the early 14th century demonstrate contrarily, absence of dishonesty and deception in the conceptual elaboration of the accompanying encyclopedia article?

avi

J-D

I remember the occasion, and I observed at the time that Chaucer did not make the assertions that aa5874 was talking about. Certainly it has never confirmed (by aa5874) that Chaucer's presentation is the kind of thing aa5874 is talking about.Very well, then. Both fraudsters and composers of fiction make statements knowing them to be false. The two activities are, nevertheless, not the same.A thesaurus groups together words which have related usages. The point of a thesaurus is that it assists people to find the exact word they want, or something close to it. If all the alternatives in the list were absolutely interchangeable, it wouldn't be necessary to list so many. The point is that they are distinct in their shades of meaning. 'Dishonest' and 'mistaken', for example, do not have exactly the same meaning, no matter how many thesauruses list them as both synonyms for 'false'. And we've already been over the issue of the different shades of meaning of 'fallacy' and 'fallacious' in different contexts. I've said before that I take aa5874's use of the qualification 'logical', in referring to 'fallacy', as indicating a narrower sense of the term, and aa5874 has never said anything to the contrary.Irritation has nothing to do with it--unless perhaps you are feeling irritated. But what purpose do you want me to 'employ' some other text for? What is the point you are trying to settle that could possibly be affected by cross-questioning me about some other text?In the narrow sense of the word 'fallacy' which I have been discussing, the one which I take to be implied by the specification 'logical fallacy', no painting can ever be a logical fallacy because the concept is only applicable to chains of reasoning, or purported ones. If you want to enlarge the subject to 'dishonesty' and 'deception', I am still at a loss to see how any painting can ever be either 'honest' or 'dishonest'. I'm not sure what question you're really trying to ask me. I'm not sure why, either.