quote:

---

Easily, if you're talking about common English usage. Anyone can say "that there logic stuff don't work" without even
knowing what the word 'logic' means.

---

quote:

---

And if we're not talking about common English, but instead the technical meanings, then I believe it's really quite
difficult to show, using sound and valid logical constructs, that those same constructs are invalid and/or unsound,
except in certain tiny subsets of constructs (paradoxes). If that's true, then you really cannot deny the entirety of
logic using logic, and so DA's statement is still ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

"No" is not a logical construct.

---

quote:

---

So DA is now rewriting logic? here's a title, the Idiot's Guide to Stupidity.

---

quote:

---

What kind "Skeptic" babbel is this? So every time someone says "Its raining outside." our first inquiry should be "Do you Know the three laws of rational thought?" sheese!

---

quote:

---

you have used the first law(LID) you have identified a subject,you have then used the second law(LEM)and excluded what it is your not talking about,and finally you have used the third law(LNC) and said that you can't both affirm and deny the validity of your propositions at the same time.Therefore,the opposite is true to statement: so DA's statement is still ridiculous.Your attempt to refute my statement is "ridiculous",MINE STILL STANDS.

---

quote:

---

So it seems that both you and DaveW fall prey to try and To deny logic you must use it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Computer Org: Not is one of the fundamental of logical constructs,--if not the most fundamental.

---

When you learn the difference between the declarative "No" and the logical "Not", get back to me.

---

quote:

---

"Do you have anything pertinent to say about . . . ?"

---

quote:

---

"No."

---

quote:

---

"not (I have something pertinent to say about . . . .)"

---

quote:

---

The NT does contain blunders:

1. The "Slaughter of the Innocents" is not recorded anywhere outside the Bible, even though Josephus went to great
lengths to describe the atrocities of Herod the Great. (Mt 2:16-18)

2. Herodias was Herod's wife, according to Josephus, not Phillip's wife (whose wife was Salome). (Mt 14:3)

3. According to Josephus, John was killed for inciting the people to the point of rebellion, not for condemning Herod's
(or anyone else's) relationships. (Mt 14:3)

---

quote:

---

While I cannot speak to Philostratus, I would suggest that you are overly naive (read ignorant) when it comes to
Josephus. See, for example:

quote:

According to Josephus the death of the 960 inhabitants of Masada and the destruction of the palace and the possessions were
the premeditated acts of all the people acting in unison. But the archaeological remains cannot be reconciled with this view. ...

Josephus needs no apology for these inventions and embellishments since practically all the historians of antiquity did such
things. But if an apology were demanded, Josephus could respond that his narrative required inventiveness. ...

- see Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus

---

quote:

---

The NT does contain blunders:

1. The "Slaughter of the Innocents" is not recorded anywhere outside the Bible, even though Josephus went to great
lengths to describe the atrocities of Herod the Great. (Mt 2:16-18)

2. Herodias was Herod's wife, according to Josephus, not Phillip's wife (whose wife was Salome). (Mt 14:3)

3. According to Josephus, John was killed for inciting the people to the point of rebellion, not for condemning Herod's
(or anyone else's) relationships. (Mt 14:3)

---

1.The fact Joe does't mention the "Slaughter" is irrelevant,as you also point out it is within his nature to carry out such an action(he had 3 of his own sons put to death).
2.Yes your quite right Herodias was Herod's wife,however she was first married to Phillip(Jos.Ant.XVIII,vs's 1,4)
3.First,neither one of these accounts contradict each other.Both agree that John was arrested,both mention that John had quite a large following,both agree that Herod had John killed.Where you try and create a problem is with the reason for his death.Did it ever occur to you that becauseJohn had such a large following and was condemning Herod for his marrying his brother's wife that "the people" [were getting close]to rebelling ? So far thats 3 strikes and it doesn't get better.

quote:

---

4. According to Rabbinic literature, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, only priests were required to wash
before they ate. After this date Rabbinic law required that all Jews wash before meals. (Mt 15:1)

5. Teachers did not acquire the title Rabbi until late in the first century. (Mt 23:8)

6. Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed such that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down", but the Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) of the Temple still stands today. (Mt
24:1-2)

7. Under Roman law, stealing was not a capital offence. (Mt 27:38)

8. Herod was the tetrarch not king. (Mk 6:14)

9. The Sabbath ended in the evening, at sundown, not anywhere near dawn. (Mt 28:1)

10. The Praetorium (Pilate's residence) was in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. (Mk 15:16)

These should be enough to refute your claim of no blunders.

---

• 4.Since you don't supply a source I'll have to guess at what "Rabbinic literature" you are referring to.After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 a body Jews settled at Jamnia where they codified their oral traditions.If this is what you meant you can hardly make a case that someone writing before Jamnia(Matthew AD60)is in error about oral traditions that weren't written down some hundred years latter.
• 5.This objection would have caused a shock to two of the most famous Rabbis BC Rabbi Shammai and Hillel(http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html)
• 6.Do you know the diffrence between a building[s] and a wall?

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos

waltfristoe:(Alleged NT "BLUNDERS")

quote:

---

4. According to Rabbinic literature, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, only priests were required to wash
before they ate. After this date Rabbinic law required that all Jews wash before meals. (Mt 15:1)

5. Teachers did not acquire the title Rabbi until late in the first century. (Mt 23:8)

6. Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed such that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down", but the Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) of the Temple still stands today. (Mt
24:1-2)

7. Under Roman law, stealing was not a capital offence. (Mt 27:38)

8. Herod was the tetrarch not king. (Mk 6:14)

9. The Sabbath ended in the evening, at sundown, not anywhere near dawn. (Mt 28:1)

10. The Praetorium (Pilate's residence) was in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. (Mk 15:16)

These should be enough to refute your claim of no blunders.

---

• 4.Since you don't supply a source I'll have to guess at what "Rabbinic literature" you are referring to.After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 a body Jews settled at Jamnia where they codified their oral traditions.If this is what you meant you can hardly make a case that someone writing before Jamnia(Matthew AD60)is in error about oral traditions that weren't written down some hundred years latter.
• 5.This objection would have caused a shock to two of the most famous Rabbis BC Rabbi Shammai and Hillel(http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html)
• 6.Do you know the diffrence between a building[s] and a wall?

[list]

7.The greek states that they were robbers(leistai) not thieves (kleptai) and since "a notorious prisoner" named Barabbas was to be crucified with them they probably also were partners in crime with him too. 8.The word tetrarch means to divied by 4.The kingdom was divided by 4,Mark writing to a Romans used a term they were familiar with c.f.Mt.14:1.

---

quote:

---

9. The Sabbath ended in the evening, at sundown, not anywhere near dawn. (Mt 28:1)

10. The Praetorium (Pilate's residence) was in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. (Mk 15:16)

These should be enough to refute your claim of no blunders.

---

quote:

---

I have some questions on your use of Josephus as a source for
supposedly contradicting the NT.First, one of your own "Skeptics" ConsequentAtheist wrote a post on another
thread(Was NT Written by Orthodox Jews p.9)where he claimed:

quote:[ ConsequentAtheist]



While I cannot speak to Philostratus, I would suggest that you are overly naive (read ignorant) when it comes to
Josephus. See, for example:

quote:

According to Josephus the death of the 960 inhabitants of Masada and the destruction of the palace and the possessions were
the premeditated acts of all the people acting in unison. But the archaeological remains cannot be reconciled with this view. ...

Josephus needs no apology for these inventions and embellishments since practically all the historians of antiquity did such
things. But if an apology were demanded, Josephus could respond that his narrative required inventiveness. ...

- see Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus


DA: my question to you is do you share this view and if so how is it you use a source with known historic blunders in an
attempt to discredit the NT? Second,according to another one of your "Skeptics",Atomic if a historian makes ONE
ERROR he is unreliable (DJREpt,5) do you share his opinion?

---

quote:

---

5. The title Rabbi has been applied retroactively.
Read the glossary (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/gloss.html#r)

6. I believe a wall is what you get when you have at least 'one
stone left upon another'. Jesus said there'd be nothing left,
but there is.

8. The word tetrarch does not mean divided by four. A tetrarches is "a ruler who governed the fourth part of a
country...in general the title of a petty prince." (Lewis, Short, A Latin Dictionary).

Herod was not a King (rex). Romans did not use the word Rex for a client ruler, as that implied autonomy. Rex was for
independent allies (the King of Armenia, sometimes), or enemies (the King of Parthia), or historical kings (Etruscans).

Much, much, later, during the reign of Constantine and afterwards, the empire was divided into four regions with
separate rulers in a (sometimes nominal) hierarchy. These four were also called Tetrarchs but had much more power.


In any case, Roman readers would have understood tetraches so there was no need to dumb it down to king.

---

• 5. (Taken from your ref.)) Rabbi
  (adj. rabbinic, Heb., “my master”). An authorized teacher of the classical Jewish tradition (see oral law) after the fall of the
  second Temple in 70 CE. The role of the rabbi has changed considerably throughout the centuries. Traditionally, rabbis serve as
  the legal and spiritual guides of their congregations and communities. The title is conferred after considerable study of traditional
  Jewish sources. This conferral and its responsibilities is central to the chain of tradition in Judaism.DA: For the life of me I can't see what you claim in this reference that disputes what I said but anyhow here is a response.If you are implying(as walt said) that the term wasn't in use before AD70 you fall well short of proving it.Like the word president the etymology far exceeds our current usage(as the President of the USA)what we did ,like the Jews did at and after the Council of Jamnia,was to confer on the word a more authoritative connotation.
• 6.Read the texts:Mt.24:1 "the buildings";Mk.13:1 "What kind of buildings";Lk.21:5 "some were speaking about the temple,that it had been adorned with beautiful stones" .Now it's true that that buildings have "walls" but walls(even "Wailing" ones) are not bulidings.
• 8.You claim:A tetrarches is "a ruler who governed the fourth part of a
  country...in general the title of a petty prince." (Lewis, Short, A Latin Dictionary).What I clamed was that Herod the Greats kingdom was divided into 4 parts,where's the contradiction??? I notice,in keeping the "Skeptical" tradition, that you bypassed my reference to Mt.14:1 where he uses the term "Herod the tetrarch (Matthew writing to Jews uses the "technical"term that they would understand) Mark doesn't use the latin word Rex, as you claim but the greek word Basilias which can mean King but also Royalty .Again your nitpicking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos

waltfristoe:(Alleged NT "BLUNDERS")

quote:

---

4. According to Rabbinic literature, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, only priests were required to wash
before they ate. After this date Rabbinic law required that all Jews wash before meals. (Mt 15:1)

5. Teachers did not acquire the title Rabbi until late in the first century. (Mt 23:8)

6. Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed such that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down", but the Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) of the Temple still stands today. (Mt
24:1-2)

7. Under Roman law, stealing was not a capital offence. (Mt 27:38)

8. Herod was the tetrarch not king. (Mk 6:14)

9. The Sabbath ended in the evening, at sundown, not anywhere near dawn. (Mt 28:1)

10. The Praetorium (Pilate's residence) was in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. (Mk 15:16)

These should be enough to refute your claim of no blunders.

---

• 4.Since you don't supply a source I'll have to guess at what "Rabbinic literature" you are referring to.After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 a body Jews settled at Jamnia where they codified their oral traditions.If this is what you meant you can hardly make a case that someone writing before Jamnia(Matthew AD60)is in error about oral traditions that weren't written down some hundred years latter.
• 5.This objection would have caused a shock to two of the most famous Rabbis BC Rabbi Shammai and Hillel(http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html)
• 6.Do you know the diffrence between a building[s] and a wall?

[list]

7.The greek states that they were robbers(leistai) not thieves (kleptai) and since "a notorious prisoner" named Barabbas was to be crucified with them they probably also were partners in crime with him too. 8.The word tetrarch means to divied by 4.The kingdom was divided by 4,Mark writing to a Romans used a term they were familiar with c.f.Mt.14:1.

---

quote:

---

As to the Josephus reference, I never said he wasn't reliable. But whatever the case is, at least we know who he was;
no one has any idea who wrote the gospels. They are completely anonymous.

---

quote:

---

I have some questions on your use of Josephus as a source for
supposedly contradicting the NT.First, one of your own "Skeptics" ConsequentAtheist wrote a post on another
thread(Was NT Written by Orthodox Jews p.9)where he claimed:

quote:



While I cannot speak to Philostratus, I would suggest that you are overly naive (read ignorant) when it comes to
Josephus. See, for example:

quote:

According to Josephus the death of the 960 inhabitants of Masada and the destruction of the palace and the possessions were
the premeditated acts of all the people acting in unison. But the archaeological remains cannot be reconciled with this view. ...

Josephus needs no apology for these inventions and embellishments since practically all the historians of antiquity did such
things. But if an apology were demanded, Josephus could respond that his narrative required inventiveness. ...

- see Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus


my question to you is do you share this view and if so how is it you use a source with known historic blunders in an
attempt to discredit the NT? Second,according to another one of your "Skeptics",Atomic if a historian makes ONE
ERROR he is unreliable (DJREpt,5) do you share his opinion?

---

quote:

---

This duality of sharp criticism alongside fulsome appreciation
has consistently accompanied the scholarly treatment of
Josephus' works. It has not been our intention here to prove
that he is always exact of correct in every statement, but to
show that his data are in many instances accurate, and that they
stem from reliable sources to which he had access from the
very beginning of his literary career.

---