http://www.christianapologetic.org/docs/Christian%20Handbook%20of%20REason%20and%20Insight%20for%20Scientists%20and%20Technologists.pdf

Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did?

This question will be addressed with the help of an inverted logic tree. At the top of the logic tree is a thesis (x) and its antithesis (not-x). One is true, the other is false. This initial thesis bifurcates into a composite thesis (x and y) and its quasi-antithesis (x and not-y) where x and y are stand-alone theses meaning each one can be independently true or false. The actual antithesis corresponding to the composite thesis (x and y) is given by not-(x and y) = not-x or not-y but this antithesis is not assigned a location on the logic tree. Instead, a node is related to its branches by the biconditional:

x if and only if [(x and y) or (x and not-y)]

which is the tautology defined by "A if and only if B" where A = x and B = [(x and y) or (x and not-y)]; A and B have the same truth table as shown in the Table below.

---

Truth table for x vs [(x and y) or (x and not-y)]

[table]
[tr]
[td]-------------------------[/td]
[td]-------------------------[/td]
[td]-------------------------[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]x[/td]
[td]y[/td]
[td](x and y) or (x and not-y)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1[/td]
[td]0[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]0[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]0[/td]
[td]0[/td]
[td]0[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

---

Finally, the process of successive bifurcation may be continued indefinitely.

It is frequently difficult to develop a procedure for determining the truth of a complex premise. However, if the premise can be expressed as a logical ("and" operator) combination of theses and antitheses and placed at any branch tip of a logic tree, a unique characteristic of logic trees can be utilized to determine whether the premise is true or false. When a logic tree is constructed according to the algorithm described above, one and only one of the statements located at branch tips must be true. A general proof of this proposition will be left as an exercise for the interested reader. However, proofs will be outlined for the specific logic trees used here.

Consider the generic three level logic tree below:

The statements located at branch tips are nA, B, C and nC. The fact that one and only one of these four statements must be true can be seen by: (1) assigning "false" to any group of three and deducing the value of the fourth and (2) assigning "true" to any one of the four and deducing the values of the other three:

[table]
[tr]
[td]---------------[/td]
[td]---------------[/td]
[td]---------------[/td]
[td]---------------[/td]
[td]---------------[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nA = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]x = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]B = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]y = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]nC = 1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]C = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]z = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]x = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]C = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nC = 1[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]y = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]B = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]z = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]nA = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nA = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]x = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]B = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]y = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]C = 1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nC = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]z = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]x = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]nC = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]C = 1[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]y = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]B = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]z = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]nA = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nA = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]x = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]C = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]y = 1[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]B = 1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nC = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]x = 1[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]nC = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]B = 1[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]y = 1[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]C = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]nA = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]B = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]C = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]x = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]nA = 1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nC = 0[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]nC = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]nA = 1[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]x = 0[/td]
[td]implies[/td]
[td]C = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]B = 0[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Now consider the logic tree, in the figure below, concerning the accuracy of New Testament text.

One and only one of the four statements located at branch tips in Figure 2 must be true.

(1) Jesus was not a man.

(2) Jesus was a man and New Testament autographs were documents which gave an accurate account of what Jesus said and did.

(3) Jesus was a man and New Testament autographs were not documents which gave an accurate account of what Jesus said and did and authors of New Testament autographs were truthful men.

(4) Jesus was a man and New Testament autographs were not documents which gave an accurate account of what Jesus said and did and authors of New Testament autographs were not truthful men.

Analyses of the logic trees here requires recognition that one and only one of the following theses is always true:
[list]
[li](a man is truthful);[/li]
[li](a man is a deliberate liar);[/li]
[li](a man is insane)[/li]
[/list]

A truthful man always tells the truth about important issues regardless of the consequences.

A liar tells the truth or lies with equal facility depending on how his objectives are best served.

An insane man tells the truth or lies with no connection to reality.

Finally, a specific individual may be insane but group insanity is not logical.


The subsequent posts will examine the likelihood that statements (1), (3) and (4) represent truth.

The falsity of these three statements and, therefore, the truth of statement (2) cannot be established with certainty.

However, so much evidence can be amassed in support of this position that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and blind.

(1) Jesus was not a man?

The existence of a man named Jesus was claimed by:
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian
Tacitus, the first century Roman historian
The first century authors of the Gnostic gospels
The first century authors of the New Testament autographs

These four sets of authors did not share a common background, philosophy or religion. Why would they independently invent or perpetuate the invention of a fictitious character who would have been a virtual contemporary for each of them? Furthermore, even if one or more of them did invent such a character, why wasn't the hoax unmasked by eye-witnesses; why didn't someone stand up and say, "This man Jesus never existed"?

I can't think of a good reason. Can you?

What are you getting at?

In your analysis of the writers being truthful/ not truthful/ insane, you have missed out one option.

What if they were genuinely mistaken?

Such that they are truthfull, not insane, and yet carry a genuine mistake or misperception about what they wrote?

Such as perhaps a mistake regarding the spiritual idenity of the man the wrote about.

Many humans habour deep convictions that other humans are God, or incarnations of gods, you know.

It will neither be falsehood nor necessarily insanity for such men to write about such convictions.

It could simply be a genuine misapprehension.

(3) New Testament autographs accidentally provided an inaccurate account of what Jesus said and did?

Consider the following:
[list]
[li]The contents of the New Testament autographs must have been completely consistent with the beliefs of the Christian community at the time the autographs were circulated. Otherwise, the autographs would have been rejected just like the Gnostic gospels and other "heretical" writings were rejected.[/li]
[li]The New Testament autographs must have pre-dated the oldest known manuscript fragments.[/li]
[/list]

The oldest known manuscript fragments have been dated in the early second century A.D. This means the autographs were known to some portion of the Christian community during the first century. The fact that the autographs were accepted by their readers as statements of truth means that those autographs accurately described the beliefs of the Christian community at that time.

How could first century Christians, including those who wrote the autographs, have developed, totally by accident, inaccurate beliefs about what Jesus said and did when eye-witnesses were available to challenge those beliefs?
I can't think of a way. Can you?

The idea that New Testament autographs accidentally provided an inaccurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did is viable only if the events in the life of Jesus had been recorded long after the death of all eye-witnesses. For example, if the events in His life had been handed down by word of mouth until 300A.D. and then finally began to be written down in what we now refer to as New Testament autographs, it is reasonable to believe that what He said and did could have become distorted. What was recorded would have been consistent with the beliefs of the Christian community of 300A.D. but those beliefs would have been erroneous.

@Deep Sight: The above post answers your question. Being a liar might be deliberate or it might be a case of being mistaken.

(4) New Testament autographs deliberately provided an inaccurate account of what Jesus said and did?

This means the New Testament autographs contained deliberate lies set forth by certain individuals in the first century Christian community. Since eye-witnesses were alive to challenge these lies, the hoax could not have been perpetrated without the "clout" of the eleven apostles. These apostles must have been at least willing conspirators if not the actual originators of the fraud.

Since individuals do not usually conspire to defraud without anticipating some kind of gain, it is reasonable to ask, "What did the apostles get for their trouble?" There is no record to indicate they achieved wealth or political power. Instead, the apostles, along with the rest of the first century Christians, received persecution, torture and death as a reward for their beliefs. Yet no apostle ever recanted his story.

When, in recorded history, have sane men ignored personal gain and freely chosen persecution, torture and death to preserve what they knew to be a lie?

If you can rationalize the idea that eleven men, and their associates, risked their lives, with no hope of personal gain, to promulgate what they knew to be a lie, then another question must be asked. Why did anyone believe them?

History confirms that Christianity became a powerful evangelical force during the first century. Were all the converts more gullible than you? Were they so dumb they could be convinced without evidence that a poor carpenter rose bodily from the dead after spending three days in a tomb? If these converts were only of average intelligence, they would have demanded something more than the claims of a rag-tag bunch of amateur preachers. Surely they would have demanded something like the personal word of a trusted friend who witnessed a miracle or even saw the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes.

Some autographs even offered bold challenges daring skeptics to refute their claims (Acts 2:22; 26:24-28; 1 Cor 15:3-7). These challenges were thrust in the face of Jew and Roman alike. No one stepped forth to unmask the hoax. Why?

How about the option of irresolvable? Is everything true or false?

Chrisbenogor:

How about the option of irresolvable? Is everything true or false?

In classical logic, everything is true or false. We are not dealing with fuzzy logic in this thread.

InesQor:

@Deep Sight: The above post answers your question. Being a liar might be deliberate or it might be a case of being mistaken.

No it doesn't.

I spoke, for example, about a mistake about Jesus' spiritual identity.

No amount of eye-witnesses can either corroborate or debunk such a mistake.

Secondly the writings were indeed done many decades after his death. In such circumstances just how likely is it that eye witnesses would be popping out of the wood work to deny this or affirm that.

InesQor:

In classical logic, everything is true or false. We are not dealing with fuzzy logic in this thread.

I am just asking if every issue can be resolved as true or false.

"Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did?"

Answers can be true, false or not enough data(irresolvable) no?

Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax, focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree to the fabrication of details that made this person seem susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you personally were going to play the part of an apostle in this hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the New Testament autographs:

[list]
[li]Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).[/li]
[li]The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).[/li]
[li]After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).[/li]
[li]Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).[/li]
[li]Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).[/li]
[li]Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).[/li]
[li]Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).[/li]
[li]Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).[/li]
[li]Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).[/li]
[/list]

If you were fabricating events for a text which you planned to stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include these nine items?

I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence.

Therefore, the question asked at the beginning of this thread can be answered "yes" with near certainty.

Deep Sight:

No it doesn't.

I spoke, for example, about a mistake about Jesus' spiritual identity.

No amount of eye-witnesses can either corroborate or debunk such a mistake.

Secondly the writings were indeed done many decades after his death. In such circumstances just how likely is it that eye witnesses would be popping out of the wood work to deny this or affirm that.

Part of my point, how are we sure we have covered all angles? How do we use these reports to affirm the spirituality divinity of a human being?

@Deep Sight:

I knew your main concern would be about the spiritual identity of Christ. You see, an eyewitness account is just that: eye witness. Whatever they wrote was what they were told and what they observed. There are no inferences in an eye-witness account, as you well know. If you see any place where the writers INFERRED the spiritual identity of Christ, please show me.

---

@Chrisbenogor:
I really hope you saw these?

The falsity of these three statements and, therefore, the truth of statement (2) cannot be established with certainty.

However, so much evidence can be amassed in support of this position that a final step of faith is small and guided as opposed to large and blind.

Therefore, the question asked at the beginning of this thread can be answered "yes" with near certainty.

@Deep Sight: So, my guy, you are jumping the gun. We are only discussing the logical veracity of the NT accounts about Christ. Your agenda doesnt seem to be covered in this discourse. Maybe next one. . .

InesQor:

Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax, focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree to the fabrication of details that made this person seem susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you personally were going to play the part of an apostle in this hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the New Testament autographs:

Yes, you would when the focus is on shewing the worshipped one to be holier and greater than you all.

This has severally been the case in thousands of both ancient and modern personality cults.

Secondly my initial question does nothing to deny that they may have been writing sincerely.

I rather asked about a mistake such as the spiritual identity of the leader being worshipped.

Because frankly Inesqor, you must doubtless be aware of the fact that there have been gazillion personality cults in which the followers had similar ideas about the divine identity of their leader. You know this, do you not?

How does your logical tree address is patent fact?

If you were fabricating events for a text which you planned to stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include these nine items?

As said above, the apostles may have been sincere in their writings. That does not make the writtings infallible.

Just as surely as I may in sincereity include true details of my failings in any writings that I may make. That does not make the writings infallible.

I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence.

Surely, you are also aware that there were a great many gospels and writings about the life of Jesus. Many of them contained acts that will by today's standards be considered corrupt. All these gospels were ditched by the august assemblage that determined the books to form the modern biblios.

This singular fact throws your entire surmise to the marines, you know.

^^^

Bla bla Yada yada  Now you are bringing in your personal vendetta against the Deity of Christ. 

Simple [i]comprehension [/i]shows that this is not the topic of the thread.

Deep Sight:
Surely, you are also aware that there were a great many gospels and writings about the life of Jesus. Many of them contained acts that will by today's standards be considered corrupt. All these gospels were ditched by the august assemblage that determined the books to form the modern biblios.

This singular fact throws your entire surmise to the marines, you know.

We are only discussing the four NT gospels here. I thought that was clear to everyone who is honest to the thread's theme? 

Deep Sight:
[size=14pt]As said above, the apostles may have been sincere in their writings.[/size]

And that is all. Case closed.

See you in the next class if you pass the exams.

What is "bla bla bla, yada yada yada?"

Seems you are getting so terribly defensive? ? ?

You might want to reflect that any closed-circle logical process that fails to take cognisance of the fact that the material contained within it (the 4 NT Gospels) was excised from a larger pool of material that gives a lie to the allusions of perfection and divinity is simply a fraudulent logical process which relies on a lie to make its premises and misfooted conclusion.

Gotta run. xmas dinner.

Deep Sight:

What is "bla bla bla, yada yada yada?"

I was trying hard to mimic the malarkey that is your heart's language whenever you hear of Christ 

Deep Sight:

Seems you are getting so terribly defensive? ? ?

Actually this thread is about being defensive. 
But you are barking down the wrong tree by infusing irrelevant gist, so you should get what comes to you. 

Deep Sight:

You might want to reflect that any closed-circle logical process that fails to take cognisance of the fact that the material contained within it (the 4 NT Gospels) was excised from a larger pool of material that gives a lie to the allusions of perfection and divinity is simply a fraudulent logical process which relies on a lie to make its premises and misfooted conclusion.

More yada yada balderdash. You are really well-versed in this oleaginous unctuousness of yours!

Deep Sight:

Gotta run. xmas dinner.

Don't choke. 

^so this is what you were doing when I called you this morning? no wonder you no fit talk 

Chris, I am coming. I still have to recover from the shock of actually receving an email from you. Gimme some time ehn.

JeSoul:

^so this is what you were doing when I called you this morning? no wonder you no fit talk 

Haba sister dear this was two hours ago jare!

Sometimes some snoopy dude is around me, so I say little on the phone at such times.

Thanks for the call sha  although I am not surprised that you were surprised at my voice. I get that everytime 

JeSoul:

^so this is what you were doing when I called you this morning? no wonder you no fit talk 

Chris, I am coming. I still have to recover from the shock of actually receving an email from you. Gimme some time ehn.

HEHEHE sneaky sneaky me

@DeepSight: please do not derail this promising thread (It seems Jesus as God invokes a visceral Pavlovian reflex in you to argue otherwise---especially if it is InesQor involved). Or at least wait until InesQor's done before setting out your counter argument.

@InesQor: carry on, please.

aletheia:

@DeepSight: please do not derail this promising thread (It seems Jesus as God invokes a visceral Pavlovian reflex in you to argue otherwise---especially if it is InesQor involved). Or at least wait until InesQor's done before setting out your counter argument.

@InesQor: carry on, please.

Sir please do not amuse me this morning.

Put on your thinking cap. There is no derailment but a precise articulation of the relevant logical issue.

The OP attempts to draw a logical tree inferring the veracity of scriptural gospel accounts. In so doing the OP makes a point regarding the accuracy of the gospel as conveyed by the apostles. It is surely topical to remind the OP that it would be disingenious to assess the veracity of those accounts without considering the fact that there were a great many written gospels also creditted to some other apostles: and that such gospels were deliberately excised from the canon that we have today: and that the totality of these writings give a direct lie to the summation that the OP seeks to derive from that logical construct.

This, sir: is NO derailment.

The inescapable fact remains that those gospels were selected from a LARGE POOL of writings and it is and remains fraudulent to derive a logical construct as to their veracity by ignoring the larger pool of writings.

In no court of law would such an approach be permitted: for those writings all constitute corroborative evidence as to the truth and veracity of the compound claims.

In short what Inesqor is attempting to do is exactly like a prosecutor attempting to select four witnesses from a murder scene, and insisting that in arriving at the truth, the other 50 witnesses present at the scene of the crime must not be allowed to speak.

That is nothing but plain and blatant fraud: an eminent travesty the like of which I am yet to come across anywhere in eternity.

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:
In no court of law would such an approach be permitted: for those writings all constitute corroborative evidence as to the truth and veracity of the compound claims.

In short what Inesqor is attempting to do is exactly like a prosecutor attempting to select four witnesses from a murder scene, and insisting that in arriving at the truth, the other 50 witnesses present at the scene of the crime must not be allowed to speak.

It is a pity that you are a practising lawyer and you are saying this trash! 

If not that I know that you are indeed a lawyer outside this forum (like you claim), I would by now put your supposed education in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of flaws in Eyewitness identification (such as faulty observation and recollection, or bias), or because a witness is lying. If several people witness a crime, [size=15pt]it is probative to look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event[/size], keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions.

But rather than seek similarities in the so-called witness accounts, whether they are the 4 canonized ones or not BUT keeping in mind the contrasts, this middling lawyer is enforcing his own [b]biased [/b]views against the canonized gospels.

There were other writings about Jesus. As other witnesses, did they also give similar accounts of Jesus (keeping in mind the necessary contrasts? Even the 4 NT gospels had some contrasts)? Or did one of the contrary gospels, for instance, say Jesus never existed?

The explanation of Condition 4 of the Logic tree in Figure 2 indicates the distinct reason why the non-canonized accounts, although having similarities in content, were not accepted by the RCC for their contrast to these four. They probably contained very doubtful information, but definitely did not significantly occlude the main thrust of the account about the man Jesus of whom they wrote. There were reasons for removing those books. Here it is again in case you missed it.

InesQor:

(4) New Testament autographs deliberately provided an inaccurate account of what Jesus said and did?

This means the New Testament autographs contained deliberate lies set forth by certain individuals in the first century Christian community. Since eye-witnesses were alive to challenge these lies, the hoax could not have been perpetrated without the "clout" of the eleven apostles. These apostles must have been at least willing conspirators if not the actual originators of the fraud.

Since individuals do not usually conspire to defraud without anticipating some kind of gain, it is reasonable to ask, "What did the apostles get for their trouble?" There is no record to indicate they achieved wealth or political power. Instead, the apostles, along with the rest of the first century Christians, received persecution, torture and death as a reward for their beliefs. Yet no apostle ever recanted his story.

When, in recorded history, have sane men ignored personal gain and freely chosen persecution, torture and death to preserve what they knew to be a lie?

If you can rationalize the idea that eleven men, and their associates, risked their lives, with no hope of personal gain, to promulgate what they knew to be a lie, then another question must be asked. Why did anyone believe them?

History confirms that Christianity became a powerful evangelical force during the first century. Were all the converts more gullible than you? Were they so dumb they could be convinced without evidence that a poor carpenter rose bodily from the dead after spending three days in a tomb? If these converts were only of average intelligence, they would have demanded something more than the claims of a rag-tag bunch of amateur preachers. Surely they would have demanded something like the personal word of a trusted friend who witnessed a miracle or even saw the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes.

Some autographs even offered bold challenges daring skeptics to refute their claims (Acts 2:22; 26:24-28; 1 Cor 15:3-7). These challenges were thrust in the face of Jew and Roman alike. No one stepped forth to unmask the hoax. Why?

In a court case, Mr Lawyer, when a subpoena summons witnesses to appear and they do; and they are compelled to testify, the SIDE that calls the witness (me in this case) does a direct examination (which I have done above). If you have cross-examination against the presentation of my witnesses, please let us have your logic and stop pussyfooting.

On the other hand, maybe you have information from your own witnesses, the non-canonical books about Jesus. Then I subject it to a similar cross-examination logically like the above. If we see sufficient contradictory testimonies to my presentation above, then we may recall my witness and revisit the logic above.

Anything less than this is a farce and you make a joke of your own profession. 

P.S. I am not deceived, the water level on the iceberg is getting lower by the day. More to see. . . [the rest has been removed]

I am waiting for some mohammedan to open a thread to prove that jesus was a muslim through some complex mathematical equations. Lol! You guys are a riot.

Jenwitemi:

I am waiting for some mohammedan to open a thread to prove that jesus was a muslim through some complex mathematical equations. Lol! You guys are a riot.

Actually the mathematics here (read: boolean algebra) is not as complex as you say. Maybe your bias obturates your reasoning?

Deep Sight:

Sir please do not amuse me this morning.

Put on your thinking cap. There is no derailment but a precise articulation of the relevant logical issue.

Please be amused. It appears you have an unnecessarily high opinion of yourself. I read yours and InesQor's posts before commenting. There is nothing precise or logical about your response. It was nothing but an emotional knee-jerk response.

If you weren't blinded by your Pavlovian need to always argue that Jesus is not God: you would have realized from posts #1 and #2 that what InesQor sets out to demonstrate is logical proof of the existence of a man called Jesus:

InesQor:

Did the New Testament autographs provide an accurate account of what a man named Jesus said and did?

InesQor:

One and only one of the four statements located at branch tips in Figure 2 must be true.

(1) Jesus was not a man.

(2) Jesus was a man and New Testament autographs were documents which gave an accurate account of what Jesus said and did.

(3) Jesus was a man and New Testament autographs were not documents which gave an accurate account of what Jesus said and did and authors of New Testament autographs were truthful men.

(4) Jesus was a man and New Testament autographs were not documents which gave an accurate account of what Jesus said and did and authors of New Testament autographs were not truthful men.

Relax man, and stop being such a tightass.

DeepSight ALWAYS discredits his own arguments CONCERNING Christ because they are based on hatred/anger/denial rather than truth. Why would you show logic concerning everything except Christ?

So here's a science major (Inesqor) trouncing you at "law" just because you see red at the mention of Christ and thus refuse to use truth backed by your thinking cap? If he wasn't bothered enough to research and refute your words, your deliberately "false" argument would have seemed the truth.

Yet you always wish people believe your search for truth is honest.

nonsense. U dont select four witnesses out of fifty and insist that the fifty must not be heard. If he calls the four as his witnesses i can call the fifty as mine. Bullshit reasoning.

A person presenting a case for court selects and decides his own witnesses as well as which evidence to present. It is for the other side, the opponent, to choose which witnesses they wish to put forward and which evidence they wish to present.

Further, in a case involving an event that took place in public among a large number of people - take even a small "large" number of fifty - it is not common at all that all the witnesses will be called by either or both sides.

Relating it to the Bible canon, it is actually a rather lazy and pitiful argument to hark on that some books were excluded from the Bible and to imply a capricious motive for the exclusion. The task for those against the canon would be to delve into some of the excluded books that are still extant and to show, if they can, that they disprove the message of the established canon.