marco wrote:I did and you seem not to have understood, choosing instead to continue your teaching sessions, this time on what constitutes a contradiction, but we'll examine that gem later.
Yes, it's true, once again I find myself having to provide some teaching on the basics of logic. I may have to start charging for my time soon.
You phrase a good phrase, even when you err. "We have good reason" ---- of course we do, for when Jesus is wrong we must find anything, anywhere that gets us out of a hole.
Please stop projecting. In principle, I have no problem with the idea that Jesus may have corrected something in the Old Testament. The issue here is one of good logic and whether or not there is a good argument for a contradiction. I don’t see how either you or the author of thread has demonstrated that there is a contradiction. And I've provided sufficient argumentation against the charge.
In order to argue a contradiction one must assume either:
(1) Jesus had no knowledge of the story of the ascension of Elijah or;
(2) Jesus was implying the account of Elijah's ascension was false.
Yes, you placed these spurious restrictions on others and then you expect them to comply with your prescription. There is more to argument than that.
You say there is more to the argument than that, but you fail to tell me anything more aside from asserting there is a contradiction. As far as I can see you are making one of those two assumptions in order to argue for a contradiction. Is there another one I’ve missed?
Anyway, to get back to fact, we demonstrate a contradiction by producing the statement's negation.
Right. You have to show the negation to the
statement A. Not show statement B which appears to conflict with A with no further argument which shows why A contradicts B.
"No one has gone to heaven" is a general statement. A single counter-example will prove it wrong, and this was done. Christ's statement is false in the light of what believers believe. The contradiction is "There's someone who has gone to heaven."
But you haven’t shown a
contradiction. You’ve shown a discrepancy by merely taking two statements out of context and juxtaposing them. Two different statements, made by two different people, made at different times, in different contexts and then, “Voila! A contradiction!�
Anybody can do that. Allow me to demonstrate...
Example 1:
A: There are many stars.
B: There are no stars.
Example 2
A: Trump is American.
B: There are no Americans.
Example 3
A: You can only wear pants.
B: You can only wear a sleeved shirt.
All of these three examples, when the statements are juxtaposed as above, produce the appearance of a contradiction. However, each statement was taken out of a contextual backdrop which, if it were taken into account, would nullify any contradiction.
Statement A in example 1 was made on a clear night. Statement B was made on a different cloudy night.
Statement A in example 2 was made during a debate. Statement B was made by the pilot of an airliner in regards to the passengers on his flight.
Statement A in example 3 is in regards to what is permissible for one to wear on one’s lower half. One cannot, for example, wear shorts. Statement B is in regards to what one can wear on their upper half. One cannot wear, for example, a tank-top.
What you need to do is show that the context demands there to be a contradiction.
That we have a case of A is B and A is not B at the same time in the same sense - that’s a contradiction.
You have given assumptions and cut them down.
Well the example we are looking at is not an explicit contradiction so you must be making one of those two assumptions in order to argue for a contradiction.
It may explain what Jesus intended to say, but that's not our business.
It is if we are at all interested in knowing whether or not there is a contradiction.
Let's discuss what is in front of us rather than what you event[sic], otherwise my pig and camel are equally relevant.
I am discussing what’s in front of us. What do you think I’ve invented? I supported every point with evidence.
