What do you mean by "except in terms of themselves".

The fallacy of circular logic, which I explained in the very next sentence you quoted.

It is an axiom/postulate. On the euclidean view of demonstration a postulate is presented and logical deduction, not empirical induction, is the mode of demonstration. The first premise is unproved. I never said I could prove that the bible is true.

It doesn't matter if it's an axiom or postulate. Circular logic is a fallacy because it depends on assuming the premise, which is implicit in the conclusion. I do not accept the Euclidean idea of demonstration, as many of Euclid's non-mathematical arguments have been proven false. For example, his idea that vision was caused by rays emitting from the eyes; you may consider this to be a valid proposition because the logic is sound, but it has been proven false since we cannot see without light. I also do not accept purely logical deduction as valid. You can "prove" anything by using the right premise or set of premises.

By "accept" do you mean accept as being proven/demonstrated? If so, you've created a straw man.

No, I meant "accept" in the sense of "accepting the premise is true". You're stating your premise, that objects of knowledge are revealed, which you assume true, and following a logical chain, conclude that because the logic is valid, the premise was true. Your premise is unprovable without your conclusion to validate it. This is the definition of circular logic.

Can't do it. never said I could. I have stated that i believe in Euclidean demonstration which asserts a first unproved premise, a premise that has no prior path of demonstration.

In other words, you tacitly admit to using circular logic. You have to assert your unproved premise as true, and if the conclusion is valid, it proves that your assertion was correct. If an argument depends on circular logic, as yours clearly does, then it lacks the capacity to convince anyone who is capable of tracing the logic. As such, it is worthless as an argument except to gull the uninformed. If you want to convince people, you have to use logic that does not depend on fallacies, and you have to be able to demonstrate it on their terms, not insist that they accept your terms.

Until such time as you can show that you are capable of these two things, I cannot take your logic seriously.

(edits were for clarification)