Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

As abstractly interesting as the mythicist position is to me, I don't find it very convincing. Are the gospels laden with fantastical material? Yes. But so too were the feats of historical persons pre-dating Jesus by decades and centuries. So, I can agree with the mythologization of Jesus as practically a given, but not the idea that the earthly Jesus was slapped together from a central myth of a heavenly being and various bits of historical information.

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

[_Dr Exiled]

As abstractly interesting as the mythicist position is to me, I don't find it very convincing. Are the gospels laden with fantastical material? Yes. But so too were the feats of historical persons pre-dating Jesus by decades and centuries. So, I can agree with the mythologization of Jesus as practically a given, but not the idea that the earthly Jesus was slapped together from a central myth of a heavenly being and various bits of historical information.

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

Don't you mean the "probability" of a historical Jesus? Religion seems to be forever possible but not that probable. Bart Ehrman seemed to explain the solution to this question well when he was debating the resurrection with a christian apologist, Dr. Craig. His claim was that because historians deal with what is probable and that the resurrection and miracles are not probable by definition, that it wasn't probable that the resurrection occurred. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRcZHUcFchI

[_Jersey Girl]

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

Don't you mean the "probability" of a historical Jesus? Religion seems to be forever possible but not that probable. Bart Ehrman seemed to explain the solution to this question well when he was debating the resurrection with a christian apologist, Dr. Craig. His claim was that because historians deal with what is probable and that the resurrection and miracles are not probable by definition, that it wasn't probable that the resurrection occurred. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRcZHUcFchI

My gosh, can you not answer the question? It's very simple. Is your head overstuffed with stuff, too?

And no, I didn't mean probability. I meant just what I said.

[_Dr Exiled]

Sure it's possible. However, it's not probable and pretty much meaningless whether it happened or not.

[Guest]

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

Not by a long shot.

Let me ask you this: Do you think the emperor Augustus was a historical person, or was he made up?

When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo.

When Augustus was still an infant, as is recorded by the hand of Gaius Drusus, he was placed by his nurse at evening in his cradle on the ground floor and the next morning had disappeared; but after long search he was at last found on a lofty tower with his face towards the rising sun.

As soon as he began to talk, it chanced that the frogs were making a great noise at his grandfather's country place; he bade them be silent, and they say that since then no frog has ever croaked there.

A small room like a pantry is shown to this day as the emperor's nursery in his grandfather's country-house near Velitrae, and the opinion prevails in the neighbourhood that he was actually born there. No one ventures to enter this room except of necessity and after purification, since there is a conviction of long-standing that those who approach it without ceremony are seized with shuddering and terror; and what is more, this has recently been shown to be true. For when a new owner, either by chance or to test the matter, went to bed in that room, it came to pass that, after a very few hours of the night, he was thrown out by a sudden mysterious force, and was found bedclothes and all half-dead before the door.

How about Julius Caesar?

He died in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was numbered among the gods, not only by a formal decree, but also in the conviction of the common people. For at the first of the games which his heir Augustus gave in honour of his apotheosis, a comet shone for seven successive days, rising about the eleventh hour, and was believed to be the soul of Caesar, who had been taken to heaven; and this is why a star is set upon the crown of his head in his statue.

Have you heard about those folktales regarding the awful fates of those who murdered Joseph Smith. Well, check this out about Julius Caesar's assassins:

Hardly any of his assassins survived him for more than three years, or died a natural death. They were all condemned, and they perished in various ways — some by shipwreck, some in battle; some took their own lives with the self-same dagger with which they had impiously slain Caesar.

But, remember, if these things couldn't have happened, then the chances of Caesar and Augustus being historical persons decreases! Indeed, they were probably made up on the basis of some metamyth regarding Aeneas or Romulus. After all, look at this:

The tradition runs that Proculus Julius, a man whose authority had weight in matters of even the gravest importance, seeing how deeply the community felt the loss of the king, and how incensed they were against the senators, came forward into the assembly and said: "Quirites! at break of dawn, to-day, the Father of this City suddenly descended from heaven and appeared to me. Whilst, thrilled with awe, I stood rapt before him in deepest reverence, praying that I might be pardoned for gazing upon him, 'Go,' said he, 'tell the Romans that it is the will of heaven that my Rome should be the head of all the world. Let them henceforth cultivate the arts of war, and let them know assuredly, and hand down the knowledge to posterity, that no human might can withstand the arms of Rome.'" It is marvellous what credit was given to this man's story, and how the grief of the people and the army was soothed by the belief which had been created in the immortality of Romulus.

Now these rumours began to be current at a later date. At the time they declared Augustus immortal, assigned to him priests and sacred rites, and made Livia, who was already called Julia and Augusta, his priestess; 2 they also permitted her to employ a lictor when she exercised her sacred office. On her part, she bestowed a million sesterces upon a certain Numerius Atticus, a senator and ex-praetor, because he swore that he had seen Augustus ascending to heaven after the manner of which tradition tells concerning Proculus and Romulus.

[_Mary]

As abstractly interesting as the mythicist position is to me, I don't find it very convincing. Are the gospels laden with fantastical material? Yes. But so too were the feats of historical persons pre-dating Jesus by decades and centuries. So, I can agree with the mythologization of Jesus as practically a given, but not the idea that the earthly Jesus was slapped together from a central myth of a heavenly being and various bits of historical information.

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

Absolutely not Jersey Girl (You didn't ask me but figured I'd answer anyway).

[_Jersey Girl]

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

Absolutely not Jersey Girl (You didn't ask me but figured I'd answer anyway).

Thanks! You would have thought I were asking for the moon!

[_Jersey Girl]

I hope you will do this for me.

I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Philo Sofee.

Does the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancel out the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Yes or No?

Not by a long shot.

Let me ask you this: Do you think the emperor Augustus was a historical person, or was he made up?

When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo.

When Augustus was still an infant, as is recorded by the hand of Gaius Drusus, he was placed by his nurse at evening in his cradle on the ground floor and the next morning had disappeared; but after long search he was at last found on a lofty tower with his face towards the rising sun.

As soon as he began to talk, it chanced that the frogs were making a great noise at his grandfather's country place; he bade them be silent, and they say that since then no frog has ever croaked there.

A small room like a pantry is shown to this day as the emperor's nursery in his grandfather's country-house near Velitrae, and the opinion prevails in the neighbourhood that he was actually born there. No one ventures to enter this room except of necessity and after purification, since there is a conviction of long-standing that those who approach it without ceremony are seized with shuddering and terror; and what is more, this has recently been shown to be true. For when a new owner, either by chance or to test the matter, went to bed in that room, it came to pass that, after a very few hours of the night, he was thrown out by a sudden mysterious force, and was found bedclothes and all half-dead before the door.

How about Julius Caesar?

He died in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was numbered among the gods, not only by a formal decree, but also in the conviction of the common people. For at the first of the games which his heir Augustus gave in honour of his apotheosis, a comet shone for seven successive days, rising about the eleventh hour, and was believed to be the soul of Caesar, who had been taken to heaven; and this is why a star is set upon the crown of his head in his statue.

Have you heard about those folktales regarding the awful fates of those who murdered Joseph Smith. Well, check this out about Julius Caesar's assassins:

Hardly any of his assassins survived him for more than three years, or died a natural death. They were all condemned, and they perished in various ways — some by shipwreck, some in battle; some took their own lives with the self-same dagger with which they had impiously slain Caesar.

But, remember, if these things couldn't have happened, then the chances of Caesar and Augustus being historical persons decreases! Indeed, they were probably made up on the basis of some metamyth regarding Aeneas or Romulus. After all, look at this:

The tradition runs that Proculus Julius, a man whose authority had weight in matters of even the gravest importance, seeing how deeply the community felt the loss of the king, and how incensed they were against the senators, came forward into the assembly and said: "Quirites! at break of dawn, to-day, the Father of this City suddenly descended from heaven and appeared to me. Whilst, thrilled with awe, I stood rapt before him in deepest reverence, praying that I might be pardoned for gazing upon him, 'Go,' said he, 'tell the Romans that it is the will of heaven that my Rome should be the head of all the world. Let them henceforth cultivate the arts of war, and let them know assuredly, and hand down the knowledge to posterity, that no human might can withstand the arms of Rome.'" It is marvellous what credit was given to this man's story, and how the grief of the people and the army was soothed by the belief which had been created in the immortality of Romulus.

Now these rumours began to be current at a later date. At the time they declared Augustus immortal, assigned to him priests and sacred rites, and made Livia, who was already called Julia and Augusta, his priestess; 2 they also permitted her to employ a lictor when she exercised her sacred office. On her part, she bestowed a million sesterces upon a certain Numerius Atticus, a senator and ex-praetor, because he swore that he had seen Augustus ascending to heaven after the manner of which tradition tells concerning Proculus and Romulus.

Thank you a thousand times! Thank you forever!

My goodness, we see stories develop in our own contemporary society involving historical figures on a regular basis.

[_Symmachus]

But, remember, if these things couldn't have happened, then the chances of Caesar and Augustus being historical persons decreases! Indeed, they were probably made up on the basis of some metamyth regarding Aeneas or Romulus.

I think it was probably a monomyth, but in case either seems more likely, considering that your sources are a Patavian, an Equestrian, and a Greek. If these things had happened, surely a senator (but not one of those provincial wannabes) would have chimed in about it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh, Philo Sofee, but it IS that simple. Please know and be sure that I am not trying to talk you into anything or out of anything. I hope you remember me as someone who doesn't do that to you and who will give you honest feedback. (Whether you like it or not). I'm not doing anything more than trying to get you to think, reflect, and sort.

You aren't reading my question for what it says and asks you.
You're over thinking it.

Since I departed this thread, I continued to read it. The problem as I see it right this very second is that you have so much stuff stuffed into your head right now that you are unable to answer a simple question.

I mean that as an observation, not a criticism. And, it's okay to be there in your head. It's understandable and the truth is, it's probably damn necessary.

I'll return here eventually to take this up with you or perhaps someone else will be able to clarify just exactly what I am asking you, for the question requires a yes or no answer. I gotta go have Easter now...

Philo Sofee,

Let me rewind the tape. I essentially asked you if the resurrected Jesus found in scripture cancels out the possibility of a historical Jesus.

You are mixing up concepts.

Here is one Jesus according to scripture:

Performed miracles
Was tried, persecuted, tortured, crucified, died.
Was resurrected.
Was translated up to Heaven.

Here's another possible profile of Jesus:

A Rabbi
A philosopher
Had followers

Philo Sofee, that there are spectacular stories found in the Bible regarding Jesus has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not a historical Jesus existed.

I would say, and this is just me, that the spectacular stories are more likely based on a historical Jesus than they are not. Elsewise, Philo Sofee, how have the stories survived all these thousands of year? They had to start some place. They likely started oral history and later put down in writing. Do you really think that one day, someone just popped up and decided to make up a guy and tell stories about him and no one smacked them down?

Philo Sofee, think with me.

You can judge for yourself whether or not you think the spectacular stories are true. You can say that to the best of your knowledge, that resurrection of the dead is impossible and from that, conclude that the spectacular stories are myth.

That judgment, however, doesn't rule out the possibility of a historical Jesus.

These are two very different concepts for you to weigh out and decide for yourself which you believe to be true or not.

If I tell you that rumor has it that JFK womanized 1,000 women throughout his presidency and that you can find these stories in various books written by contemporary authors, does that rule out the historical JFK?

Of course it doesn't.

It also doesn't mean that the stories about the historical JFK are true.

Do you see it yet? Tell me when you see it.