Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Yes, George Lucas made them up based on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces, or some such. I am sorry to get worked up, dear consul, but there is a strange blindness these mythicists seem to have to some of the ways myth was employed in ancient narratives.

[_Philo Sofee]

For Jersey Girl
Different scenarios for a historical Jesus doesn't prove a historical Jesus either. The stories told about him in the Bible don't prove he was a real person either. Those stories could be fiction about a fictional character we just don't know. The point so do they cancel out a historical Jesus no, not all by themselves, but those aren't the only background evidence and we have to weigh into this question. You're over-simplifying I'm not over complicating. Do I believe there was a historical Jesus? Yes I do at this point but that is contingent based on further analysis.

[_Philo Sofee]

I would disagree in a friendly way. I find it vastly more informative than what you are implying. All the way around Carrier has held his own with every reviewer so far of his books. I suspect bias plays more of a role in your statement than actually having read his blog. No biggie to me.

Um, yes, Philo Sofeee, I have read his blog. Probably a dozen or so entries. I have read his nauseatingly boastful style. His polemics. His putdowns. His oversharing about his polyamorous lifestyle choices.

Trainwreck.

Yeah he's human but that's irrelevant to his argument and its validity but I do understand your point. I wish he was a little more reasonable as such but he's not. I still find his argument fascinating and his use of Bayes theorem very intriguing because of how I can now have a better tool to analyze my belief system. That is why I'm so turned on with Bayes theorem not necessarily Richard carriers materials or his attitude.

[_Jersey Girl]

For Jersey Girl
Different scenarios for a historical Jesus doesn't prove a historical Jesus either. The stories told about him in the Bible don't prove he was a real person either. Those stories could be fiction about a fictional character we just don't know. The point so do they cancel out a historical Jesus no, not all by themselves, but those aren't the only background evidence and we have to weigh into this question. You're over-simplifying I'm not over complicating. Do I believe there was a historical Jesus? Yes I do at this point but that is contingent based on further analysis.

I'm thisclose to yelling now.

I didn't ask you what you believe.
I didn't ask you if the Bible stories prove he was a real person.
I didn't ask you if there is a need to weigh things out.
I didn't ask you if anything proves anything.
I didn't ask you any of those things.

If you don't believe me, look at Mary and Kishkumen's answers.

by the way, the answer to the question is a simple "no".

Before I commence to yelling (I'll try not to) I have to put this on the table. I wonder (on account of your replies on to me on this particular thread) if you think I'm trying to influence you in one direction or another. Can I just tell you something? You have no more idea of what the status of my belief is than you do any other random poster on this board, so don't try to second guess me.

I'm not asking you to take a stand one way or another for each or both Jesus.
I'm not asking if the evidence that we have leans in either direction.
I'm not trying to argue anything for or against.

I (oh here she goes) AM SIMPLY ASKING YOU TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO.

Because even in the above reply, you are not.

You wrote,

Those stories could be fiction about a fictional character we just don't know.

And the truth is that you'll never know.

[_Jersey Girl]

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


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

Kish: Not by a long shot.

That's how simple the question was.
That's how simple the answer was.

I asked you a simple question and in response, you constructed random arguments and defenses.

You don't have clarity of thought right now. Slow down.

[_Philo Sofee]

That's right.... I don't know. Those who claim to one way or another don't either. It's not something we can know. Belief is not knowledge

[_Chap]

That's right.... I don't know. Those who claim to one way or another don't either. It's not something we can know. Belief is not knowledge

People seem to think that you are saying something like "Because I have come to think that the resurrection story is not historical, I am now having serious doubts whether Jesus existed at all." Some posters seem to be quite disturbed by what they think you are saying. Clearly there is no logical implication from "X did not rise from the dead" to "X did not exist".

But so far as I can see from a look at recent posts, you don't seem to be saying anything like that. It seems to be more that the experience of losing your previous confidence in the resurrection narrative has led you to want to re-examine the basis for other commonly held beliefs about Jesus - and why shouldn't it?

The beliefs under re-examination will naturally include (at one extreme) his existence as a historical person. But I read you as saying on that topic that the evidence is too slim for us to be completely sure either way - which seems pretty reasonable to me. Am I understanding you correctly?

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you talking to me?

If so, you're not clarifying what you are referring to.

Here, I'll show you.

That's right.... I don't know. Those who claim to one way or another don't either.

Those who claim to know WHAT about WHOM?

Are you thinking about the historical Jesus?
Are you thinking about the resurrected Jesus?
Are you thinking about both?

What about them?

That they existed?
Didn't exist?

It's not something we can know.

WHAT is not something that we can know?

Belief is not knowledge

Completely agree. Whew!

[_Jersey Girl]

That's right.... I don't know. Those who claim to one way or another don't either. It's not something we can know. Belief is not knowledge

People seem to think that you are saying something like "Because I have come to think that the resurrection story is not historical, I am now having serious doubts whether Jesus existed at all." Some posters seem to be quite disturbed by what they think you are saying. Clearly there is no logical implication from "X did not rise from the dead" to "X did not exist".

Speaking only for myself, my intention was to ask him (and I did quite clearly so) if he thought that the resurrected Jesus cancelled out the historical Jesus. In response, I got what appeared to be defenses/arguments. I sequenced the concepts as well as my intention at least twice, in order to boil it down. I demonstrated how simple the question was by posting the responses of two other posters to the question that I posed.

He already knows that I'll do that.

Otherwise, get off the counter, Chap.

[_sock puppet]

Historical Jesus is irrelevant and insignificant, not even a footnote in the most obscure history book--except as a prerequisite for those attached to a belief in mythical, resurrected Jesus. Outside of that, this insignificant man was just the vortex around which others have spun quite a myth.