ApostateAbe

Yeah, I suppose the same could be said for decisions of liability in civil trials. Lawyers only very seldom use robust statistical probability algorithms to make their cases, most of the time the standard is decided rather more subjectively, and I think the case for a historical Jesus is analogous. A historical Jesus does very well to explain many of the details of the Christian myths about Jesus, and it is by far the best hypothesis. MJers would be found liable.

Toto

It is precisely analogous. Lawyers merely present evidence to avoid a summary judgment from the court, so they can appeal to the emotions of the jurors. That's why you can get big verdicts for sympathetic plaintiffs based on junk science.

That is the proposition that you have been trying to prove, and failing so far.

The details of the Christian myths about Jesus all seem to go back to the Hebrew scriptures or Hellenistic cultural elements. You only reach for the historical Jesus for a few elements that you subjectively have decided are too embarrassing or contradictory for Christians to have invented.

ApostateAbe

Huh. You were the one who introduced the analogy to a civil court case. Is that why you did so? Because civil court judgments are based on junk science?
Sounds about right. The point is to find the explanations that fit fit the evidence the best, and the historical Jesus theory fits very many points of evidence very well, with explanatory power, unity and plausibility, well above and beyond any competing proposition. I think that makes for a conclusive case that meets the standard of "preponderance of evidence."

Toto

I thought that it might dramatize the question of drawing conclusions based on probability.

Are you agreeing with me?

You keep repeating that like a mantra, but in fact you have failed to show that the HJ theory is such a theory. You have no coherent explanation for why Jesus was executed but not his followers, or many other points.

Only if your jury does not know how to evaluate the evidence.