FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-28-2013, 08:12 PM   #261
rlogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
I'm now calling this approach, ie the cutting out of undesirable materials to get to the clean bits that are left, by the deliberate misnomer "reductio ad absurdum". Christians do it. Scholars do it. Anti-christians do it. Get hold of a text and strip it of the dirty bits. They want to end up with clean bits. You, here, want to end up functionally with nothing. But what you all are manipulating is a tarball of tradition, for chrissake.
Not at all. The statistical approach is to identify a source for a passage, and thus it has been explained. I have not clarified this to non-statisticians. What is left over after a model has explained something is called a "residual". The one with the smallest residual is the winner of the models that compete against one another.

To the non-statistician the better way to explain it is that you are building up mountains of explaining, and the one with the greatest amount of explanation wins. I realize you reject this whole approach, no big deal.

I just wanted to clarify the misunderstanding about me wanting to end up with "nothing" and change that to "nothing unexplained".

Quote:
The religion that has maintained the tradition around Jesus doesn't need the translation of the figure of Jesus into a historical figure.
I thought I was arguing the same thing.

Quote:
I don't follow the relevance of this bunch of Jesuses stuff, nor the rationale for the certainty that we "have all of this extrabiblical material that is pertinent".
I can see that you don't. It seems to be the position that extrabiblical material doesn't matter. Please do not take offense at whatever I say here, I have no interest in pissing you off.

Quote:
So we also get random droppings. Josephus talks of a few hundred towns in Galilee, despite the fact that there were thousands. Perhaps because Josephus only talked of hundreds, so should we?
A strawman there, buddy - the historicists are not asserting "nobody" Jesus'. They are asserting one that is historically notable. Josephus lists the various towns where battles were fought with the Romans. Were anyone to allege a town where a major battle was fought, and it was absent in Josephus' Wars of the Jews, there were no other sources mentioning it, no archaeological evidence - then I would say it didn't happen. Rather, the source of the story is literary rather than real.


Quote:
What was the name of Pilate's wife? <etc.
Pilate's wife did not allegedly perform miracles and become such a politically dangerous figure as to warrant execution and have her new religion spread like wildfire across the Greek sphere of the Roman Empire.

So the assertion that she did loses statistically against the assertion that she was "pilate's wife" and no more. This doesn't mean anything to you, obviously. So we just agree to disagree, that's all.


Quote:
Some arguments are certainly better than others, but a better argument doesn't make it right. It merely eliminates the argument that it is better than.
"Merely" is an interesting term for a decisive statistical test over the debate that has raged on here since long before I ever arrived.

Cheers. My regards to your cat. I have a new puppy.
rlogan is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 10:02 PM   #262
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
I'm now calling this approach, ie the cutting out of undesirable materials to get to the clean bits that are left, by the deliberate misnomer "reductio ad absurdum". Christians do it. Scholars do it. Anti-christians do it. Get hold of a text and strip it of the dirty bits. They want to end up with clean bits. You, here, want to end up functionally with nothing. But what you all are manipulating is a tarball of tradition, for chrissake.
Not at all. The statistical approach is to identify a source for a passage, and thus it has been explained.
If I send you a full spittoon, do you think that you can look into it and apply statistics to you being able to say who made which spit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
I have not clarified this to non-statisticians. What is left over after a model has explained something is called a "residual". The one with the smallest residual is the winner of the models that compete against one another.

To the non-statistician the better way to explain it is that you are building up mountains of explaining, and the one with the greatest amount of explanation wins. I realize you reject this whole approach, no big deal.
It's all spit to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
I just wanted to clarify the misunderstanding about me wanting to end up with "nothing" and change that to "nothing unexplained".
Not "nothing", "functionally nothing"! Nothing of consequence. But I don't understand what you mean by "nothing unexplained" rather than "nothing".

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Quote:
The religion that has maintained the tradition around Jesus doesn't need the translation of the figure of Jesus into a historical figure.
I thought I was arguing the same thing.

Quote:
I don't follow the relevance of this bunch of Jesuses stuff, nor the rationale for the certainty that we "have all of this extrabiblical material that is pertinent".
I can see that you don't. It seems to be the position that extrabiblical material doesn't matter. Please do not take offense at whatever I say here, I have no interest in pissing you off.
It's not that it doesn't matter; it's that there is no way to relate the information meaningfully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Quote:
So we also get random droppings. Josephus talks of a few hundred towns in Galilee, despite the fact that there were thousands. Perhaps because Josephus only talked of hundreds, so should we?
A strawman there, buddy - the historicists are not asserting "nobody" Jesus'. They are asserting one that is historically notable. Josephus lists the various towns where battles were fought with the Romans. Were anyone to allege a town where a major battle was fought, and it was absent in Josephus' Wars of the Jews, there were no other sources mentioning it, no archaeological evidence - then I would say it didn't happen. Rather, the source of the story is literary rather than real.
I was actually dealing with the problems of not having a useful window into a past that is not well documented. Josephus is one of our few sources for the period and much of his material is uncorroborated. He obviously gives us a small viewing window to the past, leaving out much, such that what he does tell us doesn't allow us to know how representative of that past world his information is. Does the fact that he only mentions a few hundred villages in Galilee make the others known from archaeology disappear? You should be able to see the absurdity in making generalizations on insufficient data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Quote:
What was the name of Pilate's wife? <etc.
Pilate's wife did not allegedly perform miracles and become such a politically dangerous figure as to warrant execution and have her new religion spread like wildfire across the Greek sphere of the Roman Empire.

So the assertion that she did loses statistically against the assertion that she was "pilate's wife" and no more. This doesn't mean anything to you, obviously. So we just agree to disagree, that's all.
Nice swerve. Again, I'm pointing to the lack of information, easy information, that should drive back those brewing certainties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Quote:
Some arguments are certainly better than others, but a better argument doesn't make it right. It merely eliminates the argument that it is better than.
"Merely" is an interesting term for a decisive statistical test over the debate that has raged on here since long before I ever arrived.
A better argument makes pretense to greater explaining power. One witchdoctor can can have greater explaining power than another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Cheers. My regards to your cat. I have a new puppy.
Aaah, a kiddy distraction, right? Little Bob Jnrs go chasing puppy and Bob Snr gets his concentration back for a while. Devious.
spin is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 10:19 PM   #263
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
If he is crucified for something other than political significance, we are talking about a criminal. So here again is all of this extrabiblical information available to us that is pertinent, not a black hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
And how do you turn the content in the tradition about the death of Jesus into something that may represent an event in the real world? How do you change the modality from story to real event? The black hole concerns knowledge of what happened in the past, not directly the content of text at all. There is so little information about the real world of the time. The rest has disappeared down the clapper. What was the name of Pilate's wife? How many children did they have? What was his prior and successive posts? Did he retire from the military? How and when did he die? Was his death natural? And many more questions one can reasonably ask about Pilate, but about which the past does not respond. We don't have any data from the past on these things. That's the black hole.
Spin's "black hole" is irrelevant for the quest for HJ. It is just absurd that because little is known of Pilate that little must be known of the Jesus character.

It is in fact the complete opposite. We have more writings attributed to writers of antiquity about Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and Savior than probably ALL persons of antiquity combined.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Jesus Christ is mentioned over a THOUSAND times.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Again, Jesus Christ is mentioned over a thousand times.

Perhaps only God is mentioned more times than Jesus Christ in antiquity.

We have a vast amount of writings from antiquity--thousands of writings- about Jesus of Nazareth and can very very easily deduce that he was a product of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

The Jesus cult was NOT at all embarrassed to declare and document that their Jesus was born AFTER his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost and that when he was baptised a Holy Ghost bird descended on him.

In fact, a "thousand" times, it stated publicly and circulated in the Roman Empire since at least the 2nd century that the heavens were WELL PLEASED that the Holy Ghost bird descended on the Son of God at baptism.

There is NO black hole of history for Myth Jesus.

We know when the Myth character called Jesus was conceived and when he ascended in the clouds. We have "thousands of myth fables" of Jesus Christ--far more than Romulus, and Apollo and perhaps all the Myths of antiquity combined.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.