Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-16-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

..

It appears to me that he is openly examining both of them. (See bolding above). He says that the "non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis "

But he is not examining both. He is examining the meta-question of how the Jesus Project would investigate them.

Quote:

Towards the end he states this, in relation to TJP and Descartes:

Quote:

2. “Divide every question into manageable parts.” This seems self-evident, but it has not been the pattern of previous investigations. Neither the question “Did Jesus exist?” nor “What did he ‘really’ say?” was manageable. Formulating the sub-questions and prior questions is likely to be a painstaking business. If it is not done systematically and in a free and open debate, the Project may as well disband now.

This is what I have been trying to debate here. This statement appears to be in regard to TJP. When he says ...... the question “Did Jesus exist?” was not manageable what does he mean? I might assume he is saying that the Jesus Project could not "manage" the question - i.e. there may have been some people in TJP would could not manage the question in a collaborative sense (Some people do have resistance to it).

No, that is not what he is saying, although that might have been true. He is saying that on a practical level of historical research, the question "Did Jesus exist?" is not manageable, either for lack of evidence or lack of a theoretical framework for handling what evidence we have.

Quote:

Outside of The Jesus Project in open debate the question "Did Jesus exist?" - moderated or unmoderated - generates a range of answers. I have elsewhere claimed that there are two possible simplest fundamental answers and these are represented by two hypotheses:

H1: "Jesus existed in history"
H2: "Jesus didn't exist in history"

It seems a simple enough way of managing the fundamental question.

But it's not. We have evidence that early Christians told impossible stories about someone named Jesus. This Jesus didn't exist, but did someone exist who inspired these stories? How close to gospel Jesus did he have to be before we can call him the historical Jesus? Were there different Christian factions who believed in a different Jesus? Were some of these Jesus' historical and some spiritual? Did those early Christians who first told these stories think that Jesus was a spiritual entity or historical? What did Paul think?

Your simple dichotomy can only be answered by saying that we don't have enough evidence and going home, or perhaps that the question isn't even very interesting.

Quote:

I have not read a great deal of Hoffman's work in recent times, and it may be that I am not reading him appropriately here, but it seems to me from reading that article that although Hoffman can handle the question "Did Jesus exist" (and thus the hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history", the organisation known as "The Jesus Project" could not arrive at any consensus on this question, and thus these two hypotheses.

The Jesus Project ran out of money. Who knows - if it had kept going, it might have been able to reach some sort of consensus on some aspect of the question.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used explicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly.

Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

How about R. Joseph Hoffman The Jesus Project: a Discourse on Method

Quote:

I was not the inventor of the preposterous slogan “What if the Most Influential Man in Human History Never Lived?” but I should have been its destroyer.

I was however the “creator” of the suggestion that the non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis and can no longer be ignored and I still believe it.

The second group also included, along with people who wanted to ventilate their “myth theories” in a serious forum, many who were interested in the formative power of myth in the creation of social groups and religious movements. The third group, mainly post-Christian and post religious skeptics wondered why in the twenty-first century anyone would worry about such an issue: whatever motives underlay the founding of TJP they were not (surely) as important as such pressing matters as getting God out of the Pledge and getting evolution back into the schools. For two years seriously concerned people wrote, emailed and phoned asking whether I had nothing better to do with my time.

I don't see how you can say that Hoffman bases his work on one of your "hypotheses."

It appears to me that he is openly examining both of them. (See bolding above). He says that the "non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis "

Towards the end he states this, in relation to TJP and Descartes:

Quote:

2. “Divide every question into manageable parts.” This seems self-evident, but it has not been the pattern of previous investigations. Neither the question “Did Jesus exist?” nor “What did he ‘really’ say?” was manageable. Formulating the sub-questions and prior questions is likely to be a painstaking business. If it is not done systematically and in a free and open debate, the Project may as well disband now.

This is what I have been trying to debate here. This statement appears to be in regard to TJP. When he says ...... the question “Did Jesus exist?” was not manageable what does he mean?

He gives a clear indication of what he means in the sentence immediately following: he means that the question needs to be broken up into smaller parts. Of course, I know you disagree: that's exactly what you resist doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I might assume he is saying that the Jesus Project could not "manage" the question - i.e. there may have been some people in TJP would could not manage the question in a collaborative sense (Some people do have resistance to it).

Outside of The Jesus Project in open debate the question "Did Jesus exist?" - moderated or unmoderated - generates a range of answers. I have elsewhere claimed that there are two possible simplest fundamental answers and these are represented by two hypotheses:

H1: "Jesus existed in history"
H2: "Jesus didn't exist in history"

It seems a simple enough way of managing the fundamental question. I have not read a great deal of Hoffman's work in recent times, and it may be that I am not reading him appropriately here, but it seems to me from reading that article that although Hoffman can handle the question "Did Jesus exist" (and thus the hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history", the organisation known as "The Jesus Project" could not arrive at any consensus on this question, and thus these two hypotheses.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In general, figuring out what is meant by a sentence like 'Paul did not exist'--that is, any sentence of the form 'X did not exist'--is a difficult and complex question, as even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses. That is why it is so often clearer and better to use a different form of expression.

Your post is BS.

The claim or sentence 'Paul did NOT exist" is NOT complex at all and is no different to a sentence or claim that 'Romulus did NOT exist', 'Robin Hood did NOT exist' and 'King Arthur did NOT exist'.

To be specific it is BS with respect to the field of history explicit in the OP, and since I have already cited a number of contemporary scholars in this field who use precisely the same form of expression.

Possibly they share your ignorance of the complexities they are glossing over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses that analysing the meaning of any sentence of that form is a difficult and complex question

I have produced at least three citations from the relevant field. Please provide one or two citations from the literature in the field of history to substantiate your claim.

I am discussing the meaning of words, a topic relevant to any discussion using words. I can see that you are not interested in learning to understand more about the meaning of words.

I can see that you are not interested in the provision of citations from the extensive scholarly literature in the field of history to substantiate your claim. I am interested in learning to understand more about the meaning of words within the context of such citations.

And there's the difference between us. I'm interested in increased understanding wherever it comes from; you aren't, because of your attachment to arbitrary restrictions. I am prepared to find answers where they are; you insist on looking for them where they aren't.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is a fact that there are people who claim to be historians or Scholars, like Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders, that put forward an Alternative HYPOTHESIS that Jesus was an Ordinary human being that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified.

The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven it cannot be PRESUMED and ASSUMED to be true.

The NULL hypothesis is the Jesus of the NT born of the Holy Ghost, God and Creator of heaven and earth as stated in the Canon.

No, it isn't.

aa5874 · 12-16-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is a fact that there are people who claim to be historians or Scholars, like Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders, that put forward an Alternative HYPOTHESIS that Jesus was an Ordinary human being that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified.

The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven it cannot be PRESUMED and ASSUMED to be true.

The NULL hypothesis is the Jesus of the NT born of the Holy Ghost, God and Creator of heaven and earth as stated in the Canon.

No, it isn't.

I REJECT you since you have CONFESSED imperfection or NOT perfect with clarity of expression.

You should deal with your own admitted problem instead of accusing others.

Now, those who ARGUE against the NT and hypothesize that Jesus was an ordinary Man that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and Crucified that is the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some one hypothesizes that Tiberius in the NT was NOT Emperor of Rome that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some hypothesize that Pontius Pilate in the NT was NOT Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some one hypothesizes that the Angel Gabriel in gLuke was NOT an Angel that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some hypothesize that Josephus wrote NOTHING in antiquity that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

The Alternative hypothesis MUST be proven or else the Null hypothesis can be reasonably ACCEPTED.

There is ZERO credible evidence or witnesses of antiquity for a human Jesus.

It is QUITE reasonable to accept the NULL hypothesis that the Jesus stories are Myth fables as described just like the Myth fables of the Greeks and Romans.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is a fact that there are people who claim to be historians or Scholars, like Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders, that put forward an Alternative HYPOTHESIS that Jesus was an Ordinary human being that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified.

The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven it cannot be PRESUMED and ASSUMED to be true.

The NULL hypothesis is the Jesus of the NT born of the Holy Ghost, God and Creator of heaven and earth as stated in the Canon.

No, it isn't.

I REJECT you since you have CONFESSED imperfection or NOT perfect with clarity of expression.

Your rejection carries no weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You should deal with your own admitted problem instead of accusing others.

I do, unlike you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, those who ARGUE against the NT and hypothesize that Jesus was an ordinary Man that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and Crucified that is the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some one hypothesizes that Tiberius in the NT was NOT Emperor of Rome that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some hypothesize that Pontius Pilate in the NT was NOT Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some one hypothesizes that the Angel Gabriel in gLuke was NOT an Angel that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

When some hypothesize that Josephus wrote NOTHING in antiquity that is an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

The Alternative hypothesis MUST be proven or else the Null hypothesis can be reasonably ACCEPTED.

There is ZERO credible evidence or witnesses of antiquity for a human Jesus.

It is QUITE reasonable to accept the NULL hypothesis that the Jesus stories are Myth fables as described just like the Myth fables of the Greeks and Romans.

That is not the null hypothesis.

aa5874 · 12-16-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

[That is not the null hypothesis.

What!!!!!

I REJECT you. You have confessed that you are NOT perfect with clarity of expression. You don't seem to be clear about "null hypothesis".

In Statistical Hypothesis testing there is a NULL hypothesis (and an Alternative hypothesis.

The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven using data, or evidence collected or observed or witnesses to be accepted.

The hypothesis by Scholars there was an historical Jesus, a real human Jesus, that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and Crucified is the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis since they are ARGUING AGAINST the NT description of Jesus as the Child of a Ghost, that was God and the Creator.

The Jesus of Faith, Myth Jesus, is the NULL hypothesis.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

[That is not the null hypothesis.

What!!!!!

You know what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I REJECT you.

Your rejection means nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have confessed that you are NOT perfect with clarity of expression.

You have not denied that you are also imperfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't seem to be clear about "null hypothesis".

I understand the concept better than you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Statistical Hypothesis testing there is a NULL hypothesis (and an Alternative hypothesis.

The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven using data, or evidence collected or observed or witnesses to be accepted.

The hypothesis by Scholars there was an historical Jesus, a real human Jesus, that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and Crucified is the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis since they are ARGUING AGAINST the NT description of Jesus as the Child of a Ghost, that was God and the Creator.

The Jesus of Faith, Myth Jesus, is the NULL hypothesis.

No, it isn't.

aa5874 · 12-16-2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of Faith, Myth Jesus, is the NULL hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

No, it isn't.

You have real serious problems and simply do NOT understand "null hypothesis" and "alternative hypothesis".

You REPEAT the phrase "No, it isn't" but this only confirms your serious imperfection with lack of clarity of expression.

You should REVIEW "Statistical Hypothesis Testing" since Example 1, a Courtroom Trial is APPLICABLE to the claim that Jesus of the NT was human and NOT Fathered by a Ghost as stated in the NT.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

Quote:

Example 1 – Courtroom trial
A statistical test procedure is comparable to a criminal trial; a defendant is considered not guilty as long as his or her guilt is not proven. The prosecutor tries to prove the guilt of the defendant. Only when there is enough charging evidence the defendant is convicted.

In the start of the procedure, there are two hypotheses H0: "the defendant is not guilty", and H1: "the defendant is guilty".

The first one is called null hypothesis, and is for the time being accepted. The second one is called alternative (hypothesis). It is the hypothesis one tries to prove.

The hypothesis of innocence is only rejected when an error is very unlikely, because one doesn't want to convict an innocent defendant. Such an error is called error of the first kind (i.e. the conviction of an innocent person), and the occurrence of this error is controlled to be rare. As a consequence of this asymmetric behaviour, the error of the second kind (acquitting a person who committed the crime), is often rather large....

The QUEST for the historical Jesus is the Quest for an ALTERNATIVE Jesus using the NT as a PRIMARY source.

At the START of the procedure, the Quest for the Historical Jesus, there are TWO hypothesis. The Jesus of FAITH, the Null hypothesis and the Historical Jesus the Alternative hypothesis.

The Jesus of FAITH, the Null hypothesis, can ONLY be rejected when the Alternative hypothesis has been proven.

There is ZERO credible data or witnesses of antiquity to support the Alternative Hypothesis. ZERO.

The Null hypothesis is accepted and reasonable. The NT is about the Jesus of Faith, Myth Jesus, a Myth Fable about a character that was Fathered by a Ghost, was God the Creator, that walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of Faith, Myth Jesus, is the NULL hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

No, it isn't.

You have real serious problems and simply do NOT understand "null hypothesis" and "alternative hypothesis".

No, you have real serious problems and simply do not understand 'null hypothesis' and 'alternative hypothesis'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You REPEAT the phrase "No, it isn't" but this only confirms your serious imperfection with lack of clarity of expression.

Which part of 'No, it isn't' is too confusing for you to understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You should REVIEW "Statistical Hypothesis Testing" since Example 1, a Courtroom Trial is APPLICABLE to the claim that Jesus of the NT was human and NOT Fathered by a Ghost as stated in the NT.

Not in any way that you are capable of explaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

Quote:

Example 1 – Courtroom trial
A statistical test procedure is comparable to a criminal trial; a defendant is considered not guilty as long as his or her guilt is not proven. The prosecutor tries to prove the guilt of the defendant. Only when there is enough charging evidence the defendant is convicted.

In the start of the procedure, there are two hypotheses H0: "the defendant is not guilty", and H1: "the defendant is guilty".

The first one is called null hypothesis, and is for the time being accepted. The second one is called alternative (hypothesis). It is the hypothesis one tries to prove.

The hypothesis of innocence is only rejected when an error is very unlikely, because one doesn't want to convict an innocent defendant. Such an error is called error of the first kind (i.e. the conviction of an innocent person), and the occurrence of this error is controlled to be rare. As a consequence of this asymmetric behaviour, the error of the second kind (acquitting a person who committed the crime), is often rather large....

I understand all that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The QUEST for the historical Jesus is the Quest for an ALTERNATIVE Jesus using the NT as a PRIMARY source.

At the START of the procedure, the Quest for the Historical Jesus, there are TWO hypothesis. The Jesus of FAITH, the Null hypothesis and the Historical Jesus the Alternative hypothesis.

And wrong again. You were wrong the first time you said this, and you it doesn't stop being an error just because you keep repeating it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of FAITH, the Null hypothesis, can ONLY be rejected when the Alternative hypothesis has been proven.

There is ZERO credible data or witnesses of antiquity to support the Alternative Hypothesis. ZERO.

The Null hypothesis is accepted and reasonable. The NT is about the Jesus of Faith, Myth Jesus, a Myth Fable about a character that was Fathered by a Ghost, was God the Creator, that walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.