spin

You shouldn't rely on authority like this, especially when you don't seem to realize the implications of those you list. We know Grant is an old style historian who is dabbling outside his field of expertise. Vermes is a text scholar who shows little understanding of historical processes and he's not sure where he belongs, first admitting to judaism, then to christianity, then back to judaism, thus putting himself firmly in the believer camp. Sanders can't get over his assumptions. And Ehrman is a child of his own commitments -- losing religion is not a sufficient criterion for good procedure.

"[H]istorical techniques" -- or, better, coherent historical methodology doesn't use such subjective criteria as embarrassment or the arbitrary "stripping away nonsense", as they tend to be reflections of the analyst rather than the times they are analyzing.


spin

spamandham

You could solve that issue by clearly stating it.

My position would be that there might be a historical core - that is not impossible, nor even vanishingly unlikely.

Based on my knowledge of both the tendency of ancient writers to attribute the magical to ordinary men, and my knowledge that myths tend to become more far fetched over time, I would peg that likelihood at maybe about 20% unless I can identify another scenario with greater explanatory power..


As would I. But where we differ then, is that I do not assess the probability of a historical core to Achilles at 0%.

I define an 'historical core' as a person from whom the legends originated, or who was at least a critical element in them at a later date, such that the legends as we know them could not reasonably have existed without that person. This is the 'historical Jesus' I refer to, and I think most skeptics here have something like that in mind as well when they talk about a historical core.

aa5874

Just read your own previous post. Instead of guessing my position, you should clearly state yours.

Well, just provide the evidence to show that it is not impossible for the Pilate I described to have existed and did those things.

People can believe anything without evidence. Only evidence of a thing can really determine what is possible.

If I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for Spamandham to have existed, it is only when evidence for Spamandham is produced can I be found to be wrong.

Now, it is IMPOSSIBLE that someone with the username "Spamandham" have never replied to any of my posts.

There is no evidence to substatiate the existence of Jesus of the NT, as described, Jesus was IMPOSSIBLE.

Your 20% is an arbitrary useless figure, it is not based on any data, just some bizarre method of your imagination.

This is the most absurd way of assigning probabilities to figures of antiquity.

With your 20% allocation, it would mean that of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, at least two of the Caesars would be very likely to be myths and never existed at all.




But, a person can have MUTIPLE CORES. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to know how many CORES Jesus had, when Jesus is fundamentally fiction.

You cannot just assume you know the quantity of cores Jesus had without any data.

All that is known is that Jesus ,as described, is fiction and that it was IMPOSSIBLE for such a character to have existed during the reign of Tiberius.

spamandham

Ok, I read my previous post where I stated your position. I don't see that it's changed since I wrote it. In regard to my own position, it's already been clearly stated multiple times. If you choose not to read it, that's fine, but that isn't the same as me not stating it - or perhaps in your world it is the same.

You fundamentally do not comprehend what the word 'impossible' means.

Same problem again. Is English your second language perhaps?

I agree it's pretty useless, but it's not totally baseless, and is more useful than your 0% number, which is completely unsupportable and based on a flawed understanding of both logic and probability.

The 20% figure is not a blanket assessment for all potential historical figures.

It doesn't matter if there are multiple historical cores.

aa5874

It is because I understand what impossible means why you have responded.

You know I considered Jesus to have no possible means of existing as described in the NT.

You have already admitted that your percentage is pretty useless. Why continue to make other useless statements? And how about 99.99999% baseless? That's not totally baseless.

I have accepted that you have acknowledge your percentage of probability is useless.

You do not need data to make useless statements.

spamandham

This isn't what is meant when people talk about a historical core, and you know it. Why do you play this ridiculous game that makes you look like an idiot?

You're welcome to your opinions, and since we're sharing, I consider your 'probabilty 0' assertion not merely useless, but counterproductive, with no redeeming value at all. I don't think you even know what 'impossible' means.

aa5874

You have already admitted that your previous statement about 20% is useless, YET you consider yourself to be SMART.

You have already admitted ana selthat your percentage of 20% is useless. and I have agreed with you. Please read your own post. Why did you use such a precentage knowing, in advance, that it was useless, and baseless to some degree?

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

The christians did not arrive from outer space. Darwin tells us they mutated (spiritually?) from the "pagans". The pagan tree grew "christian branches". Therefore I think the "other side" of the original christian coin --- where it split from its pagan roots - is pagan (ie: Hellenistic)

Recall that the two terms -- "christian" and "pagan" -- came into existence at roughly the same time much like the creation of an elementary particle and its anti-particle. The term "pagani' appears in christian inscriptions in the mid fourth century (RL Fox), the century at the beginning of which Constantine embraced the religion of the galilaeans, and the rest is history.


Best wishes,


Pete

PS: Who is Lithargoel?

mountainman

Dear spamandham,

How exactly would you define this term "historical core"? WE have a person X who may or may not have existed. So it is possible that X has an historical core, or it is possible that X does not have one. (Unless for a fictional person X you deem the historical core to be the publication date, at which point the character X is introduced to posterity.)

Secondly in what manner can it be plural? Say we have two separate people X and Y. A group of four authors (nobody else) write a brief narrative the person X. This gives us 4 perspectives on the one (possible) historical core person X. Another group of tenty-seven authors (nobody else) write a brief narrative the person Y. This gives us 27 perspectives on the one (possible) historical core person Y. Otherwise, what is meant by multiple historical cores?


Best wishes,


Pete

GakuseiDon

... whereas you believe that Christians were Intelligently Designed.