Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 11-24-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Shouldn’t there be a bunch?

We should count our lucky stars that there are two.

There would have been three Jewish historians but no one bothered saving the history of Justus of Tiberias.

Well they had Franks coming out of their ears at the time. The work probably perished, with so much other Greek literature, in the sack of Constantinople by the renegade army originally hired for the Fourth Crusade.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 11-24-2008, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

probabilities are based the collection of relevant and credible data, using models over a period of time to make a prediction.

That's incorrect. Aggregate probabilities are based on *ALL* relevant data. It need not be credible, since credibility is itself another factor in the probability equation.

That's nonsense. Probabilities are not based on wild guesses or incredible data. Relevant data must mean CREDIBLE data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spamandham

If I have a black box, and I am allowed to shake it up, place a wall at the half way point and examine half the contents, I am justified in drawing conclusions about the other half, even though I have no direct evidence whatsoever regarding its contents.

...this is somewhat irrelevant though, because we have no way of assessing the factors that would go into such an equation in the first place.

Of course, it would be irrelevant if you have no credible data or previous model.

spamandham · 11-24-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

That's nonsense. Probabilities are not based on wild guesses or incredible data. Relevant data must mean CREDIBLE data.

"incredible" means "very low probability". It doesn't mean "impossible". Hearsay isn't admitted in court because it isn't considered credible, but it is relevant to probability discussions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Of course, it would be irrelevant if you have no credible data or previous model.

That's the point. We have models of historical men being conflated into gods. So when we find a text about a godman, the model of man->godman is a relevant factor.

A simplistic approach to assessing the odds of a historical core, would be to make a survey of all mythical/legendary figures for which it is known whether or not there was a historical core.

Your approach that evidence must be credible before we can make any use of it is simplistic and completely unscientific.

bacht · 11-24-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

....my definition of "historical core"....someone whom the religion evolved directly from, and who, if he did not exist, the religion would never have started.

Anyone in particular, like one of the characters in Josephus, or could it have been someone we don't even know? Mark connects Jesus with Galilee, should we look there rather than Judea? Was there a teacher behind Q that would be a viable candidate? Maybe even (gasp) a Samaritan? What about someone from the Diaspora?

spamandham · 11-24-2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

....my definition of "historical core"....someone whom the religion evolved directly from, and who, if he did not exist, the religion would never have started.

Anyone in particular, like one of the characters in Josephus, or could it have been someone we don't even know? Mark connects Jesus with Galilee, should we look there rather than Judea? Was there a teacher behind Q that would be a viable candidate? Maybe even (gasp) a Samaritan? What about someone from the Diaspora?

Sure...any of the above might be the historical core, or someone else could be the historical core...or there might not be a historical core at all. Without a major new find, or a new and compelling way of looking at existing data, I don't think we can do more than try to assess the odds.

To me though, the typically assumed historical core of a peasant preacher is very unlikely, since it's based on a flawed approach.

Do you agree with my definition of "historical core"?

Toto · 11-24-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

So there are 7 people who think it is impossible (that is what 0% means) that a Jew named Jesus with followers was crucified by the Roman authorities between 20 to 40?

0% does not imply "impossible." Using the logic of nutritional labeling, it only means that there is less than 1/2 percent probability that a crucified Jew named Jesus was the basis of Christianity.

Sheshbazzar · 11-24-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

So there are 7 people who think it is impossible (that is what 0% means) that a Jew named Jesus with followers was crucified by the Roman authorities between 20 to 40?

But that was not the question, as it was originally posed, if the question had been phrased as you are now interpreting it, my vote would have been different.

No Robots · 11-24-2008, 09:11 AM

I voted 100% historical. It is a hypothesis that is more than adequately sustained by the evidence, and it has greater practical value as an operating theory than any of its competitors.

bacht · 11-24-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Anyone in particular, like one of the characters in Josephus, or could it have been someone we don't even know? Mark connects Jesus with Galilee, should we look there rather than Judea? Was there a teacher behind Q that would be a viable candidate? Maybe even (gasp) a Samaritan? What about someone from the Diaspora?

Sure...any of the above might be the historical core, or someone else could be the historical core...or there might not be a historical core at all. Without a major new find, or a new and compelling way of looking at existing data, I don't think we can do more than try to assess the odds.

To me though, the typically assumed historical core of a peasant preacher is very unlikely, since it's based on a flawed approach.

Do you agree with my definition of "historical core"?

This one?
....my definition of "historical core"....someone whom the religion evolved directly from, and who, if he did not exist, the religion would never have started.

As a non-academic it seems to me like a reasonable starting point. Do we have any descriptions of Jesus that fit this criterium?

mountainman · 11-24-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

we have no way of assessing the factors that would go into such an equation in the first place.

Dear S&H.

C14 citations against "christian literature" would have to be one.

Best wishes,

Pete

View Poll Results: What do you think the probability of a historical Jesus is?
100% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.	8	6.15%
80-100%	10	7.69%
60-80%	15	11.54%
40-60%	22	16.92%
20-40%	17	13.08%
0-20%	37	28.46%
o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person,	21	16.15%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

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

11-24-2008, 09:11 AM	#38
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	I voted 100% historical. It is a hypothesis that is more than adequately sustained by the evidence, and it has greater practical value as an operating theory than any of its competitors.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.