aa5874

Bayes' theorem is NOT practicably applicable to the HJ/MJ argument just like it is NOT used even in courts to determine veracity or actual events.

One does NOT need Bayes' theorem to theorise that it will rain on the wedding day.

The theory that rain will fall on the wedding day is BASED on the weatherman's prediction.

The weatherman is regarded as a CREDIBLE source for predictions about the weather.

When the weatherman predicts there will be rain, snow, lightning, thunder, tornado, hurricane and cyclones his predictions normally come true.

My theory is that it will rain when the weathermen says it will. If I am wrong then the weatherman will also be wrong.

The very same applies to the HJ/MJ argument.

The Church claimed Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and that is the evidence that I use for my theory that Jesus was MYTH.

Who has evidence that Jesus was NOT a GHOST story as described?

Who has evidence that Jesus of the NT had a human father?

There is a massive amount of evidence that describes Jesus as a MYTH both Canonical and Non-Canonical which is more than enough to support the MYTH Jesus theory.

The theory that Jesus was myth is BASED on ACTUAL written evidence from antiquity.

The theory that there was an HJ is BASED on ACTUAL FORGERIES.

JonA

No; it's about what first century Jews thought.

Whatever; none of that has anything to do with Jesus.

Jon

JonA

I think I laid out what I thought were the essentials:

• Preacher/teacher/etc., likely apocalyptic, whose followers believed him to be the Messiah during his lifetime
• A 100% absolute failure to live up to the Messianic expectations (executed by the Romans)

You have presented a good question. At present, though, I'm not sure either JM or HJ has a better explanation.

There is a lack of records for many things; that lack hardly points to a non-existence.

This would be after Paul, though, and after the Jesus movement had already begun and implemented the Messianic redefinition.

Probability has nothing to do with explanatory power. They are two separate things.

Jon

dog-on

Sounds like you wish to assume your conclusion...

Not sure why you say that this has nothing to do with Jesus. Have you ever actually read the NT?

avi

Well, maybe. Perhaps.

But, I acknowledge that maybe I erred with this illustration. The computation derived a probability of accuracy in prediction of rainfall of only 0.11, certainly not "normally come true".

I think we are basically in agreement here, aa5874.

My argument boils down to this: It does not matter how many qualifications and linguistic skills an "expert" possesses, if he/she intends to apply Bayes' theorem, then one MUST have absolute confidence in the validity of the data, input into the computation.

This is most certainly not the case for any of the extant Christian documents, and the case is even worse, in my opinion, for the "patristic authors".

Application of Bayes' theorem demands integrity of the data, and we don't have that situation here. I have not read Carrier's opinion, maybe he has a cogent reply addressing this very issue.

In my opinion, it is not Carrier's call. This is a mathematical procedure, and requires an assessment by someone with considerably more skill than I possess in mathematics, to accurately assess the possibility of entering data from the new testament into Bayes' formula, and then computing a probability of some event having occurred, or having failed to occur.

If vid were here, he could offer an opinion....

I think one is on safer ground with the old testament, because of DSS, but even there, look at the various issues which have arisen, just in the past few weeks, on the forum, over questions of interpretation, e.g. Psalms 110:1, adonai versus yahweh.

Which is it? spin writes adonai, based upon LXX. Is he wrong? Nope. He has the data from DSS to support his position.

However, DSS also contains yahweh, deliberately written in ancient script, as if to signal to future generations, that the authors of this first or second century CE DSS manuscript, definitely rejected the notion of "adonai" (since the rest of the text was written in the more modern script.)

So, which is it? Adonai, or Yahweh? What was written in the original Psalm 110:1? Bayes' theorem is inappropriate in this kind of environment, where the actual raw data itself is either unclear, or disputed, or distorted, or fabricated, or all of the above.

avi

JonA

Whatever. Come up with an actual point and I'll address it.

Juststeve

Certain Christians claim to find Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures but anyone trained in the Jewish religion, as I was, will tell you he is not there. Jon is exactly right about that.

Steve

dog-on

I don't disagree, however what I think is not relevant to the question at hand, just as what Jon thinks is not relevant. The question was, what did the Christians think.

Toto

Carrier's primer on Bayes' Theorem for Beginners is here.

Toto

JonA: to clarify, what is the basis for your assertion about first century Jewish Messianism?