spamandham

...and it didn't hurt that it was widely promoted by force for most of it's history. Interestingly, Christianity ceased to grow (percentage wise) about 100 years ago, which roughly coincides with the decline of the last great Christian Empire.

skinumb

An absorbing thread that has kept me away from my bed too long.

I'm with Earl Doherty on this one - Zero to less than Zero%. It's all pure myth.

The Jesus that emerges from the Gospels is distinctly a second rate regurgitation of existing Hebrew and others' myths and ethics. Nothing new, nothing radical, nothing believable as a HJ.

@ No Robots.

I note that Spin pointed you towards Carr (I'm surprised he was unknown to you, given he is essential first-day reading for any student of History), and within the same day you were already basing an argument around Carr. Did you really obtain, read and digest a copy that soon? (rhetorical question)

rich

No Robots

You are more than welcome to demonstrate that the work of Carr, or that of any other historigrapher for that matter, lends support to the idea that Christ's historicity is in question, let alone that it supports Doherty's position.

spin

Hopefully, you might be starting to see that historiography is about how history is done. It's not a matter of their efforts lending "support to the idea that Christ's historicity is in question". It is a matter of demonstrating historicity and not assuming it. History starts with facts and the selection of them for use as evidence in historical research. I think your statement still confuses historicity with past existence. Historicity is about demonstration of a past. It's not usually about saying if someone existed. History tells us nothing about Pilate's mother. Pilate is the only proof she existed. History can tell us nothing about her (except indirectly for approximately when she lived). Existence and historicity are two separate issues, though historicity does confirm existence.

(People often use "history" and "historicity" in a rather lax manner. When they are part of the discussion itself, clarity of their meanings become important.)


spin

No Robots

Again, please feel free to demonstrate how this assertion is in any way correlated with the work of Carr or any other historiographer.

Toto

A few posts have been moved to storage in the interests of maintaining a civil discussion.

Please avoid sniping and bickering.

Thanks for your cooperation

Toto

lukeprog

I think the least likely of the 5 minimal criteria is the first, that his name was actually Yeshua, meaning "YHWH saves." It was a common name at the time, but if Jesus lived, I'll bet he just adopted that name after he felt he was on a mission from God.

aa5874

There seems to be confusion about "probability" and "belief".

Simply, the probability that there was an human named Jesus of Nazareth and did any of the things recorded in the NT, even if it is assumed there were only 2 persons in Nazareth, regardless of their names or gender, cannot exceed 50%.

Now if the population is put to be 100 persons, the probability is drastically reduced to between somewhere around 1%.

Now, when it is factored in that Jesus of Nazareth was agreed by Jesus believers to have been a God, the probability that the character called Jesus of Nazareth existed approaches 0%.

On the other hand, the belief that Jesus of Nazareth existed really neeeds no data, no information other than to declare a belief.

So, in the Western World, or for example Utah, a State in North America, it is probable that over 50% of people living there believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed or still exist, since over 50% of the population are Jesus believers.


The probability of an actual Jesus of Nazareth cannot exceed perhaps 0.01% or less , and this extermely low probability is solely and directly dependent on data at the time of analysis.

However the belief about Jesus can vary wildly depending upon geographic location, political system and religious beliefs, perhaps as high as 100% or maybe as low as 0%.

Ben C Smith

Testing this line of reasoning:

Simply, the probability that there was an human named Augustus of Rome who did any of the things recorded in his biographies, even if it is assumed there were only 2 persons in Rome, regardless of their names or gender, cannot exceed 50%.

Now, if the population is put to be 100 persons, the probability is drastically reduced to between somewhere around 1%.

Now, when it is factored in that Augustus of Rome was agreed by Augustus followers to have been a God, the probability that the character called Augustus of Rome existed approaches 0%.

Does this work for anyone?

Ben.

aa5874

Well are you an Augustus believer?

You seem not to understand that probabilities has no bearing on whatever you believe about Augustus?

It is the DATA, written statements, artifacts, archaelogical findings and other credible relevant information about any ancient character that INCREASE the probability of their existence.

What DATA do we have about Augustus? There are coins of Augustus.

Now, it was reported Augustus died on August 19, 14CE and was buried.

What DATA do we have about Jesus of Nazareth?

It is reported that Jesus of Nazareth died on a day when there was an earthquake and that there was some kind of darkness that lasted for three hours. It is also reported that his disciples actually saw Jesus go through clouds after he resurrected.

NASA cannot confirm that there was any "darkness" that could have lasted for three hours in the 1st century as a result of a crucifixion or even a total eclipse, a total eclipse cannot even last 10 minutes.

On what day did the sun go dark for three hours?

And NASA cannot confirm that a man can go through clouds without some external propulsion.

On what day day did the disciples see Jesus go through the clouds?

Your belief about Augustus' existence is irrelevant to the probabilty of his existence. Your belief is not a factor or simply, belief is not a factor without DATA.

The probability for Jesus is near 0% with the discovery of more material, however with more data being found for Augustus the probability for his existence may very well approach 100%.