Yellum Notnef

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't your last tour here cut short (banned) while you were posting as the uber obnoxious "Praxeus"?

Maybe off topic, but us "folks" like to know who we're reading here.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Why thank you for the kind greeting, Fenton.

You would have to check the posts, I think I signed them usually "Steven Avery" and the user name was Praxeus, yes. You may call me Praxeus if you like, that was my net name more in the earlier 2000s, you may find Schmuel frequently too, in fact that is one JW fav still today, since it is easy to move letters around and make new name contraptions.

However, standardized today .. Steven Avery.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Yellum Notnef

I've been here since about 2000 (had a different name at first) but I don't remember Schmuel. I do recall you using your real name and I especially remember the Praxeus period (how could anyone forget that?).

And no, I won't be calling you Praxeus. I actually won't be calling you anything. Just wanted to make sure you were who I thought you were. Carry on.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

On various forums, maybe not here.Yes, fond memories.
Maybe I have mellowed too much.

Shalom,
Steven

Yellum Notnef

Fond memories indeed, but I wouldn't say you've mellowed any. You've still got it. You're just warming up like you usually do, but have already started on the road to a major meltdown. Excellent.

I know it's sort of against the rules to personally interact with the exhibits or shake the cages, but I'm more interested in the why rather than the what.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley Fond memories indeed, but I wouldn't say you've mellowed any. You've still got it. You're just warming up like you usually do, but have already started on the road to a major meltdown. Excellent.

Naah, not impossible but unlikely. We learned a lot from the earlier round, and I learned a lot from the last couple of days, which were mildly intense. And I have a lot of other stuff to do that knocks this down a bit on the priority scale.

To a large extent I am satisfied already that any of my remaining curiosities and puzzles about the board are done, almost finito-ized, the paradigmic divide is clarified and simpified, and thus we can and move on around the town.

Shalom,
Steven

sschlichter

I would only find it silly if you thought it unbeleivable if I told I knew of 2 runaway slaves that lived longer than the average white northern banker.

Vinnie

That assumes 12 initial followers. If you start with a sample poop of 100 initial followers of Jesus it is actually very likely a few will live to an older age. This is the case of rigging the data to fit preconceived thoughts.

Jesus was not as popular a the gospels portray him but he certainly had more than 12 and only twelve followers.

You cannot apply life tables to ancient Rome because too many factors are different. If you could, they would tell you the same thing. I agree that if Jesus had 12 followers they would most likely all be dead by that time. The starting pool determines the likelihood of survival.

On top of this, some people did make it that far in antiquity and we do have traditions claiming this for several Christians. Inventing old people does not look like an apologetical hobbyhorse in the second century. I take it Polycarp was old but I am not sure on John.

Vinnie

Yellum Notnef

Glad to see we're finally using the correct terminology for such a ridiculously unimportant matter.
A sample poop indeed.

spamandham

Right, because that's the story Irenaeus subscribed to. If there were ~100 followers, then the 12 aspect is still bullshit, and we can conclude Irenaeus is conconcting history rather than reporting in that case as well.

Sorry Irenaeus, it's a lose lose for you.

Upon what do you base that conclusion? There's nothing implausible about a cult leader having no more than 12 followers, and the only record we have, albeit filled with nonsense, nonetheless does *not* puff up the number of followers as we would expect it to - which indicates to me that if there is a historical Jesus, he may really have had only a handful of followers in his day.

Even modern cult leaders rarely have more than 10 or 20 followers (there are notable exceptions of course), and populations were much smaller 2000 years ago. By the way, it would have been logistically very difficult for Jesus to have more than a few followers, since they went from place to place subsiding on handouts. You can't really do that with an entourage of 100.

If you think there is a reason to expect life tables to be fundamentally different in Rome than those that have been consistenly measured prior to the advent of modern sanitation, food production, and healthcare, please state it.

Of the tables I've examined (the US in 1900, the 3rd world, estimates of the ancient world based on sporadic evidence) the numbers shift by no more than a few years.

Yes, some did. About 4% made it to 80, and about 1% made it to 90. These factors were considered in the probability calculations I previously presented.