aa5874

WHAT do you understand? What can you understand?

What are you talking about? You are NOT clear. You must have forgotten that your clarity of expression is admittedly IMPERFECT.


What!!!!!??? You need to be precise.

You don't seem to have a clue between a Null hypothesis and an Alternative hypothesis.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus is a QUEST for an ALTERNATIVE Jesus.

The Historical Jesus represents the Alternative Hypothesis.

This is basic in "Statistical Hypothesis Testing"

The Jesus of Faith, the Jesus that was FATHERED by a Ghost, God the Creator, walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended is the NULL hypothesis.

We MUST start the PROCEDURE with a NULL hypothesis and an Alternative Hypothesis.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

We start with the RESEARCH hypothesis that "there was an historical Jesus" of which the truth is UNKNOWN.

It is EXTREMELY critical that it is understood that the RESEARCH hypothesis "that there was an historical Jesus" is the Alternative hypothesis of which the Truth is UNKNOWN.

The Null hypothesis is the NT description of Jesus ACCEPTED as the Jesus of Faith, in effect, the Myth Fable Jesus.

It should be OBVIOUS that Failure of the Alternative hypothesis MUST mean that the Null hypothesis is accepted. Nothing changes once the Alternative Hypothesis FAILS.

The Gospels can be still accepted as Myth Fables or articles of Faith once the Research hypothesis is a FAILURE.

J-D

I understand the information you quoted from Wikipedia about statistical hypothesis testing--better than you do.You must have forgotten that your clarity of expression is undeniably imperfect.You are wrong about how to formulate a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.No, you don't seem to have a clue about null hypotheses and alternative hypotheses.It can't be an alternative hypothesis, because an alternative hypothesis must be articulated in the form of a statement, and 'the historical Jesus' is a phrase, not a complete statement.Again, that can't be a null hypothesis, be because a null hypothesis must be articulated in the form of a grammatically complete statement.So far you have failed to formulate a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis correctly.No, it isn't. If the alternative hypothesis is 'there was a historical Jesus', then the null hypothesis is 'there was not a historical Jesus'.But there is evidence for the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus. For example, the name of Jesus appears on historical lists of Presidents of Costa Rica (according to these lists, the President of Costa Rica from 1868 to 1870 was called Jesus).

Doug Shaver

Sure. I just meant that Carrier doesn't have any more of a problem than other writers of his caliber, and his caliber is very high.

Doug Shaver

You cited him in defense of what you're saying. What you're saying is nonsense. Carrier's statements do not support nonsense. QED.

tanya

I would like to try: Is this acceptable?
There are two competing theories to explain the content of the text known as the New Testament.

Both theories arise from a literal reading of the text.
There may be other theories associated with interpretation of the text, but the two competing theories which I am describing are both based upon a literal interpretation of the text.

For example, if I write "John is a red haired New Zealander", then, I am describing someone who literally has red hair. I am not engaged in attempting to slyly project an image, whether genuine or imaginary, of someone who espouses communist ideology. That is what I mean by "literal interpretation of the text".

A literal reading of the New Testament gives then, these two competing hypotheses.

Jesus of Nazareth, a town in Galilee, not far from the fresh water lake of the same name, born in Bethlehem, 2000 years ago, give or take a few decades, was fathered by God, (a supernatural deity), born of a virgin, walked on Lake Galilee, raised Lazarus from the dead, cured epilepsy by waving his hand, and cured blindness by spitting in the eyes of the blind person.

This particular description of Jesus of Nazareth is widely accepted as legitimate and true by a very large quantity of humans on planet earth. More than a billion persons believe that this description of this particular person, Jesus of Nazareth, is true and accurate. The Null hypothesis then, is that the description furnished above, of Jesus of Nazareth, believed by a billion people to be true and accurate, is factually correct--the veracity of the events and accomplishments described in the New Testament, attributed to Jesus and his miraculous abilities, represents the NULL hypothesis.

The Alternative Hypothesis, is that this description of the accomplishments of Jesus of Nazareth, found in the New Testament, is NOT TRUE, it is false.

aa5874

What!!!!!??? You just don't make any sense. You have confirmed your admitted imperfection in clarity of expression. Your response is most ridiculous and completely unreasonable.

aa5874

Your post is a blatant Logical Fallacy.

tanya

1. too much generalization, for my taste... Do you literally mean that ALL of what Pete WRITES, is nonsense? Do you literally mean than NONE of Carrier's statements support nonsense? Do you genuinely seek to express the idea that "Pete has a problem with comprehension" [of all matters]?

I dispute those contentions, if so. I think an argument could be offered that some of what most of us write (none of us are speaking) is utterly banal, stupid, boring, nonsensical "rubbish" (to quote spin), but at least some gems of wisdom are buried in many posts to this forum, in my opinion....

2. Why not, Doug, offer a single example, to illustrate your contention that Pete's writing demonstrates failure to comprehend what Carrier has outlined, and a second illustration, with link, to explain why Pete's exposition is "nonsense".

Two illustrations would suffice, in my opinion, one to show failure to comprehend, the other to illustrate a tendency to propound absurdities. In my opinion, Pete has an excellent grasp of many of the authors, quoting many of them, in his submissions to the forum, and I disagree that Pete offers up "nonsense".

In my opinion, having not yet read anything by Richard Carrier, it would be helpful, Doug, if you could explain how Carrier's contribution represents the gold standard against which all other arguments ought to be compared. Just to clarify, you may well be absolutely correct, here, I am not disputing this notion of Carrier's brilliance, I am acknowledging total oblivion with regard to Carrier's sentiments and modus operandi. I am curious to learn WHY you believe that his approach/method/opinions ought to represent the gold standard among those of us who seek to learn something about the origins of christianity.

You seem, Doug, to be something of an authority on Carrier, therefore, I know that I personally, would gain from your thumbnail explanation of his contribution to understanding the origin of Christianity differs from some other elaboration of that mystery. If you have already done something like this, elsewhere, then a simple link suffices, I will search it out...Thanks.

aa5874

For the purpose of Statistical Hypothesis Testing it is the Alternative Hypothesis that MUST be proven.

The NULL hypothesis is REJECTED or accepted based on whether or not the Alternative Hypothesis is successful.

In the Example of a courtroom trial, it is EXTREMELY critical to understand that a defendant does NOT need to prove or provide any evidence or witnesses for the NULL hypothesis that he is NOT guilty.

Once NO evidence or data is provided for the Alternate hypothesis then the NULL hypothesis is ACCEPTED.

In the case of the NT, we have written statements in the NT that Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost. Some, perhaps billions, may believe gMatthew 1.18-20 is historically accurate while other may consider the same passages as Myth.

The Alternative hypothesis that Jesus was really just Human SEEKS to REJECT the NULL hypothesis, the description of Jesus in gMatthew or any other source which depicted the character as non-human.

No credible DATA, Evidence or Witnesses of antiquity has been Offered for a human Jesus, the Alternative hypothesis.

For the purpose of Statistical Hypothesis Testing the NULL hypothesis cannot be REJECTED in such case.

The NT can be ACCEPTED as a Compilation of MYTH fABLES.

Chili

Yes and is factually correct in the mind of believers but since believers are believers who really do not know it remains an opinion supported by all kinds of fallacies based on fears as outsiders in aloofness like sheep motivated by 'force' and moved by all kinds of impulses such as 'ad baculum' or 'ad populum' or 'ad misericordiam' or 'ad hominem' to 'ad vericundiam' simply because they do not know as hu-man in their aloofness wherein they are also 'man' to make this aloofness known to them. They so are willing to go hither and thither in the comfort and guidance of their shepherd who is supposed to know but really only knows that they should go and believe what he says is true while even he does not know.

So the solution if not found in the opinion of sheep nor of shepherds who each have a flock, and for as long as they do have a flock are they hu-man to gather and scatter on a flat earth where the plural is far and wide, while as man in the singular without the human condition are as tall as the image that Jesus found in his own lineage wherein he is real, first as lamb of God and fully man without religion in the end . . . and that image is real but not seen by humans below . . .or it would not have gone wrong for the Jesus in Matthew and Mark.