tanya

Hi Dog-On!!

Thanks for your comment.

Here's an earlier thread on this topic, with a few excellent points made by Andrew, Jay, Toto and many others...

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....t=bayes&page=2

There are many opinions. What will affirm the validity of Richard Carrier's attempt to invoke Bayes' theorem, is a simple demonstration.

In my opinion, he needs to illustrate how use of this tool will assist us in elaborating the history of the earliest Christian church? How is it different, for example, from using ultraviolet or infrared light to study old manuscripts, as a means to reveal hidden text?

maryhelena

Perhaps I should have put the Hoffmann link on that other thread.....will do so now....

dog-on

It seems to me that the Bayesian approach is part of a correction to the flawed criterological approach historically employed by NT scholars.

In other words, Bayes helps to shed light on the actual logic, or lack thereof, behind specific arguments based on the criterion of embarrasment, for example.

Are we discussing the same thing?

JonA

What about the alternative? What about simply not inventing a Messiah figure? Many Jews live their lives today in the full knowledge that there has never been a super-Messiah of the sort wished for to liberate their people from foreign control and re-establish Jewish rule in the Israel homeland. In fact, all Christians believe the same thing!

Neither Jews nor Christians believe there has ever been an actual Messiah. And both groups await the coming of their future cosmic king.

Pure nonsense. The Christian Messiah is almost identical to the Jewish Messiah with the exception of those few added quirks—coming to Earth a first time, dying, resurrecting, etc.

What we actually conclude is that there are few ways to format a post worse than the way you chose to format yours.

Jon

Bernard Muller

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians (and 1 Thessalonians written earlier) the Christians are declared “sons/children of God”. However Paul said he considered these Christians as his children:
1Cor4:14 RSV “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.” (See also 1Cor4:15 & 1Cor4:17 & 1Th2:11)
Therefore Paul had the Christian males of Corinth as “his sons” (spiritually) but not yet as “sons of God”.
Consequently Paul did not see then these Christians as “brothers of the Lord” (1Cor9:5) because sons of different fathers are not brothers.

In Galatians, the first mention of Christians as “son(s) of God” comes at verse 3:26, that is two chapters after Gal1:19. Furthermore, “son(s) of God” seems to be a new concept introduced then by Paul to the Galatians. So Paul did not intend to have these Christians thinking “the brother of the Lord” in 1:19 meant “the Christian”: they were not aware yet a Christian is “son of God” (with the same father than Jesus and consequently brother!).

So going back to the Bayes theorem of Carrier:
P(2) = (.33 x .9) / [(.33 x .9) + (.67 x 1)] = .297 / (.297 + .67) = .297 / .967 = 0.31
The “1″ stands for “Christians being the brothers of the Lord has a 100% chance of being true (as I proved it did)” (quote from RC).
But I demonstrated, in the specific context of 1 Corinthians and Galatians, this is untrue and the “1″ can be replaced by a “0″, which would render the overall result of the equation = 1

I have also more arguments which would solidify even further the “1″ such as:
a) James and the Church of Jerusalem were not Christians (explaining why Paul never called them as “brother(s)”, “in the lord” or “in Christ”). Other clues in Hegesippus' works, James' epistle, Paul's epistles and gMark.
b) In 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, Paul did not adopt yet Jesus as “Son of God” (despite in passages which I think (for several reasons explained in my website) are interpolations: 1Th1:10, 1Cor1:4-9 & 1Cor15:23-28). http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3xx.html & http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html
c) Positive arguments towards explaining the “brothers of the Lord” and “brother of the Lord” do mean “blood brother(s) of Jesus”. Here is one:
In 'Galatians', this is the first reference of "James" in 'Galatians'. But at the time (around 38) of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (as narrated in Gal1:18-20) there was another prominent member of the "church of Jerusalem" named James, the brother of John, who got executed around 42 (according to Ac12:1-2). Therefore, Paul probably wanted to identify the "James" he met then, more so because this one became most important later. But why write "the brother of the Lord" instead of "the brother of Jesus"? 'Jesus' was a common name then, but "Lord" is very specific in that context and identifies precisely that 'James'. (sorry Spin, but I don't take here 'Lord' meaning God).
(PS: I used 'Acts' to make a point, but Carrier did the same).

Zaphod

Gee whiz. And here I was all along, mistakenly thinking Richard Carrier had had a doctorate in Ancient History, multiple publications, multiple successful books and speaking engagements and literacy in German, Latin, and Greek. But now, I am chagrined to find out he is just a blogger and "amateur logician".

Very obliged to the ever-objective epitome of academic collegiality, R. Joseph Hoffmann.