Freethought & Rationalism Archive

youngalexander · 11-23-2008, 08:11 PM

o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person

Must say that I find a 25% (7/29) expression of faith in zero probability of a HJ on this board a trifle alarming. Presumably we can count them with the other irrationals at the other end of the scale!

CMc · 11-23-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMc

There is no way to know how the Jesus story began. That is the point of all the speculation. I never proposed a theory about the probability of a historic Jesus. Before you can calculate probabilities, you must have something to quantify. There is no way to logical way to assign quantities to the Jesus story other than Christianity Began = 100%. The best we can hope for is plausibility.
People are being worshiped as the Son of God in the U.S. today. Do you know who they all are? I only know of two. One just got busted for molesting a minor. There is no reason to think Josephus knew about every little sect in existence in his time.
There are records. Not all of the gospels made it into the NT, yet they all see Jesus as divine. Why would someone fake a gospel and not include it in the NT?

But, why do you think Jesus believers were a little sect? The written statements of the authors and church writers claimed Jesus was known all over Judea and ouside the region, even known by Kings, including Herod.

If the written statements of the authors of the NT and the church writers are not true, then there is no other source of information about Jesus and I cannot assume that there was a Jesus sect or assume I know the size of the sect.

It is completely plausible that that there was no sect and that Jesus believers started in a similar fashion to Joseph Smith's Mormonism, where one man writes a story about a fabricated character called Jesus and people just believe the story and hundreds of years later there are millions of believers.

Bible critics agree there were several different authors of the NT. Joseph Smith was the only author of the Book of Mormon.
As far as what the NT claims about Jesus, I would not use that as evidence. There is no way to separate truth from myth. For example, it's possible that John the B. was only mentioned because he was a famous guy.
As far as Josephus, that is more problematic. It is possible his mention of Jesus is authentic and not a tack on, though doubtful. It is also possible that Christianity didn't exist, it existed and he didn't know about it or he knew about it but didn't consider it worth of mention. There was a lot of turmoil in Israel at that time, and not all of it would have found its way into his book.
What plausible suggestions do you have for the origin of Christianity?
Bedtime. More tomorrow.

Minimalist · 11-23-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Shouldn’t there be a bunch?

We should count our lucky stars that there are two.

There would have been three Jewish historians but no one bothered saving the history of Justus of Tiberias.

mountainman · 11-23-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMc

There is no way to know how the Jesus story began.

Dear CMc and others,

I disagree with this conclusion. C14 technology can tell us when the Jesus story began. I have more faith in the authority of C14 technology that in the authority of the universal (within the Hubble Limit) state monotheistic Roman emperor cult of the fourth century which embraced the little known christian faith and published the canonical version of all its books, constructed its basilicas, established its dioceses and preserved the Constantine Bible.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 11-23-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMc

Joseph Smith was the only author of the Book of Mormon.

Dear CMc,

Joseph Smith cloned Eusebius' "Ecclesiatical History".

Best wishes,

Pete

aa5874 · 11-23-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMc

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, why do you think Jesus believers were a little sect? The written statements of the authors and church writers claimed Jesus was known all over Judea and ouside the region, even known by Kings, including Herod.

If the written statements of the authors of the NT and the church writers are not true, then there is no other source of information about Jesus and I cannot assume that there was a Jesus sect or assume I know the size of the sect.

It is completely plausible that that there was no sect and that Jesus believers started in a similar fashion to Joseph Smith's Mormonism, where one man writes a story about a fabricated character called Jesus and people just believe the story and hundreds of years later there are millions of believers.

Bible critics agree there were several different authors of the NT. Joseph Smith was the only author of the Book of Mormon.
As far as what the NT claims about Jesus, I would not use that as evidence. There is no way to separate truth from myth. For example, it's possible that John the B. was only mentioned because he was a famous guy.
As far as Josephus, that is more problematic. It is possible his mention of Jesus is authentic and not a tack on, though doubtful. It is also possible that Christianity didn't exist, it existed and he didn't know about it or he knew about it but didn't consider it worth of mention. There was a lot of turmoil in Israel at that time, and not all of it would have found its way into his book.
What plausible suggestions do you have for the origin of Christianity?
Bedtime. More tomorrow.

Well, if you do not use the NT as evidence for Jesus, it is all over. There is no other information for Jesus except for forgeries.

The information in Josephus about Jesus is similar to that found in the NT, where a character is raised from the dead after three days, so if you find the NT is not evidence for Jesus, then the forged TF is of no use.

Josephus presented John the Baptist as a mere human baptising people, who was executed by Herod, but the forged TF presented Jesus as a supernatural entity who did ten thousand wonderful things and rose from the dead.

Christianity is an ambiguous word. A Christian of antiquity could believe in Simon Magus, a magician, according to Justin Martyr. And the word "Christ" predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

spamandham · 11-23-2008, 09:31 PM

My guestimate is about 75% for nonhistorical/ 25% for historical core (~0% for the magic god man Jesus of the gospels). There is no one overriding deciding factor for me...this is a hueristic estimate based on everything I know.

....my definition of "historical core"....someone whom the religion evolved directly from, and who, if he did not exist, the religion would never have started.

aa5874 · 11-23-2008, 09:53 PM

Probabilities are not based on speculation, belief or faith, probabilities are based the collection of relevant and credible data, using models over a period of time to make a prediction.

Without any other credible data about Jesus, it can be said the the probability that there was an historical Jesus is 1 out of the population of the world in the 1st century or the century that Jesus would have lived if he did.

Based on Wiki, there was about 200 million people in the 1st century, it is therefore a 1-in-200 million chance that Jesus was a figure of history in the first century, or 0. 0000005%

spamandham · 11-23-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

probabilities are based the collection of relevant and credible data, using models over a period of time to make a prediction.

That's incorrect. Aggregate probabilities are based on *ALL* relevant data. It need not be credible, since credibility is itself another factor in the probability equation.

If I have a black box, and I am allowed to shake it up, place a wall at the half way point and examine half the contents, I am justified in drawing conclusions about the other half, even though I have no direct evidence whatsoever regarding its contents.

...this is somewhat irrelevant though, because we have no way of assessing the factors that would go into such an equation in the first place.

thedistillers · 11-24-2008, 01:55 AM

So there are 7 people who think it is impossible (that is what 0% means) that a Jew named Jesus with followers was crucified by the Roman authorities between 20 to 40?

View Poll Results: What do you think the probability of a historical Jesus is?
100% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.	8	6.15%
80-100%	10	7.69%
60-80%	15	11.54%
40-60%	22	16.92%
20-40%	17	13.08%
0-20%	37	28.46%
o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person,	21	16.15%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-23-2008, 08:11 PM	#21
youngalexander Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mornington Peninsula Posts: 1,306	o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person Must say that I find a 25% (7/29) expression of faith in zero probability of a HJ on this board a trifle alarming. Presumably we can count them with the other irrationals at the other end of the scale!

11-23-2008, 09:31 PM	#27
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	My guestimate is about 75% for nonhistorical/ 25% for historical core (~0% for the magic god man Jesus of the gospels). There is no one overriding deciding factor for me...this is a hueristic estimate based on everything I know. ....my definition of "historical core"....someone whom the religion evolved directly from, and who, if he did not exist, the religion would never have started.

11-23-2008, 09:53 PM	#28
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Probabilities are not based on speculation, belief or faith, probabilities are based the collection of relevant and credible data, using models over a period of time to make a prediction. Without any other credible data about Jesus, it can be said the the probability that there was an historical Jesus is 1 out of the population of the world in the 1st century or the century that Jesus would have lived if he did. Based on Wiki, there was about 200 million people in the 1st century, it is therefore a 1-in-200 million chance that Jesus was a figure of history in the first century, or 0. 0000005%

11-24-2008, 01:55 AM	#30
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	So there are 7 people who think it is impossible (that is what 0% means) that a Jew named Jesus with followers was crucified by the Roman authorities between 20 to 40?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.