Doug Shaver

Lack of records might or might not not prove nonexistence. In some cases it can make nonexistence very probable. But in no case can it prove existence. If you assert existence, you must have some evidence, and if not records, you'd better have some other kind of evidence.

Nonsense.

Yes, and one is highly relevant to the other.

aa5874

Your list is ALL SPECULATION. You can't be seriously attempting to argue AGAINST actual written evidence with UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

We are NOT trying to start a RELIGION here or trying to Solicit Believers.

You MUST and is OBLIGATED to PROVIDE the SOURCES for your "essentials".

What you BELIEVE is IRRELEVANT if you have no SOURCES from antiquity for what you BELIEVE.

Some PEOPLE Believe Jesus Christ was ESSENTIALLY the CREATOR of heaven and earth.

Who cares what PEOPLE ESSENTIALLY BELIEVE?

NO-ONE really cares about what you ESSENTIALLY BELIEVE if you have NO credible sources of antiquity.

You BELIEVE Jesus was a MAN? So what!!!!!

You are NO different to Marcion and the Marcionites that BELIEVED the Son of God was a PHANTOM but had NO credible evidence for what they said about the PHANTOM.

dog-on

A. Irrelevant emphasis. Deal with the texts, as those texts are the only surviving evidence.

B. I don't. What makes you think I do?

C. I assume that Gentiles could read, based on the fact that they wrote things down...

dog-on

Indeed.

Doug Shaver

To resolve it whose satisfaction? Yours? Who made you the arbiter of which historiographical methods ought to be accepted?

I notice your apparent lack of any inclination to address his actual argument for the historiographical utility of Bayes' theorem. I take it that you would regard the soundness of any such argument as irrelevant?

ApostateAbe

Nobody made me the arbiter of anything. There are a million small disagreements that exist within the field of New Testament history among the experts, and Richard Carrier would be making incredible progress if he were to use Bayes' Theorem to resolve any big or small disagreement among any of them to the satisfaction of anyone who is neutral and qualified.

avi

Hey Doug, thanks very much, for the response, and the link, both appreciated. I have not yet investigated Carrier's position, nor followed up, yet, on the link which Toto provided, yesterday.

Without asking you to summarize Carrier's rationale, can you simply acknowledge, as one who understands the proper use of Bayes' theorem, that in your opinion, Carrier is, in fact, justified in employing this mathematical tool to evaluate propositions derived from the Bible?

Thanks for your input. Since you do understand Bayes' theorem, we will benefit from your opinion on this matter.

Without having read Carrier, and in fact, in utter ignorance of his position on any issue, I deny the possibility of using a probabilistic computational tool, like Baye's Theorem, to resolve an issue in dispute, when that controversy is based upon contentious data sources, of uncertain validity.

In my opinion, Carrier, or anyone else, would be making "incredible progress", if able "to resolve any big or small disagreement" regarding contradictory conclusions drawn from the biblical traditions, whether using Bayes' theorem, or any other tool.

Bayes' theorem is not some sort of magic wand that one can wave about, to thereby render forged documents whole again.

avi

avi

Thanks dog-on.

We need to revisit the original statement:

I think we all agree here, that Steve's summary is correct--> JC is not mentioned in the old testament. Further we all agree, I think, that it is worthwhile to attempt to evaluate the intellectual substrates for the earliest Christian writings.

Where there may, or may not, be any disagreement, is on the simple question of whether or not one can draw conclusions about the "thinking" of the earliest "christians", i.e. those Gentiles who formed the earliest churches based upon the myth of the resurrection of JC, with, then, the new possibility for ordinary gentiles, uncircumcised, eating forbidden meat, and congregating with gals of the street, to enter paradise, (formerly restricted to law abiding Jews only), upon receiving dispensation from the local bishop, who possessed the authority to issue precisely such a ticket, upon payment of an appropriately modest tithe.

I don't believe that we know anything, yet, about the origin of the earliest "Christian" documents, neither authorship, nor date of composition. Accordingly then, I dispute the notion that one can identify what "the earliest Christians thought", about any topic, including the divinity of JC. The gospels, at the least, were under a state of continual revision, for nearly two centuries before Nicea. Even if we rely upon Papyrus documents from the second and third centuries, there are significant lacunae, both within particular texts, and in some cases, entire volumes missing from the earliest record.

Accordingly, I believe that it is futile to proclaim what the earliest Christians believed or denied. The situation is, at least in my mind, much less confused with respect to a description of the thinking of Jews of that same era.

Unlike the followers of the new religion, the Jews had some fairly rigid facts in place, and JC was obviously not included among those facts. Clearly, as Sheshbazzar has made very clear, in his submissions to the forum, the Jews would not have accepted any of the JC business as reality.

The fact that a select, small group of gentiles could read and write, does not convince me that their opinions and ideas represent the consensus of those who turned to the new religion. I deny the possibility of employing probabilistic formulae to establish veracity on any of these issues. Maybe I am just too old fashioned.....

avi

dog-on

Avi, I think you need to look a bit further back in this thread. You have jumped into the middle of a conversation, but seemingly, have neglected to rewind the conversation...

That said, I don't disagree with what you have written above, just that it is a bit irrelevant to the actual discussion.

aa5874

One does not need actual original sources to theorise when the Jesus stories began or belief in the Jesus stories began.

Just like one does NOT need actual original documents from Alexander the Great or King Herod to theorise that they did exist.

We only need sources of antiquity.

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus that covers about 100 years or virtually the entire 1st century and we have Roman writers like Suetonius and Tacitus that wrote about events and charaters of the 1st century.

The EXTANT evidence of antiquity suggests that the Jesus story started or was NOT established until sometime in the 2nd century when Christian and Secular writers started to ARGUE about the nature of Jesus.