Ben C Smith

What are you on about?

Nothing in what I said assumes anything more than that he was alleged to have been executed, raised, and the messiah. Who doubts that someone named Jesus, whether historical nor not, was alleged to have been executed, raised, and the messiah?

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

Beating a dead horse here 'ham, as I already conceeded the point in post #232 above.

Sheshbazzar

A fictitious character fabricated decades after his alleged execution, alleged resurrection, and fictional and utterly implausible alleged messiahship?
Not one single piece of evidence exists that places this fictional character within the time period he is alleged to have lived in.
NO ONE left any record of hearing of him until decades after he had allegedly flew up into the sky.
If there were some contemporary witness, then there would be some basis in claiming the man (or whatever) to be a historical person, but there is nothing, absolutely zilch historical evidence to support any supposition of this composit cartoon character ever having lived.
Thus he has no probability, other than that of being an imaginary god just like all of the thousands of other imaginary gods that men have dreamed up.

aa5874

But, I have already told you that you are not intrerested in data, only in your belief.

The information to determine the probability of Jesus of Nazareth is in the NT and also supplied by the church writers, you cannot just reject the information that reduce the probability of his existence to ZERO and isolate certain information only to support your belief.

The authors that claim Jesus was crucified also claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, and he was on a high mountain with the devil looking at all the kingdoms of the world.

The probability of the existence of anything is DIRECTLY related to its description. You cannot assume that a Unicorn has no horn to increase its probability of existence, you must use the detailed data for your analysis.

You cannot assume whatever you like about Jesus, you must use every single detail put forward by the authors of the NT and the church writers.

Your historical formula is completely flawed as soon as you disregard information from the authors of the NT and the church writers that eliminates or severly reduces the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Tertullian, Eusebius and others claimed Jesus had a Spiritual Nature, this claim must be a factor in any analysis of probability, just as Achilles was reported by Homer to be the offspring of a sea-goddess is a major factor in concluding Achilles was a myth.

You are basically just tampering with the evidence or concealing information that may destroy your conclusion.

And if both the historical and statistical probabilities score the existence of Jesus very low, then you have not shown that the statistical probability is a fallacy. Your claim is therefore erroneous.

You just bluff.

Ben C Smith

I see you agree with me that this figure was indeed alleged to have done these things. Thank you.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

You have been wrong so many dozens of times before, no harm in being wrong this time, too. Why ruin a nearly perfect record?

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

That these allegations were made is self-evident and beyond question,
WHEN and WHY they were invented, is indicative of the probability of the claimed character.
If these allegations were backed up by any contemporary evidence, such as government records, first person accounts, or other unmistakable documentary or archaeological evidence, Then the existence of this alleged individual hero figure, would become quite probable.

However, because absolutely -nothing- providing any contemporary evidence has ever been found, and found to be authentic (although thousands of fraudulent pieces of "evidence" have been produced)
The probability of the alleged individual of ever having been an actual flesh and blood inhabitant of Nazareth, as a "historical" personage still rests at a 0% probability.
Every single piece of "evidence" ever produced bears the hallmarks of latter fabrication.
The Gospel stories that support the popular allegations are the products of at best, third-hand "witnesses", and worse, even these bear evidence of being tampered with by the latter church.
Written in the third person, by writers living decades latter, (not a single one of them an actual witness to the story that they are writing) they purport to relate word for word the contents of private conversations, even words and sayings that were spoke at times when even the narrative itself makes it clear that no witnesses were present to hear or to record.
This evidence of the texts, with all the alleged miracles, unsubstantiated "celestial signs", and highly improbable alleged political and religious situations, make these alleged conversations and sayings improbable of ever having occurred under those circumstances related in the narratives.
These facts render the only "evidence" that ever has been produced to be not credible, a fabrication, little more than a quaint fairy tale
used by the powerful to manipulate and extort the unlearned and the gullible.

The probability of a "historical" Jesus remains at 0% (ZERO) as it always has.

bacht

You throw around absolutes quite casually. Professional historians are expected to be cautious. In the case of Jesus the agnostic attitude seems the most appropriate, though the lack of a "smoking gun" either way invites speculation in either the HJ or MJ directions.

spamandham

Are you arguing that it's impossible for there to be a historical core to Jesus? That's what 0% probability means.

aa5874

Again, you have no data for your statements. You are only interested in your beliefs.

Now, produce the log, and in the mean time, make a log of the times that you were wrong.

You just bluff.