Ben C Smith

Interestingly, the statement of yours that I was responding to had no data at all.

Ben.

aa5874

It is for that very reason that the probability of Jesus is virtually 0%, the data provided by the authors of the NT and the church writers are either implausible, fictitious or incredible.

I have no credible data for Jesus.

On the other hand, Jesus believers require no data for their belief.

patcleaver

The probability of Jesus in history is exactly the same as that of many other important historical characters such as "The Genie of the Lamp" or Horus or "The headless horseman of sleepy hollow" or Achilles or Babe (Paul Bunyan's giant blue ox) or Genesh or Moby Dick (Surely there was an historical Moby Dick!).

The little boy with his finger in the dike is one of the most important people in Dutch history - he saved the entire country.

William Tell is one of the most important people in Swiss history - he established democracy in Switzerland.

Paul Bunyan is one of the most important people in US history - if he had not chopped down all the trees in the mid-West of the US then there would not have been a Great Planes for farmers to settle.

The angel Gabriel is the most important figure in Muslim history - she dictated the Quran to Mohamed in a cave - surely you do not think that the founder of Islam is fictional? Surely she is just as real as Peter Pan's Tinkerbell.

Sheshbazzar

The probability of a "historical Jesus" already rests at 0% for me.
The "falling" percentages are of those others who upon examining the evidence, are giving up on the claim. This takes longer for some than others, while some never do, but such are the same as such as will insist on continuing in their beliefe in the Easter Bunny, Santa, Tooth Fairy, The Great Pumpkin, and Alien Abductions.
All pathetic victims forever enslaved to their own and to others fables, lies, and flights of imagination.

WWJD? well, whatever it is that they can dream up.
Really all of religion has the appearance to me, of a dog that is chasing its tail, snarling and snapping, religions silly doctrines and arguments go around and around without ever getting anywhere.
If they figure it out, or even concede that JC was only a myth, it usually makes no difference anyway, as their religions never really required any real living "god", Jesus, Mohammad, or Moroni, just something or someone for a cult object to glom unto, and tenaciously cling too, to give some semblance of worth to their otherwise worthless dreams and empty lives.
Do I fear their religious fantasies? their gods and demons?
No more than I fear and steer clear of obviously rabid dogs, lunatics, and psychopaths.

spamandham

This isn't how probability works. If there are two people, the maximum probability that at least 1 of them is named Jesus of Nazareth, is 100%, if we know a priori that one of them actually has that name!

If we had only the following facts to go on:
a. Jesus is exclusively a male name
b. 1 in 15 males were named Jesus

The probability that at least one of the two people is male is 0.75. The probability that at least one of those is named "Jesus" is approximately 5%.

However, these are not the only facts we have to go on. The actual likelihood could be anywhere between 0+% and 100-+ depending on all the factors and how we assess their individual liklihoods.

spamandham

Do you deny a historical core to Santa? Some legendary figures really do have a historical core.

Sheshbazzar

Yeah. He lives at the North pole, flies through the air in a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer, slides down the chimneys of millions of christian homes on christ-mass eve, keeps a J. Edgar Hoover type dossier on every person, and is apparently an extreme cultist and xenophobe as he neglects or avoids over half of the world's population.
This the character you are asking about?

spin

And I've been through a little town in the south west of Turkey called Myra, where Saint Nicholas hailed from. As there ain't much there, the name is important.


spin

aa5874

We are not dealing with names only, we are dealing with the identity of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the NT.

If there were two persons living in Nazareth in the 1st century, even if one is named Jesus, it just cannot be 100% probable that the person called Jesus was the Jesus of Nazareth as described in the NT, when the Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the NT, may not have even lived. The probability just CANNOT exceed 50%.

Now, what is the probability that someone called Jesus was actually Jesus of Nazareth?

Josephus, in his writings, mentioned many persons called Jesus, what is the probability that one of them was actually Jesus of Nazareth as described in the NT?

Now, since we have no credible information about Jesus of Nazareth, we cannot exclude persons with other names from the probability of being Jesus of Nazareth.

The probability of Jesus of Nazareth appraoches 0% or less than 1%

aa5874

Well, do you deny that the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood was based on a real wolf. The talking wolf was called a wolf, so it must have been a real wolf?

Whether Santa was fiction or real is irrelevant to the existence of Jesus. Jesus cannot exist by default or just because Santa existed.

If you think it was probable that Jesus of Nazareth did live then provide the information about your belief.