mountainman

The academic credentials in an analogous sense are like credentials in the geology of the sandstone structures formed as a result of the sedimentary deposits of credentialled academic commentary upon the sedimentary deposits of credentialled academic commentary upon the sedimentary deposits of credentialled academic commentary upon in almost 1700 years worth of the sedimentary deposits of credentialled academic regression.

Theogical knowlege in case you may have forgotten was originally dispensed by the Church and doctorates in theology are thus the hegemonic knowledge of (essentially Eusebian) "Church Tradition". Its core authenticity has not been questioned let alone revised since the 4th century. It has been glorified by sheep following sheep who think they are following a shepherd.

And in regard to the subject of the OP, we must first also ask the questions whether Jesus is authentic. The evidence in our possession in the form of the NT was not written by Jesus (except the Agbar forgeries). We are thus necessarily already at a second hand account of any possible authentic sayings. When the nuances of chronology are subjected to stress testing, and the dating of the Acts and other books of the NT is pushed back to the 2nd century even by mainstream commentators upon commentators (etc regression) then we are looking down the barrel of third hand accounts at least.

Toto

I see a discussion of probability or its synonym likelihood, and only at the end a retreat to "possibility." But this makes no sense - surely any saying is possible, including many that are not in the gospels.

I have no stereotypes of "anti-mythers." Some are reasonable and some less so. You seem to be unique in your over the top emotion reaction, for reasons that escape me.

Chaucer

Some sayings have LESS OF A POSSIBILITY than others <shrug>

Let's just say that I've encountered more than my share of bullshitters and carry the resultant baggage -- and BTW, thanks for boiling down and extracting some of my more (relatively) cogent points! :-)

Cheers,

Chaucer (the curmudgeon)

spamandham

I tend to agree. We can make attempts to discern the intentions of the authors, but there will always be uncertainty. We really have no way of even knowing the genre except through such attempts. But we could be wrong. The Gospels might really be fiction instead of biographies.

mountainman

This is not entirely accurate since it is clear that information about the ancient history is being added to all the time. More ancient texts are being discovered and published and new technologies such as C14 analysis and multi-spectral imaging are becoming available to researchers. We do not have a "FIXED BODY of DATA" but in fact an "EXPANDING BODY of DATA".

The fat lady has not yet sung.

storytime

Just give it up for the myth. :notworthy:

avi

For what it is worth, I agree, wholeheartedly.

well written, as always...
Perfect, as is typically the case....
wonderful! In computer science, we call this "recursion". lovely.
Nonsense, I simply had not yet attained my normal state of daily inebriation, and therefore remained transiently attuned to the focus of the thread....
No. I think it reflects the existence of multiple authors/storytellers, writing/speaking over a couple of centuries, at least. We see the same contradictory personality profile with Achilles: On the one hand, fiercely loyal to his mistress de jour, when that gal is abducted by Agamemnon, but then, within just a few short paragraphs of expressing his devotion to her, copulating right and left with a dozen other babes....
Multiple senior officials of the US government testifying dishonestly before Congress and the United Nations led to the folly of invading Iraq, and certainly did not enhance the validity of their arguments, at least not in my opinion, as I watched them live on TV....

I am not a believer in the idea that quantity transforms into quality.

I don't care, frankly, if there are ten thousand critics who say that Jesus was a historic person. I judge that his life story is mythical based solely on the evidence:
1. walks on water;
2. raises people from the dead;
2. cures blindness due to disease, by waving his hand.

Multiple attestation does not change probabilities. Data is what probabilities are computed by. Since there is no data for Jesus, then, there can be, by definition, no probabilities computed for his existence.

As it is wrong, absolutely, for you, or anyone else, to write something like: "very highly probable", so too, it would be wrong for me, or someone else to write: "very highly improbable". We cannot write about probabilities, absent reliable data. All we can say, or write, about Jesus, is this: There is no data to support his existence. He is a myth, until proven otherwise.

avi

aa5874

But, if you think about it the probability for the historicity of Jesus could be very extremely high if there was just a single credible historian who mentioned that they saw Jesus in Galillee.

Mythicists would have had no case or argument whatsoever if Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 was deemed to be true, and without any other attestation.

Of course one can say it is highly improbable that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. There are many many events that are highly improbable in the NT about Jesus and it is for that very reason why it is reasonable to conclude that it is highly improbable that there was anyone like Jesus in the 1st century who was deified in Jerusalem.

We have data of the "very highly improbable" characteristics and events of Jesus.

Maybe you forgot.

Don't forget the data in Matthew 1.18. The Church writers claim the data is good.

Mythicism is DATA based.

mountainman

Thanks avi ... Recursion was actually the word I was struggling towards.

rhutchin

However, within the context of the Bible which speaks of God and identifies Jesus as God and having the power to do these things, these things are credible.

If you could only prove that there is no God to whom you are accountable, you would not have to deal with the Bible and what it says.