Historicity of Jesus as a probability spectrum

Oranjeboom said:

Please pay attention.



You're a one aren’t you.

Click to expand...

Ah, are we back to the poll? (I still don't see where 16 came in, unless that was the number who opted for #1 awhile back; there are now 20 who opted for #1, which seems to be the most popular option.). No, I'm not a one. I find the poll incomprehensible, since it asks about the existence of Jesus but defines the options in terms of the Gospels. I do think that Jesus probably existed. In the framework of the gospel questions, I'm probably a 4.5.

Gday all,

Come on guys, Tomar is right, this is silly -

It's a history forum, and 20 people voted for this option :
History ?


Kapyong

abram said:

He made it clear to me otherwise. : "My view on that question is a minority position." p.221. What could be clearer?

Click to expand...

His view that Jesus wasn't a miracle worker is a minority position. I meant jesus as an apocalyptic preacher was standard.

Kapyong said:

Gday all,

Come on guys, Tomar is right, this is silly -

It's a history forum, and 20 people voted for this option :

(1) p(HJ) = 100% ...
The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true.
Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate,
then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.
​

History ?


Kapyong

Click to expand...

Kapyong. Welcome. Missed you. I'd say continuing to talk about the specifics of a messed up poll is silly. Trying to put complex thoughts into standard boxes and pinning a number on them so that they can be misinterpreted is silly. If the thread is salvageable, it's in the subsequent discussion. And I must say, I thought Tomar's comment that "Jesus needs to be defined as no doubt some Jesus(es) existed since it was a common name" was borderline silly, but hey, I'm willing to play along. And all the fuss over miracles. Twenty is an extreme, and in my opinion untenable, position. But so would be eight. Most scholars, like Bart Ehrman, as you know, would be at least a 4, if that is the only option short of total mythicism.

starman said:

His view that Jesus wasn't a miracle worker is a minority position. I meant jesus as an apocalyptic preacher was standard.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree there.

Oranjeboom said:

abram, when I asked:

"Could you elaborate on the highlighted, specifically; what is a healing miracle and what is a nature miracle."

Now If you had replied with something like:

'Well to be honest I'm not sure what point I was trying to make, I was having some difficulty expressing my thoughts and if I created some confusion then I apologise.'

This, or some similar explanation would give you some credibility but you didn't do that. You pile error upon error in order to justify the silliness, and it backfires.

Look up 'sunk cost fallacy'.

Clearly you put a great deal of time and effort, but little thought, into your reply. Frankly It's cringing embarrassing to read.



This is a wall of unreadable, disjointed, undecipherable irrelevant nonsense.
It's empty headed animal food trough water.
It's a masterpiece of obfuscation.
It's alphabet spaghetti.
It's Lewis Carroll nonsense verse.
It's Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!

Or to put it less kindly:

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

eta, I apologise for the ad hom.

eta#2 I'm not sure it was an ad hom.

eta#3 for added snark.

Click to expand...

Now that I've answered your question and you've had a chance to ventilate, I have some for you. Do you believe that it's possible for a rational person to believe that Jesus the Nazerene existed as a real human being and to have had a reputation as a healer? Do you think it's possible for people who seem to themselves and others to be physically diseased or disabled to be cured by means that are mainly psychological, such as placebos and shamanistic methods? Do you think anyone who disagrees with you on these matters is a hopeless ..... to be ridiculed on a discussion forum? Do you think your post was a bit over the top? Do you think it was in compliance with Historum guidelines? Do you think?

Gday Kookaburra Jack and all

Kookaburra Jack said:

Name one other historical source for the existence of Jesus that is more valuable than the gospels.

Click to expand...

This is an important point.

The Gospels are the ONLY source for historical information about Jesus.

Or put another way -
all our information about a historical Jesus comes from the Gospels.

Paul gives us nothing historical (i.e. dates, places, names)
NT epistles - nothing.

1 Clement, Barnabas, the Didakhe - nothing.

Ignatius has a tiny few pieces that could be called historical maybe.

Finally c.150 Justin quotes from (un-named) proto-Gospels with many historical details he gleaned FROM the Gospels.

Consider e.g. the story of the Empty Tomb.

Outside the Gospels, no Christian writer before Justin mentioned the Empty Tomb story. After Justin, mentions of the Gospels and details such as the Empty Tomb are very common.

The conclusion is clear - knowledge of the (alleged) historical Jesus only came FROM the Gospels - not from any historical source at all.

Have a look at this table showing Christian books in chronological order down the page, with citations of various terms and phrases in the body :


The orange box on left shows how the term 'resurrection' ('r') is commonly found from the earliest times.

The red boxes on right show how the Empty Tomb ('T') was not mentioned at all until Justin and afterwards.


Here is the table from 100 onwards, overlapping Justin. Note how mentions of the Gospels and their stories suddenly flower from Irenaeus (c.185) onwards.




The original table can be found here :
Citations in Early Christian Writings


It's quite clear -
knowledge about the alleged historical Jesus only came from the Gospels.

The Gospels are all derived from G.Mark.

And G.Mark is religious literature based on :

• the Jewish scriptures
• Paul's writings
• the Greek mystery myths

There is no historical source for Jesus.


Kapyong

Kapyong said:

The Gospels are the ONLY source for historical information about Jesus.

Or put another way -
all our information about a historical Jesus comes from the Gospels.

Paul gives us nothing historical (i.e. dates, places, names)

Click to expand...

Virtually nothing like that. Paul mentioned Jesus had brothers, one of them James. But he did mention things which later appeared in the gospels like the crucifixion and last supper. The gospels, though, go into far greater detail and probably reflect, to some extent, other sources like the memories of cephas.

Consider e.g. the story of the Empty Tomb.

Outside the Gospels, no Christian writer before Justin mentioned the Empty Tomb story. After Justin, mentions of the Gospels and details such as the Empty Tomb are very common.

Click to expand...

Assuming the estimated dates of the gospels (c 70 -95 CE) are accurate, that's odd. Crossan and later Ehrman concluded the "empty tomb" is an invention. Maybe knowledge of this was widespread down to the early second century, and holy joes were reluctant to cite a fabrication, until finally a new, less informed generation just accepted the whole NT.

Kookaburra Jack said:

Name one other historical source for the existence of Jesus that is more valuable than the gospels.

If you cannot do this then you have to admit that the gospels can be used as a first-approximation calibration to the actual question in the OP.

Click to expand...

If we're talking about His existence instead of His alleged words and deeds: Paul, followed by Josephus--both mainly about the existence of James, brother of the Lord. Paul also tells us about Cephas and the "Pillars", and tells us Jesus was thought to be crucified. Josephus tells us about John the Baptist. The Gospels are useful in elaborating on these matters.

Kapyong said:

Gday Kookaburra Jack and all
The Gospels are all derived from G.Mark.

And G.Mark is religious literature based on :

• the Jewish scriptures
• Paul's writings
• the Greek mystery myths

There is no historical source for Jesus.


Kapyong

Click to expand...

You are using "historical source" in the literal sense of written records. Scholars like Ehrman are willing to assume an "oral history" and the controversial Q. Others would throw in the Gospel of Thomas. And we don't know that the Gospels are "all derived" from Mark. We do know that Matthew and Luke read Mark but they may have had their own sources. And John? Mostly speculation.

Kapyong said:

Gday Kookaburra Jack and all



This is an important point.

The Gospels are the ONLY source for historical information about Jesus.


There is no historical source for Jesus.


Kapyong

Click to expand...

Or more accurately: the Gospels are the only source for info about Jesus (the word "historical" here is not really correct)

I agree with the last sentence though

abram said:

You are using "historical source" in the literal sense of written records. Scholars like Ehrman are willing to assume an "oral history" and the controversial Q. .

Click to expand...

They are "willing to assume" something which helps their position ? How convenient

abram said:

You are using "historical source" in the literal sense of written records. Scholars like Ehrman are willing to assume an "oral history" and the controversial Q. Others would throw in the Gospel of Thomas. And we don't know that the Gospels are "all derived" from Mark. We do know that Matthew and Luke read Mark but they may have had their own sources. And John? Mostly speculation.

Click to expand...

Not all but quite a bit

"Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and much of Mark is similarly found in Luke. Additionally, Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark."

eta, Link

I was about to answer what I thought was a recent post by, I think, Kookaburra Jack, quoting something I said about Carrier. I went back to check what I said, and now I lost the posted question. But I think it mentioned my "smearing" Carrier as an atheist and questioning his competency to do Bayesian analysis.

I don't consider the label "atheist" to be a smear. It's a descriptor of a position on religion. I happen to admire and learn from lots of atheists--Carrier included--and think that they're doing the Lord's work in challenging Christian orthodoxy. I have several of Carrier's books, and I think he's really the best of the mythicists. But anyone following Carrier's scholarship and checking out his website knows that he is an atheist, and quite a militant one at that! He's a man with a mission--to discredit religion in general and Christianity in particular. In fact, I think he could be deemed an atheist apologist--an atheist counterpart to the likes of William Lane Craig. The fact that he has a Ph.D. adds to his scholarly stature (I have one myself) but cuts no ice in terms of his ability to do objective Bayesian statistical analysis. Richard Dawkins, another atheist with a Ph.D. says of Bayes' theorem "the final estimate can only be as good as the original numbers fed in. These are usually subjectively judged, with all the doubts that inevitably flow from that." (The God Delusion, p. 106.) Carrier is quite confident that he is fully competent to make the judgments objectively. From reading his works, I'm quite confident that he is not. Does this mean that no atheist can be reasonably objective? No it doesn't, just as there can be reasonably objective Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. But a proselytizing atheist is different. Same would go for a crusading Christian, like Craig.

I think if Bayesian analysis is to be at all useful, a panel of experts with no known axes to grind, preferably representing a variety of religious views, should be doing the the estimates, and the scale should be carefully worded to eliminate any amiguities. Even then the outcome would be very "rough and ready', even though the numbers are seemingly precise (a dangerous combination). The problem with using us is that our level of expertise and objectivity is variable. If twenty of us give Jesus a one, I'd say the results are suspect.

Kapyong said:

Consider e.g. the story of the Empty Tomb.

Outside the Gospels, no Christian writer before Justin mentioned the Empty Tomb story. After Justin, mentions of the Gospels and details such as the Empty Tomb are very common.

The conclusion is clear - knowledge of the (alleged) historical Jesus only came FROM the Gospels - not from any historical source at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure to what purpose your charts were originally drawn up, but they completely ignore certain content from the Pauline letters.

Why does the chart claim that the sayings of Jesus only first appear in 1 Clement, when 1 Corinthians & 1 Thessalonians contain teachings and quotes claiming to be direct from Jesus?
1 Corinthians 9:14 In the same way the Lord commanded that "Those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel”
1 Corinthians 11:23-24 ...how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, “This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me.”
I Thessalonians 4:2-3 For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus..; that you abstain from unchastity
I Thessalonians 4:15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.


I also think its unclear what you mean by 'the Empty Tomb story'. Once more, Paul's epistles are ignored since he clearly believed that Jesus was not only crucified and resurrected, but also buried. Being buried must indicate a 'tomb' of some sort, and a subsequent resurrection must mean that such a tomb became 'empty'. So is there a specific 'story' the chart is referring to, rather than just the 'empty tomb' of Jesus?

I Corinthian 15:3-4 The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
Romans 6:3-4 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into union with the Messiah Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him into his death

abram said:

Paul, followed by Josephus--both mainly about the existence of James, brother of the Lord.

Click to expand...

How many times do we need to go over this? The James and Jesus in Josephus are obviously not the same James and Jesus of Paulos. Anyone who can read can plainly see this.

Both "James" and "Jesus" were popular names. I mean seriously!

Paul also tells us about Cephas and the "Pillars", and tells us Jesus was thought to be crucified. Josephus tells us about John the Baptist. The Gospels are useful in elaborating on these matters.

Click to expand...

Why then no mention of JTB by Paulos? It should be obvious that Paulos has never heard of JTB.

Jax said:

Anyone who can read can plainly see this.

Click to expand...

Can you explain please, anyone who can read which texts, Jax?

Thanks for taking the time.

Jax said:

How many times do we need to go over this? The James and Jesus in Josephus are obviously not the same James and Jesus of Paulos. Anyone who can read can plainly see this.

Both "James" and "Jesus" were popular names. I mean seriously!

Click to expand...

Josephus specifies (Antiquities, Book 20, chp. 9,1)that he's talking about "the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James". Paul mentions "James the brother of the Lord". Paul (Galatians 1:19) says I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother". So that would seem to pin it down. We've been over this many times. I know you think you've developed a superior theory, but so far you haven't produced evidence that I find convincing.

Jax said:

Why then no mention of JTB by Paulos? It should be obvious that Paulos has never heard of JTB.

Click to expand...

Possibly. Paul knew Jesus from a vision, and may have been removed from the Galilean scene several years earlier.