Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Belz...]

Can you show us the method you used to arrive at your 99% probability?

Did he just ease off by 1% from his original position ?

 

[Belz...]

Same method you used to arrive at your 90% probability, probably.

I know I pulled my 60% out of my ass, since it was simply a way to illustrate my leaning towards one side more than the other. I never claimed otherwise.

 

[zugzwang]

Did he just ease off by 1% from his original position ?

I guess 100% has a bad rep these days, as it betokens certainty, which is baaad. Better ease off a tad, so you get 99%, ah, that's better. Gives a certain respectability, don't it? I'm not a zealot, after all.

 

[dejudge]

Can you show us the method you used to arrive at your 99% probability?

Let us do the math.

There is a character called Jesus of Nazareth in the NT who is described as the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, without a human father, the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate fish after the resurrection, conversed with his disciples and ascended in a cloud.

What is the probability that Jesus in the NT was a human being.

Let give some very high percentages of human beings who fit that description.

Let us say very conservatively that 1 of every thousand humans beings are actually born of a Ghost and a Virgin without a human father.

Let us say that only 10 of every 100 myth figures can be born without a human father.

Let us apply these very conservative figures to the basic Bayesian Theorem.

The probability that Jesus was human =0.5X0.001/(0.5X0.001+0.5X0.1)=0.0005/0.0505=0.0099 or 0.9% probability.

Of course, if I had use a more realistic figure for human beings born of a Ghost like 1 in 10 billion then the probability would diminish to virtually zero or less that one millionth of one percent.

Using the basic Bayes Formula---The numerical value for the probability that Jesus was a figure of history based on the information in the NT is extremely low--less that 1%.

 

[Brainache]

Not surprised at your answer. Despite myself and at least one other asking you specifically, you constantly hand-wave and deflect any questions so who is really to know what you know?

I have answered this question from you more than once with references links and sources.

Don't be surprised when people accuse you of ignoring responses.

Let us do the math.

There is a character called Jesus of Nazareth in the NT who is described as the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, without a human father, the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate fish after the resurrection, conversed with his disciples and ascended in a cloud.

What is the probability that Jesus in the NT was a human being.

Let give some very high percentages of human beings who fit that description.

Let us say very conservatively that 1 of every thousand humans beings are actually born of a Ghost and a Virgin without a human father.

Let us say that only 10 of every 100 myth figures can be born without a human father.

Let us apply these very conservative figures to the basic Bayesian Theorem.

The probability that Jesus was human =0.5X0.001/(0.5X0.001+0.5X0.1)=0.0005/0.0505=0.0099 or 0.9% probability.

Of course, if I had use a more realistic figure for human beings born of a Ghost like 1 in 10 billion then the probability would diminish to virtually zero or less that one millionth of one percent.

Using the basic Bayes Formula---The numerical value for the probability that Jesus was a figure of history based on the information in the NT is extremely low--less that 1%.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[maximara]

Let's try again: what is the minimum evidence you would accept ?

A document from a known contemporary of the supposed events would be great place to freaking start. But we don't even have that do we?

 

[The Norseman]

I know I pulled my 60% out of my ass, since it was simply a way to illustrate my leaning towards one side more than the other. I never claimed otherwise.

Just to be clear, you are not replying to a response that I made. I understand why you answered, though, so no worries.

 

[The Norseman]

I have answered this question from you more than once with references links and sources.

Don't be surprised when people accuse you of ignoring responses.



Absolute nonsense.

I hear you saying that you answered my direct questions to you regarding how you arrived at your 90% certainty with links and references?

Okay, I think you're really reaching or you may have mistaken me for someone else. You have, after all, been quite active on these threads talking with many people at once. But if you want to stay with that answer, that's cool. My memory is bad, but there are things I do remember and I remember only answers to my personal questions directed particularly at you as, I read lots of books, I can't be bothered to recite them all, sorry.

You did, however, clarify your 90% figure to mean the Lowest Common Denominator Jesus and not the Zealot Jesus. Or did I forget that too?

 

[Craig B]

Let us do the math.

There is a character called Jesus of Nazareth in the NT who is described as the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin, without a human father, the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate fish after the resurrection, conversed with his disciples and ascended in a cloud.

You are misrepresenting the stated views of the HJ proponents here. In a sense I hope you're doing this wilfully, because the alternative could only be that after all this detailed discussion you can still bring yourself to fantasise that the proposed historical Jesus is believed by scholars to have been born of a virgin, eaten fish after resurrecting, and so on. The reason why the HJ theory rejects this - apart from its physical impossibility - has been stated by me and others many times. You accuse others of double standards and other intellectual misdeeds. All the more reason then that you should not justify such charges being made against yourself.

Now I want you to point to any HJ contribution that justifies your nonsensical statement cited above. You can believe anything you want about the NT, including the ludicrous Hardouinesque fourth century forgery. But you must not impose your beliefs on those others who say that the gospels come from several sources, some of which are without question mythical tales.

 

[dejudge]

You are misrepresenting the stated views of the HJ proponents here. In a sense I hope you're doing this wilfully, because the alternative could only be that after all this detailed discussion you can still bring yourself to fantasise that the proposed historical Jesus is believed by scholars to have been born of a virgin, eaten fish after resurrecting, and so on. The reason why the HJ theory rejects this - apart from its physical impossibility - has been stated by me and others many times. You accuse others of double standards and other intellectual misdeeds. All the more reason then that you should not justify such charges being made against yourself.

Your statement is highly illogical. I have stated what is found in the NT and have applied the information to a basic probability formula.

Now I want you to point to any HJ contribution that justifies your nonsensical statement cited above. You can believe anything you want about the NT, including the ludicrous Hardouinesque fourth century forgery. But you must not impose your beliefs on those others who say that the gospels come from several sources, some of which are without question mythical tales.

You are not really making much sense.

This is a discussion about a character called Jesus of Nazareth found in the NT that is described as being born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, without a human father, was the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The probability that such a character was a figure of history is next to zero or a lower number.

 

[Craig B]

... This is a discussion about a character called Jesus of Nazareth found in the NT that is described as being born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost, without a human father, was the Logos, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The probability that such a character was a figure of history is next to zero or a lower number.

That us entirely correct. Now answer my question, which I asked you to do and not simply repeat the same pointless words. Let me restate it: what proponent of HJ has ever stated here that the things you enumerate are part of the possible historical background to the Jesus stories?

Scholars argue about whether the Arthur legend is based on some core of historical reality. (We've been through this!) Let us suppose I meet one who is prepared to accept that. Would it make any sense at all for me to accuse that scholar of believing in magic swords or spirit ladies living at the bottom of lakes? The scholar might argue that these are known elements of Celtic superstition which attached themselves to a historical person. It would simply get me nowhere to argue, Arthur can't have existed because ladies drown at the bottom of lakes. Even if I repeated that a million times it wouldn't be a conclusive proof that Arthur never existed. Alexander never built a wall to keep out Gog and Magog. People who believe in Alexander's existence don't believe in that particular story. They just don't, dejudge.

 

[dejudge]

I have answered this question from you more than once with references links and sources.

Don't be surprised when people accuse you of ignoring responses.

How illogical can you be? You have not presented any evidence for your HJ the ITINERANT preacher.


The supposed evidence for your Jesus does NOT match at all. You claim your HJ was a preacher but show me another WELL KNOWN Jesus who was Christ.

You claim James in Josephus was the brother of Jesus called Christ but the very Church and its writers DENY such a thing and stated quite cleay for hundreds of years, from Papias to Chrysostom and Rufinus, that Jesus was the Son of God and James was the Son of Alphaeus and the sister of the mother of Jesus

According to Church writings, James the Lord's brother was ALIVE c 67-68 CE, 5-6 years AFTER James in Josephus died.

Neither James nor Jesus called Christ in Josephus is related to the NT characters

Further, there was NO Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth in the history of mankind up to c 70 CE.

Absolute nonsense.

The nonsense about Jesus is in the NT. It is not history. Why do you believe that the character called Jesus in the NT was a figure of history when all we know about him is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE?


You must have already forgotten that you have already provided a link where Richard Carrier claim that based on Bayesian Theorem that the probability that Jesus was a figure of history could be less than 1%.

 

[Brainache]

I hear you saying that you answered my direct questions to you regarding how you arrived at your 90% certainty with links and references?

Okay, I think you're really reaching or you may have mistaken me for someone else. You have, after all, been quite active on these threads talking with many people at once. But if you want to stay with that answer, that's cool. My memory is bad, but there are things I do remember and I remember only answers to my personal questions directed particularly at you as, I read lots of books, I can't be bothered to recite them all, sorry.

You did, however, clarify your 90% figure to mean the Lowest Common Denominator Jesus and not the Zealot Jesus. Or did I forget that too?

Yes. the 90% was for the common denominator minimum HJ. The Zealot thing is less probable to me, mostly because it is such a fringe position, that I assume there is something I'm missing, but I'm still looking. I haven't closed my mind on the subject.

You may be right about my answers being to other people, but do you only read those posts that are responses to you personally?

Over the years I read books by Crossan and Reed, Sanders, Meier, and a compendium of essays from the "Jesus Seminar".

Then I started reading and watching Eisenman. I sat through hours of crappy classroom videos of lectures on the subject by him and others. Interviews and documentaries. Also I'm on to the third of his books about the DSS.

Somewhere in all of that I found the arguments persuasive. What convinced me might not convince you and vice versa, so that's about all I can tell you. Sorry.

 

[Belz...]

Absolute nonsense.

Pulling numbers of out one's behind to prove something is rather pathetic.

 

[Belz...]

A document from a known contemporary of the supposed events would be great place to freaking start. But we don't even have that do we?

Well I was asking Ian but... can I understand that your stance is that the bare minimum level of evidence to consider a historical character is real is contemporary confirmation ?

 

[dejudge]

That us entirely correct. Now answer my question, which I asked you to do and not simply repeat the same pointless words. Let me restate it: what proponent of HJ has ever stated here that the things you enumerate are part of the possible historical background to the Jesus stories?

Again, you are not making much sense. You just agreed that what I stated is correct so it is not logical at all that my words are pointless. They are ENTIRELY CORRECT.

Do you not understand that there are TWO fundamental opposing arguments.

1. Jesus was probably a figure of mythology.

2. Jesus was probably a figure of history.

Now is the time for PRESENTING evidence.

I am arguing that Jesus was probably a figure of mythology based on Matthew 1, Matthew 28, Mark 1, Mark 6, Mark 9, Mark 16, Luke 1, Luke 24, John 1, John 20, John 21, Acts 1, Galatians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, the writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Optatus, Lactantius, Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, and others.

What is your position and what is your SUPPORTING EVIDENCE?

If you don't have a position or have no evidence then you will not be able to contribute much to this discussion.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. the 90% was for the common denominator minimum HJ. The Zealot thing is less probable to me, mostly because it is such a fringe position, that I assume there is something I'm missing, but I'm still looking. I haven't closed my mind on the subject.

Now, tell me how did you get your 90% figure? Show us your method used to arrive at your common denominator?

Can you show us the method you used to arrive at your 99% probability?

 

[Brainache]

Now, tell me how did you get your 90% figure? Show us your method used to arrive at your common denominator?

I used the method of agreeing with the Academy.

I am not an expert and I don't consider myself qualified to dismiss an entire academic discipline just because its conclusions are inconvenient for my Atheist world-view.

Why do you feel qualified to do that?

 

[Craig B]

<snip>I am arguing that Jesus was probably a figure of mythology based on Matthew 1, Matthew 28, Mark 1, Mark 6, Mark 9, Mark 16, Luke 1, Luke 24, John 1, John 20, John 21, Acts 1, Galatians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, the writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Optatus, Lactantius, Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, and others.

What is your position and what is your SUPPORTING EVIDENCE?

If you don't have a position or have no evidence then you will not be able to contribute much to this discussion.

I asked you a specific question

What proponent of HJ has ever stated here that the things you enumerate are part of the possible historical background to the Jesus stories?

What do I get back? An answer? Not at all; just another of your lists of names (to which you add "and others". Dear God!) which you call "evidence" and demand that I give some back. Nonsense. I'll just give you a list of names from a telephone book if you want. And others. So answer my question, and please spare me the irrelevant repetition.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes. the 90% was for the common denominator minimum HJ. The Zealot thing is less probable to me, mostly because it is such a fringe position, that I assume there is something I'm missing, but I'm still looking. I haven't closed my mind on the subject.

You may be right about my answers being to other people, but do you only read those posts that are responses to you personally?

Over the years I read books by Crossan and Reed, Sanders, Meier, and a compendium of essays from the "Jesus Seminar".

Then I started reading and watching Eisenman. I sat through hours of crappy classroom videos of lectures on the subject by him and others. Interviews and documentaries. Also I'm on to the third of his books about the DSS.

Somewhere in all of that I found the arguments persuasive. What convinced me might not convince you and vice versa, so that's about all I can tell you. Sorry.

Let me first extend a very heartfelt thank you. This is what I feel to be a substantive reply on your part and I do very much appreciate it.


No, I do not just read answers to me alone; I tend to pay a bit more attention to people with whom I'm having a direct conversation with. Not always, though, but I do try. I did watch those videos that you posted and that pakeha thoughtfully re-posted upon my request (not implying that you wouldn't have, upon my polite request).

I didn't find them persuasive either, I'm afraid.