Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Bucky Ball]

Just five?  

I find it difficult to believe that I'm speaking to a person who maintains the proto orthodox, early adopting emperors, and later catholic institutions were as pure as the driven snow, or that they themselves have never been made aware of any examples to the contrary in the documented history of the respective parties and so it would be difficult to come up with some small number....but, I'll point out again that there are many examples in this thread - and there's no number of examples that will suffice if the game is to deny any number of examples already presented..and ask for five more.  

It would be a shame if we're pursuing an argument over something we don't actually disagree on, about a subject we're both fully aware of as being well represented from antiquity to the present.

Nice try at deflection, Madame Zelda.
So you have none.
That's what I thought.
You made it up.
Buh bye.

[Rhythmcs]

Sure, we have no examples whatsoever of the proto orthodox, early adopting emperors, or later catholic institutions claiming gods commands or will as justification for what they wanted to do, engaging in pious frauds, interpolation, exterminating dissenting views and the people who held them to then claim there had never been any dissent, revising their theologies to their politics, or walking back or forward their alleged revealed truth with respect to the cultural realities of the time. Not in this thread, not anywhere else.

Not one, and certainly not five. You win.

[jimhabegger]

Now I'm reading Bayesian Reasoning for Intelligent People.

While Bayesian reasoning makes no changes to how you follow the rules you learned in high school, it does ask you to make a fundamental shift in how you think about them. ... Frequencies are facts about the world, and so the frequentist can be said to think of probabilities as themselves “objective” facts about the world. Bayesians flip the problem around: instead of seeing probabilities as out there in the world, a property of objects like coins, they understand them as describing subjective states of belief that an observer might have.

In some descriptions I've seen probabilities are sometimes considered as how much confidence a person should have in their beiliefs, or not being clear about whether it's how much confidence they have or how much they should have.

[Minimalist]

All that Bayes Theorem shit was the one part of Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus, that I thought was a complete waste of time.

He picked numbers arbitrarily for probability, always saying that he was erring on the side of "historicity" and then at the end the whole story turned out to be a pile of shit, anyhow.  He could have saved 200 pages of math and just said "jesus is a mythical character."

[eider]

Indeed. Also, things become distorted when re-told several times. Ever play the game where a person is given a sentence to whisper to their neighbor, and the neighbor whispers it to the person on their other side, and so forth, some 10 times? The sentence never resembles the original when it gets to the last person.

Yes.......  about once a week on a training course, trainees in groups of about 10-15 carried out this function and discovered how a report can become distorted. Of course at the end of that week they did very much better.
Many cultures used memorisers to hold tribal histories with great accuracy, and, for example, Islam pays great respect to those who can learn the Quran by heart, a good example of how a long and detailed record can be held in accuracy.

Now imagine this happening over a span of years and with many people involved.

The thought of a story remaining intact for all those years when told and re-told is ridiculous for many reasons.

This fact (above) becomes valuable, correct and true when the gospels are studied for what truth they might hold.  The authors of Luke, Matthew and John were not witnesses to anything, they just had collections of anecdotes, memories, accounts, together with lots of junk, fibs, and outright lies that had been added to the young 'movement'.   These books do have some value because some of the information within them seems to be innocent of agenda..... simple stuff... one example: like the name of Judas' father which actually has quite a lot of value to an HJ researcher.  Innocent mentions can have larger consequences.

But memory of past events can be crystal clear as shown by the elderly of today telling their memories of 80 years ago, and the gospel of Mark looks to be the account of a disciple (Cephas) whose friend wrote down those memories, probably to put the record straight. I don't know how that book survived to stay in the New Testament....I don't.  Also, that author may have been a partial witness to some of those events. So if the Christian fiddling is found and removed, there is a story, but no Gods.  This troubles Christianity much more than charges of 'all junk'... that's for sure.

[eider]

...Deism centres upon an uninvolved, unaware, disinterested deity.

How can the creator be unaware of its creation.

Just a second.......... who has mentioned 'creator'?   
Everything, every force and anything else all together..... the Whole, everything part of One...call it a deity if you like, or not if you don't, but who mentioned anything about how that exists?  

Deism is just an idea, it's not trying to flog answers about how anything exists, it just does.

You don't have the first clue about how everything exists, any more than I do, so any clever answers you might have are just junk, so let's not guess, but if I want to think about being a part of something then why shouldn't I?

[Bucky Ball]

How can the creator be unaware of its creation.

Just a second.......... who has mentioned 'creator'?   
Everything, every force and anything else all together..... the Whole, everything part of One...call it a deity if you like, or not if you don't, but who mentioned anything about how that exists?  

Deism is just an idea, it's not trying to flog answers about how anything exists, it just does.

You don't have the first clue about how everything exists, any more than I do, so any clever answers you might have are just junk, so let's not guess, but if I want to think about being a part of something then why shouldn't I?

Except that's not deism.
It's called pantheism / monism.

[Rhythmcs]

How can the creator be unaware of its creation.

Just a second.......... who has mentioned 'creator'?   
Everything, every force and anything else all together..... the Whole, everything part of One...call it a deity if you like, or not if you don't, but who mentioned anything about how that exists?  

Deism is just an idea, it's not trying to flog answers about how anything exists, it just does.

You don't have the first clue about how everything exists, any more than I do, so any clever answers you might have are just junk, so let's not guess, but if I want to think about being a part of something then why shouldn't I?

You did.  That's what deism refers to.

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla
Many cultures used memorisers to hold tribal histories with great accuracy, and, for example, Islam pays great respect to those who can learn the Quran by heart, a good example of how a long and detailed record can be held in accuracy.

... but not the Jews. They were a writing culture.
Too bad you know nothing about ancient Judaism.
More ignorant bullshit from eider.
You have never posted any evidence for your BS that a Jesus thought the temple culture was a rip-off, (or that any Jew thought that),
and you have no evidence that there were "memorizers" (not "memorisers") in Judaism, and you have no scholars or historians who talk about any such function.
As usual you made it up, and expect us to buy this rubbish.
But ... by all means, keep making up this crap. The Gospel according to eider.

[jimhabegger]

... there is a story ....

If there's any more to your Jesus story, I'm interested. I've liked some parts of it.

[Dom]

Indeed. Also, things become distorted when re-told several times. Ever play the game where a person is given a sentence to whisper to their neighbor, and the neighbor whispers it to the person on their other side, and so forth, some 10 times? The sentence never resembles the original when it gets to the last person.

Yes.......  about once a week on a training course, trainees in groups of about 10-15 carried out this function and discovered how a report can become distorted. Of course at the end of that week they did very much better.
Many cultures used memorisers to hold tribal histories with great accuracy, and, for example, Islam pays great respect to those who can learn the Quran by heart, a good example of how a long and detailed record can be held in accuracy.

Now imagine this happening over a span of years and with many people involved.

The thought of a story remaining intact for all those years when told and re-told is ridiculous for many reasons.

This fact (above) becomes valuable, correct and true when the gospels are studied for what truth they might hold.  The authors of Luke, Matthew and John were not witnesses to anything, they just had collections of anecdotes, memories, accounts, together with lots of junk, fibs, and outright lies that had been added to the young 'movement'.   These books do have some value because some of the information within them seems to be innocent of agenda..... simple stuff... one example: like the name of Judas' father which actually has quite a lot of value to an HJ researcher.  Innocent mentions can have larger consequences.

But memory of past events can be crystal clear as shown by the elderly of today telling their memories of 80 years ago, and the gospel of Mark looks to be the account of a disciple (Cephas) whose friend wrote down those memories, probably to put the record straight. I don't know how that book survived to stay in the New Testament....I don't.  Also, that author may have been a partial witness to some of those events. So if the Christian fiddling is found and removed, there is a story, but no Gods.  This troubles Christianity much more than charges of 'all junk'... that's for sure.

I am one of those elderly. I remember things from back when I was 3 years old. But guess what? These experiences are imbued with my personal perceptions. They are tainted with my emotions and views. They are not the actual experience of a 3 year old, they are the product of an old woman using her elderly life experience to look at what happened. They are biased. There are facts in there, I remember what the furniture looked like, where mom kept what in the kitchen, and so on. But, they are not the actual impressions of a 3 year old, they are what an old woman thinks of what happened to a 3 year old girl.

Back in the days when story telling was the entertainment of the day, the goal was not precision but captivating the interest of the listeners. These dudes were not trained to recount facts learned by rote as you describe. They were entertainers. No way did these stories reflect the actual happenings. Communities used to gather and sing and dance and listen to stories the way people today go to a club or play video games. It was actually pretty close to today's church ceremonies, song and stories. IMO this may well be the origin of today's religions, they are the age old community gatherings with more focus on specific types of stories.

[jimhabegger]

I have another question. I got the idea from some of your posts that you think your historical Jesus is better ground to stand on than a purely mythical Jesus, for arguing against the beliefs of Christians about their Jesus.

Since the argument for an actual human being called Jesus is far better than the argument for total mythology (and well educated Christians know this as well) then arguing for mythology is a fruitless endeavor as they all will point to the exact same evidence for historicity as has been presented here.

Meanwhile, while I argue with them only on the merits of historicity, I also point out that their beliefs are every bit as unsupported as the arguments made by Jesus Mythicists. Think about it, Christians are using the gospels to argue that Jesus was real, and Mythicists are using the Gospels to argue he wasn't. Both are using the exact same bogus bullshit for their arguments, and neither can ever prove their arguments, nor can they well support them.

But the historicity argument is the only argument that provides any evidence that all Jesus ever was was some 1st century Jew who got himself crucified by the Romans. There's no external evidence that he raised anyone from the dead, walked on water, flew to heaven, and likewise there is no external evidence that he never existed as an ordinary man.

With actual evidence on my side demonstrating that all there can ever be honestly and historically supported is that a man named Jesus, called Christ, was executed by Pontius Pilate circa CE 33, it is much easier to convince a weak (or even an occasional church going Christian) that all that can really be said about it is that most likely he existed as an ordinary human being. I can show evidence to support my position, and then appeal to their reasoning with questions such as, "Do you really honestly think people came up out of the graves like zombies?"

I'm an atheist. The best argument wins.

So if the Christian fiddling is found and removed, there is a story, but no Gods.  This troubles Christianity much more than charges of 'all junk'... that's for sure.

Free, eider, maybe we can use Bayes's Theorem to decide how much to bet on your arguments being more convincing against harmful beliefs than arguing that there's nothing at all whatsoever in the Bible about any real Jesus. 

(later)

... to practise Bayesian statistics, one need not first be converted and baptized in the Bayesian church.

- How to practise Bayesian statistics outside the Bayesian church

[Rhythmcs]

I think there's a bit of transference going on there myself. The idea being that some secular revision of theocratic establishment myths will provide a bulwark against the worst of theocratic abuse. The mistake being that the secular revision is in any sense a historical account of what actually happened.

[jimhabegger]

I'm thinking that maybe Free's arguments are more effective against harmful beliefs, because he might actually try using them for that purpose sometimes.

[Rhythmcs]

Personally, I'd go at them directly...as, if a belief is harmful, it's source or origin - and any hypothetical historical accuracy to that, is irrelevant to that. Magic book could be a completely factual account of real events in history in every particular up to and including every uttered word of the god man and all of the magic.

[jimhabegger]

I'm thinking that all beliefs are harmful, but denouncing people's beliefs and/or trying to convince them that their beliefs are wrong only helps perpetuate them and adds to the damage.

[Rhythmcs]

I believe that we should be kind to dogs. I believe that everyone should plant a garden - even if it's just a window garden.

We do sometimes accept beliefs that cause harm on account of believing that it would cause even greater harm to eradicate them. But this itself, I think, shows that causing harm because of a belief is optional, not a necessity of, or of any given belief. Credit where it's due, if some belief compels a person to be a dick, it's because they hold a dickish belief system..and nothing to do with it's historic accuracy. They could find out the whole story was a fable and genuinely apprehend it as much and so what - we don't think that the tortoise and the hares message is untrue just because they don't actually talk or have footraces.

That, ultimately..I think, is the underlying futility of secular revisionism if the actual objection to the story is a moral one regarding beliefs or behaviors caused or created by it, rather than any item of fact about it or it's contents.

[Minimalist]

I believe that we should be kind to dogs.

And dogs will second that motion.

[TinyDave]

I believe that we should be kind to dogs.

And dogs will second that motion.

My cat seconds that motion

[TinyDave]

I'm lying she doesn't second that. She Hates dogs.
That's not true.
She doesn't even understand what a motion is.
She's a cat.

[TinyDave]

I'm thinking that all beliefs are harmful, but denouncing people's beliefs and/or trying to convince them that their beliefs are wrong only helps perpetuate them and adds to the damage.

Why do you say that beliefs are harmful?

[jimhabegger]

I'm thinking that when people are thinking of probabilities as measures of how much confidence people have or should have in their beliefs, maybe they need to get out more. 

(later) Here's how Bayesianism looks to me now, after reading and pondering some discussions about it. There are some ways of calculating and using probabilities that are called "Bayesian," which have turned out to be very useful sometimes, for some purposes. That's one meaning of "Bayesian." Another meaning of "Bayesian" is thinking of probabilities as measures of how much confidence people have (priors) and how much they should have (posteriors) in a belief, where the posteriors are calculated by plugging the priors and some other numbers called "data" into an equation called "Bayes's rule." One of the most fundamental principles of Bayesian thinking is that there should be no contradictions between a person's beliefs. Another is that it's aimed at bringing all people's beliefs closer and closer to being the same. People might be thinking sometimes that bringing people's beliefs closer to each other will bring them closer to the truth, but apart from that I haven't seen any empirical validation of the usefulness or benefits of that way of thinking, or any discussion of how to test it. I'm thinking that maybe it has some psychological and social value for people sometimes, as a story that they are telling themselves and each other about what they're doing. That could possibly have some beneficial effects on the results. Or not.   Just like any other kind of storytelling.

[airportkid]

... when people are thinking of probabilities as measures of how much confidence people have or should have in their beliefs, maybe they need to get out more ...

How does "getting out more" (whatever that means) convey anything about understanding probabilities?  It also sounds like you disagree with the premise that understanding probabilities should be what conveys confidence in a belief.  From my standpoint fluency in statistics would be the bedrock of forming beliefs closer to truth than by other means.

[jimhabegger]

From my standpoint fluency in statistics would be the bedrock of forming beliefs closer to truth than by other means.

What are your reasons for thinking that? Have you seen any empirical validation of that? Also, I'm curious how you measure how close a belief is to the truth, or how you think it could be measured.

(later) Anything that anyone does can be a way of improving their ways of thinking, if they're doing it for that purpose. That includes learning Bayesian ways of thinking. It can also be a way for people to feel validated in their prejudices and delusions, if that's what they want it to do.

[Cavebear]

Wow, so much you just don't comprehend.  I hardly know where to start.  But I love discussion, so here we go...

Lovely intro..........   I'm interested.

It seems like every street corner here has a small Protestant church on it.  Nothing much, just a small building that can hold a few idiots at a time.  They are usually named something along the lines of "Jesus We Meet You Tomorrow" or "Be Saved By Jesus Here".  I mostly just laugh at the empty small parking lot.  My guess is that the preacher grifts enough money from a half-dozen suckers to buy fast food across the street.  Well, beats having an honest job for some people.

YeaH? YOu can't be a Brit then, because I've never seen any church boards like that. 
Anyway...... go on......

My views on nearly everything are not very dodgy.  I'm pretty straight-forward about them.  I'm honest about politics, social issues, personal life, etc.  Can't say the same about you though.

So you're a straight-forward, honest, decent guy? ......  Bright? Strong Intelligence quotient?
And me, not so much?  
OK./...... go on......

Deist is not the antithesis of being a theist.  You actually can't see that "deism is a theism"?  I mean, maybe there is no popular religious movement or book about it, but it requires a belief in a deity to have started everything.  Atheists don't believe in any deity. It doesn't really matter if a deity is vague or specific.  I'll agree with "daft" though.

And so Deism is the same as Theism....?  Of course it is!  .......... for you, Cavebear.

I have yet to meet an HJ researcher who wasn't essentially a theist.

Well I never did.........  You've rubbed shoulders with Professors, Scholars and Graduates within the HJ debates......  I am so impressed.   

The author "Carrier" huh?  Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being [my bolds for emphasis] known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically..."

In other words a carefully-written defense of the existence of a religious HJ.  I laugh at such poor deception and illogic.

Calling you a theist is accurate.

Brilliant!   You've finally caught him!   So Carrier isn't a screaming myther about the Jesus story but a secret insidious skulking....... Christian......   I like you more by the sentence, Cavebear.

By the way, all those 

 Calling me a "secret follower of Islam or something" is nearly too laughable to be taken seriously.  It's like calling a bald guy "hairy".  

I said 'If'.........  but you just carried on with your insults anyway.  But I like you, because you've initiated a whole new idea for me to look in to......... 

You say you are not a theist.  So type this sentence in and claim it for your own...

"I am not a theist.  There isn't and never was a deity of any sort in the universe at any time".  I'll print that out and post it on my computer wall, to remind you of that, LOL!

Do you realize how silly that statement is?  First, Christianity (and I don't care about Christianity any more than other religions) has changed its beliefs many times.  Second,  what on Earth do you mean by "the very fabric of each, every and any community"?

I'll leave you with that...

You've left me with so much.....too much, really.   
But what has emerged is a question about extremist views and event horizons, more of an impenetrable wall rather than a line in sand.

Extremists cannot cope with grey areas, margins of any kind between their views and their opposing views.   A possible analogy might be the event horizon of a black hole.   For example, anybody who believes in something where you don't , then they cannot possibly be reasonable, must be an idiot..... no margins for doubt there. That's over the event horizon.
An atheist like Carrier who makes the entire HJ account a myth, copied mostly from Paul's ideas....is still an Historical Jesus researcher, and that word 'Jesus' has to kick Carrier in to being a secret theist...... over the event horizon.
No grey areas for you, Cavebear.......  
Question:   Do you perceive yourself to be an extremist of any kind?  
I can be honest, Cavebear, and honestly, I think you are, rather........   

Oh boy..........   extremism and 'event horizons'....a new idea born out of a bunch of your insults.

"And so Deism is the same as Theism....?  Of course it is!  .......... for you, Cavebear."

If there is a deity involved, it is a theism. But it is not atheism.

"YeaH? YOu can't be a Brit then, because I've never seen any church boards like that."

Never claimed to be a Brit. I live in the US.

"So you're a straight-forward, honest, decent guy? ......  Bright? Strong Intelligence quotient?

Yes to all. Do you consider those weaknesses or negative values? Please tell us why.

"You've rubbed shoulders with Professors, Scholars and Graduates within the HJ debates......  I am so impressed."

Yes I have. Mostly on discussion sites, but over dinners a few times. I shared a family Thanksgiving Dinner with the Chair of a State University Anthropology College once and after an hour of discussion, he assumed I had a PhD in the subject (I don't). I just read a lot.

Not within the HJ debates, though. That stuff is essentially nonsense.

I note that you refused to print out "I am not a theist.  There isn't and never was a deity of any sort in the universe at any time".  I'll print that out and post it on my computer wall, to remind you of that, LOL! That pretty much proves you are a theist.

Happy Useless Prayers...

Cavebear