Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth

[iskander]

Context:
Romans 9:4-5, these verses explain the background of the New Testament : the story in the NT is a development of the religion of the Israelites who are sons of God and used to the presence of God in their midst as partner , overseer , maestro and Santa.
From this people by sexual intercourse [ kata sarka , natural descent] a Messiah was born .This Messiah is a precious gift of the one who is above all.
NT verses chosen:
Romans 9:4They are descendants of Israel, chosen to be God's sons; theirs is the glory of the divine presence, theirs the covenants, the law, the temple worship, and the promises.
Romans 9:5 The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all , be blessed forever! Amen.
The Oxford Study Bible
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop/books/ref ... 7QodT5QCOg
Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely.

[MrMacSon]

All gospels agree Jesus was born of a woman

There are many discussions about the meaning of Galatians 4:4. In modern times, and in antiquity.

eg. by Tertullian in On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 20 -

But Paul, too, silences these critics when he says, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Does he mean through a woman, or in a woman? Nay more, for the sake of greater emphasis, he uses the word 'made' rather than 'born', although the use of the latter expression would have been simpler. But by saying made, he not only confirmed the statement, "The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was 'made' of a virgin.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

---

and some gospels have James as one of the brothers of Jesus. So what other context are you talking about?

You do realise the gospels give various accounts of various mothers and various fathers to various James? None fully line up to be Jesus' sibling?

---

And why would my recruiting of 1 Cor 9:5 be "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." (meaning of disingenuous)?

1 Cor 9:5 -

• "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife/sister, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

What there is specific to James??!

Bernard, you can't do statistics on vague, wishy-washy premises.

[Peter Kirby]

MrMacSon, sorry, that was pretty dry.

I'm poking fun with the idea that Carrier has spoiled Bayes for Muller.

(Just a liitle joke... Posted from my phone...)

[MrMacSon]

• I'm poking fun with the idea that Carrier has spoiled Bayes for Muller.

aah. Bernard is baying at Bayes.

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

Let's say we give 50% probability that the following shows that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead:
1) Empty tomb (Mk 16)
2) Paul saw him after resurrection (1Cor15)
3) Peter saw him after resurrection (John)
4) John saw him after resurrection
5) 500 saw him after resurrection . . . .
6) Josephus says disciples claimed to see him after resurrection.....

a) First, I showed that 1 Co 15:3-11 was an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html. That would eliminate points 2 & 5.

b) About the empty tomb of Mark 16: I made a case that the empty tomb passage was written by someone else than the original "Mark": http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
That means "Mark" was not aware of such an event, even if it is most crucial in favor of the belief about the resurrection of Jesus.
And even with the empty tomb, the disciples or anybody else are aware of a bodily resurrection, which would mean that the other later gospels were lying on their stories about the bodily resurrection. And the reappearance on the high mountain in Galilee in gMatthew cannot be reconciled time wise with the ones in Jerusalem in gLuke and Acts. GLuke, Acts, gMatthew & gJohn do not agree on the reappearances, etc., etc. (other reasons to reject the veracity of bodily reappearances by gospel authors). That would take care of point 1 and point 3. More for point 3, the bodily appearances of the resurrected Jesus is very much inspired by gLuke and likely Acts.
I showed "John" very probably knew about gMark, then gLuke then Acts when writing his gospel over a long period: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html. So that would be fully dependent of their earlier works.

c) When John wrote the Christian part of Revelation around 90-95, resurrection of Christ was widely accepted and therefore John could featured a fictional Jesus appearing to him (as some pagan god). So that would be also fully dependent of what was accepted before. There are clues that the author of revelation knew about gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

d) The long TF in Josephus' Antiquities is, as a whole, a very late interpolation and therefore very dependent on the gospels and other earlier Christian writings and beliefs: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html

Added to that, I concluded the disciples never believed in any Jesus' resurrection: http://historical-jesus.info/8.html and never become Christians (because they had no reason, such as witnessing a resurrected Jesus): http://historical-jesus.info/8.html
And the Pauline epistles (without 1 Co 15:3-11), 'Hebrews' and 'James' do not have any physical reappearance(s) of the resurrected Jesus (not even a resurrected Jesus in 'James').

Put that together and the 50% for each of the 6 cases will become very close to zero, which is practically zero.
And I have evidence and arguments to support what I claim.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

The Bayes theorem is great when used properly, more so if each input can be exactly quantified. But in Carrier's use of this theorem, in most cases, he put his own opinions as inputs.
Furthermore, he assumed that if the odds are 1 on 2 in favor of historicity, then the complement 2 on 1 has to be in favor of Mythicism.
And in order to populate the Mythicism side, Carrier very often put some ridiculous, ill-evidenced and very weak arguments, such as God having a sperm bank in heaven, with at least one sperm of David, in order to incarnate his Son, without the need of a real woman.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

The Bayes theorem is great when used properly, more so if each input can be exactly quantified. But in Carrier's use of this theorem, in most cases, he put his own opinions as inputs.

Opinions or premises?

And in order to populate the Mythicism side, Carrier very often put some ridiculous, ill-evidenced and very weak arguments, such as God having a sperm bank in heaven, with at least one sperm of David, in order to incarnate his Son, without the need of a real woman.

Well, 'God having a sperm bank in heaven', with 'at least one sperm of David', in order 'to incarnate his Son', 'without the need of a real woman' does reflect aspects of the biblical texts.

[Peter Kirby]

The cynic would say that one man's 'evidence' is another man's 'opinion', especially on such matters.

I did not notice any specific quantitative data to support /any/ of the made up numbers in this thread.

(Posted from my phone....)

[Peter Kirby]

Fwiw, though, I don't defend Carrier's interpretations.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,
Tertullian is not contesting Jesus was born from a woman.
My explanation about "made" rather than "born" (from http://historical-jesus.info/18.html):
Why would Paul use 'ginomai' (become, be made, come; as also in Ro 1:3) instead of 'gennao' (born)? :
Probably to take into account an incarnation from a pre-existent heavenly being: if 'gennao' had been employed by Paul, that would imply Jesus started his life as a baby, rather than as a divine entity a very long time before.
Furthermore, 'ginomai' has been translated as "born" in cases involving human origin, as in:
- Plato's Republic, 8.553 "... When a son born ['genomenos' (root 'ginomai')] to the timocratic man at first emulates his father ..." (Paul Shorey's translation)
- Josephus' Ant., I, XIX, 8 "... and when she [Lea] had born ['genomenou' (root 'ginomai')] a son, and her husband ... reconciled to her, she named her son Reubel ..." (Wm. Whiston's translation)
- Josephus' Ant., VII, VII, 4 "... the child that was born ['genomenw' (root 'ginomai')] to David of the wife of Uriah ..." (Wm. Whiston's translation)
- Pausanias' Description of Greece, 1.5.2 "... Antiochus, one of the children of Heracles born ['genomenos' (root 'ginomai')] to him by Meda daughter of Phylas ..." (W.H.S. Jones & H.A. Ormerod's translation)

You do realise the gospels give various accounts of various mothers and various fathers to various James? None fully line up to be Jesus' sibling?

Are you confusing James, the son of Mary & Joseph with James, the brother of John, whose father is Zebedee? There are also other James in the gospels but that does not prevent one of these James to be the brother of Jesus, as in gMark 6:3.

1 Cor 9:5 -

"Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife/sister, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"
What there is specific to James??!

I do not see why you blame me for that:

5) Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19)

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2753&p=61290&hilit= ... 3A5#p61290

PS: you certainly make a point not to answer my questions, over and over again.

Cordially, Bernard