The Jesus Myth Part III

[dastardly stem]

It looks like there is equivocation in the use of the word “myth.” In number 1, what is the precise meaning of “myth?”

The precise same meaning as found in 2.

So what do you think is it more likely, given mark, Jesus is myth or Jesus is myth but also a real person.

[Res Ipsa]

It looks like there is equivocation in the use of the word “myth.” In number 1, what is the precise meaning of “myth?”

The precise same meaning as found in 2.

So what do you think is it more likely, given mark, Jesus is myth or Jesus is myth but also a real person.

Mark is irrelevant to your construction of the Linda problem. The Linda problem illustrates a principle of logic. Mark adds nothing to the principle. That you won’t define the critical term in your argument is a red flag.

So, I’m left with playing blind man’s bluff. I’ll reword your first hypothesis:

1. Mark is a story about a man named Jesus, which was either based on a real person named Jesus or was not.
2. Mark is a story about a man named Jesus, which was based on a real person named Jesus.
3. Mark is a story about a man named Jesus, which was not based on a person named Jesus.

The Linda problem illustrates that 1. Is more likely than 1 or 2, but tells nothing about whether 2 or 3 is more probable.

We are examining whether 2 or 3 is more likely. The Linda problem doesn’t tell us anything because it applies only to two sets, one of which is a subset of the other.

I don’t think it’s possible to use the Linda problem to tell us anything about the relative probabilities of 2 and 3 because they are mutually exclusive categories.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen:

Where is there a Jesus who is all myth and no real person? At what point was Jesus ever presented as someone who never lived a human existence?

That's not really part of this. Mark presents a myth, everyone agrees. Whether one really wants to say something like "well, Mark says this Jesus really lived" doesn't really play. That's called the homunculus screaming" re-read the description--marks claiming he really lived."

It's simply true that a conjunction is less likely than the base claim.

The answer to Kiskumens question is sometime in the late 19th century. Stem I am puzzled that you do not consider that point. People in the early centuries of the Christian era thought Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Roman soldiers. That belief was not based upon Mark.

By the way I do not agree that Mark is myth. I think it is possible that a few episodes were mythicized. I do not think that is a sure thing however.

[honorentheos]

Honor, you are insisting that when I say I'm dropping the Carrier mythisicit argument at this point (to make a different point) and then present the conjunction dilemma, that I must go back and infuse Carrier's mythicist argument back in. That's just silly. I've explained myself enough and it appears you'll insist an illogical move must be made anyway. Sounds like we've exhausted that to me.

I'm not entirely sure if you sincerely do not see the issue with your use of the Linda Problem or are knowingly avoiding the slight of hand involved in trying to frame it as "Jesus is a myth" being meaningful to this thread. Res clarified well that this is beyond overly simple and not meaningful. I could reframe it as, "Stem is a myth" and "Stem is a myth and a real person" and drop mic on any debate using your logic. Parisimony demands that one account for all of the evidence in the most simple way, not that one simplify the evidence to the argument one supports. Your use of the Linda problem is intentional deception or abuse of logic out of ignorance, but it's not used correctly as you propose it. It that exhausts you, well.

[honorentheos]

Kishkumen:



That's not really part of this. Mark presents a myth, everyone agrees. Whether one really wants to say something like "well, Mark says this Jesus really lived" doesn't really play. That's called the homunculus screaming" re-read the description--marks claiming he really lived."

It's simply true that a conjunction is less likely than the base claim.

The answer to Kiskumens question is sometime in the late 19th century. Stem I am puzzled that you do not consider that point. People in the early centuries of the Christian era thought Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Roman soldiers. That belief was not based upon Mark.

By the way I do not agree that Mark is myth. I think it is possible that a few episodes were mythicized. I do not think that is a sure thing however.

I'm fairly sure stem believes that Paul never intended the Jesus he preached to be construed as a historical person.

[honorentheos]

Kishkumen:

Where is there a Jesus who is all myth and no real person? At what point was Jesus ever presented as someone who never lived a human existence?

That's not really part of this. Mark presents a myth, everyone agrees. Whether one really wants to say something like "well, Mark says this Jesus really lived" doesn't really play. That's called the homunculus screaming" re-read the description--marks claiming he really lived."

It's simply true that a conjunction is less likely than the base claim.

If you invoke the Gospel of Mark and narrow the discussion down to just its content, using the Linda problem is a distraction. You more or less manifest the problem of one's intuition screaming, as you say, arguing it can be reduced to myth or myth+historic person. You remain resistant to the argument Mark contains historically relevant information that informs our understanding of the person Mark described. Some of those statements clearly speak to a mythological person. Others remarkably fit the geo-political environment of the time period claimed. There are numerous statements one must assign probability to when investigating what the Gospel of Mark has to say about Jesus, both as myth and as historic person. You can be simple, and say the whole thing must be accepted or dumped. Or one can be a bit more informed and seek out what remains as the mythological elements are pruned off.

Now, if you want to focus on the Sunday School Jesus being the only Jesus, then ok. I see you are locked into a logical trap that arises from being unable to frame the historical Jesus meaningfully and continue to be looping between magic Jesus and Brian.

[huckelberry]

The answer to Kiskumens question is sometime in the late 19th century. Stem I am puzzled that you do not consider that point. People in the early centuries of the Christian era thought Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Roman soldiers. That belief was not based upon Mark.

By the way I do not agree that Mark is myth. I think it is possible that a few episodes were mythicized. I do not think that is a sure thing however.

I'm fairly sure stem believes that Paul never intended the Jesus he preached to be construed as a historical person.

I gather the idea is that Peter and James taught a angel savior in heaven(descended from a higher to lower heaven and then returned to the higher) and Paul saw things the same way . For the time 30 to 70 ad Christians were taught and believed an angel died in heaven and then returned to the higher heavens and it was important that people believed that. Then sometime between 65 and 75 ad Mark was written and invented a Jewish preacher who was killed by Romans so Christians , who have never been known as an argumentative group, said Oh Ok sounds good to me .

[honorentheos]

I'm fairly sure stem believes that Paul never intended the Jesus he preached to be construed as a historical person.

I gather the idea is that Peter and James taught a angel savior in heaven(descended from a higher to lower heaven and then returned to the higher) and Paul saw things the same way . For the time 30 to 70 ad Christians were taught and believed an angel died in heaven and then returned to the higher heavens and it was important that people believed that. Then sometime between 65 and 75 ad Mark was written and invented a Jewish preacher who was killed by Romans so Christians , who have never been known as an argumentative group, said Oh Ok sounds good to me .

That's a radical argument that, as noted to stem, ignores the issues with the writings on Jesus fitting a particular context while asserting Paul's writings reference a being of spirit or being brothers in cause rather than by blood that informed the story of Jesus rather than Paul's writings being informed by what came before his conversion event from Judaism. I think someone making that claim is pushing uphill. That folk like stem and apparently Carrier do so by isolating the argument to scripture-only, ignoring the external historical context, makes it a problematic one that relies heavily on an argument against consensus - a sort of anti-appeal to authority. I suppose the appeal in seeing the value in the account as the embodiment of an idea could readily align with a modern liberal Christianity, and the investigation of Jesus as a historical person undermining that position more than the view Jesus is an idea-first.

[dastardly stem]

The precise same meaning as found in 2.

So what do you think is it more likely, given mark, Jesus is myth or Jesus is myth but also a real person.

Mark is irrelevant to your construction of the Linda problem. The Linda problem illustrates a principle of logic. Mark adds nothing to the principle. That you won’t define the critical term in your argument is a red flag.

So, I’m left with playing blind man’s bluff. I’ll reword your first hypothesis:

1. Mark is a story about a man named Jesus, which was either based on a real person named Jesus or was not.
2. Mark is a story about a man named Jesus, which was based on a real person named Jesus.
3. Mark is a story about a man named Jesus, which was not based on a person named Jesus.

The Linda problem illustrates that 1. Is more likely than 1 or 2, but tells nothing about whether 2 or 3 is more probable.

We are examining whether 2 or 3 is more likely. The Linda problem doesn’t tell us anything because it applies only to two sets, one of which is a subset of the other.

I don’t think it’s possible to use the Linda problem to tell us anything about the relative probabilities of 2 and 3 because they are mutually exclusive categories.

Hey res ipsa, thanks for commenting.

It appears you're relying on honors rendition of my point and not my point. Mark is completely necessary here because others were saying it's good evidence for Jesus historicity.
So my point is let's drop any mythicist argument, which I've clarified dozens of times now.. there is no 3. It's either is Jesus myth or myth plus historic person.

There's no 3. But it's good to see you agree 1 is more likely.
Someone else (honor, I believe changed what I was saying and included a number 3). I suppose after saying it 12 or so times it may be heard by someone. Bit not feeling any hope on that. When people are settled on myth plus a real person in history they are intent only to see what they want to see.

I figured you knew the definition of myth, so I thought by accusing me of equivocation you thought I was using two meanings. We can use the dictionary definition because as long as there's consistency it's not real important what we mean as it pertains to the dilemma.

traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Certainly wasn't trying to not define it for you. Just figured you understood and needed to know I'm using the term in one way, consistently. I haven't seen you explain how I've equivocation.

Have a good one. I've been in and out using my phone and perhaps haven't fully responded as a result.

[dastardly stem]

Interesting conversation. Certainly have some ideas to share will do so when I get more time. For some reason I stuffed in that reply to res ipsa quickly, but I think it works. For some reason I made a point and everyone else changed my point and tried to reinject cariers mythicist argument. I mean fine in a sense but everyone jumped on something I didn't say. It was interesting as I said because it was an interesting practice of logic.

I think everyone agrees A + B is less probable than A. Interesting those who assume hisotiricty can't seem to say that as it applies to Jesus. They want to add to my example something else and can't just leave well enough alone, I guess. No harm no foul as I see it. But interesting.