The Jesus Myth Part III

[honorentheos]

There's a certain irony in this form of argumentation. If the broad, consensus view stem believes he is contending with is Jesus was historical, arguing "Jesus was historical" is a statement most people would agree with which is axiomatic in stemlogic. The stemlogical form of the Linda problem seems to have another problem establishing that "A" should not equal, "Jesus is historical". I mean, assertion and agreement are the foundation of stemlogic based on what has been shared.

Hey, I'm going to win an argument using stemlogic.

A=Jesus is a historical figure.



Pep. Pep.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

There's a certain irony in this form of argumentation. If the broad, consensus view stem believes he is contending with is Jesus was historical, arguing "Jesus was historical" is a statement most people would agree with which is axiomatic in stemlogic. The stemlogical form of the Linda problem seems to have another problem establishing that "A" should not equal, "Jesus is historical". I mean, assertion and agreement are the foundation of stemlogic based on what has been shared.

Hey, I'm going to win an argument using stemlogic.

A=Jesus is a historical figure.

Pep. Pep.

The only thing you really can't do, is to believe Jesus is a myth if you want to live in reality.

Applying a Bayesian analysis to the subject I estimate the chance Jesus was a historical figure at 69%.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

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?

stem:
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.

I don’t agree that Mark is a myth. There is nothing about Mark that points to it being a myth in the sense that the Labors of Heracles are myths. The Gospel of John is a much better candidate for a myth than Mark, and still I would say that it has mythological tropes, not that it is a myth.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Stem, the problem as I see it is that the Linda problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether the contents of Mark are evidence that supports a historical Jesus. It isn’t an evidence evaluation technique. The way you are trying to apply it, the more points of evidence we find that support a historical Jesus, the less likely it is that we will find a historical Jesus.

It is true by definition that it is more likely that I own a suit than that I own black suit. And it is even less likely that I own a black suit and have a picture of me wearing the black suit. And it is even less likely that I own a black suit, have a picture of me in the black suit, and have a receipt for purchase of the black suit. That’s the logical principle that the Linda problem illustrates.

But the that principle says nothing about whether any of the facts are evidence of any other. If I show you the picture and the receipt, both are pieces of evidence that increase the likelihood that I own a black suit.

If you’re going to read the contents of Mark and evaluate whether the contents are evidence that the story in Mark is based on a real person, you have to rigorously evaluate what you should expect to find in Mark if the story is based on a real person and if it was not. Then you have to figure out which one Mark most closely resembles. The principle illustrated by the Linda problem simply doesn’t apply unless one of the two alternatives is a complete subset of the other.

[dastardly stem]

s

[Manetho]

Well, that was an irritatingly Mentalgymnast-esque response.

Look, your framing of the argument here is just serving to confirm what Res Ipsa and I said in earlier threads. You're so hung up on the implausible nature of the Gospel of Mark that you treat "Mark is a myth" as a default assumption, which leads you to treat historicity as an extra premise on top of it that is in need of proof (and for which the evidence doesn't meet your personal standard of proof). When Kishkumen, Symmachus, and I explain why that assumption is unwarranted, because of the nature of the culture these texts come from, you say it "seems like a stretch" or simply poke fun at it.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, you clearly haven't tried to understand, let alone understood, what people have been telling you. If you had understood, you would have been able to substantively respond rather than simply trying to ridicule what you clearly don't understand.

I disagree with my friends Mantheo's description of your last post as "Mentalgymnast-esque," as it is so far beyond even MG's worst non-responses.

Lots of folks have taken considerable time and effort to address your arguments thoroughly and thoughtfully. If your last post is their reward, why should they even bother?

[Res Ipsa]

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?

stem:
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.

I don’t agree that Mark is a myth. There is nothing about Mark that points to it being a myth in the sense that the Labors of Heracles are myths. The Gospel of John is a much better candidate for a myth than Mark, and still I would say that it has mythological tropes, not that it is a myth.

Well, that's part of my concern with Stem's use of "myth."

[dastardly stem]

Stem, you clearly haven't tried to understand, let alone understood, what people have been telling you. If you had understood, you would have been able to substantively respond rather than simply trying to ridicule what you clearly don't understand.

I disagree with my friends Mantheo's description of your last post as "Mentalgymnast-esque," as it is so far beyond even MG's worst non-responses.

Lots of folks have taken considerable time and effort to address your arguments thoroughly and thoughtfully. If your last post is their reward, why should they even bother?

I'm happy to respond more fully if that's what you want. I really did think this ran it's course. But since you seem interested, I'll lay it out.

You had said, in your last response:

the problem as I see it is that the Linda problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether the contents of Mark are evidence that supports a historical Jesus.

To be clear, this has absolutely zero to do with what I've been saying as per the Linda problem. I certainly have not said it has anything to do with whether the contents of Mark are evidence that supports a historical Jesus. Its a simple demonstration of logic. YOu seem to be conflating why I made the point as per the Linda problem with my application of the problem. That is to say, I think I told you, I had noticed people had been saying Mark is good evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. Ok. I thought. I mean I disagreed, of course, but it got me interested. If one were to only consider Mark, as per Jesus' story, and was presented with the dilemma, would such a one really think it was more likely Jesus was myth and a historical person or not. Every response I got suggested, its just more complicated and it's not easy to just answer the obvious (once one understands the Linda problem). That, my friend, was fascinating to me.

It isn’t an evidence evaluation technique.

I haven't said it is. Its a logical dilemma, of sorts. People are prone to want to conclude more than what's there. They want to say, yes, its more likely, based on Mark, that Jesus is myth and a historical person than just myth.

The way you are trying to apply it, the more points of evidence we find that support a historical Jesus, the less likely it is that we will find a historical Jesus.

That is simply untrue. There is no attempt, whatsoever, to say anything about whether there is evidence for Jesus. Its an absolutely simple question that no one really answered beyond attempts to read something into it, or answer by saying something like, "well, it's complicated...." Or "stem is pretending..." And then went down rabbit trails. I honestly can't tell if Honor simply poisoned the well of the discussion or if people are all intent to think it's got to be complicated and not easy. It's actually quite easy.

But the that principle says nothing about whether any of the facts are evidence of any other.

Precisely, given Mark, if one were to read it, particularly one who is unfamiliar with Christianity, and after reading it was asked.

Is it more likely this character Jesus is myth

or

Is it more likely this character Jesus is myth and is a historical person.

Every time I asked it, no one directly answered it, but everyone accused me of all sorts of silly things. I can't really take that as a considered effort to respond. The mocking and condescension ran its course. I figured we ought to drop it and move on.

If you’re going to read the contents of Mark and evaluate whether the contents are evidence that the story in Mark is based on a real person, you have to rigorously evaluate what you should expect to find in Mark if the story is based on a real person and if it was not. Then you have to figure out which one Mark most closely resembles. The principle illustrated by the Linda problem simply doesn’t apply unless one of the two alternatives is a complete subset of the other.

I mean. Fine. But this is obviously something other than the point I raised. If you are want to say that Mark is a good source of evidence for Jesus having lived. I mean fine. That disagreement I moved away from a long time ago. Why everyone continually misrepresented, or misunderstood the point I raised with the linda problem was extremely interesting.

I'd be happy to own up to any mistakes I made. I'll delete the offending post.

[dastardly stem]

Well, that's part of my concern with Stem's use of "myth."

I'd like to understand your concern, Res Ipsa. You accused me earlier, I asked for clarification and didn't get it. When I offered you the definition, you dropped it. Not sure what the problem was. What is your concern with the use of the term myth.

Kiskumen is saying Mark, as in the gospel of Mark, is not myth, in a technical sense. That's not really the question here, though. It's a question of if the character that healed the sick, raised the dead, magical fed thousands and the like, is that myth? That'd be the question, of course.