The Jesus Myth Part III

[huckelberry]

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 .

I wrote the phrase "never been known as an argumentative group" with extreme irony intended. I have remained puzzled as to why what I am pointing to gets zero traction in this discussion. Perhaps after enough sitting and nodding in LDS chapels the phrase ,never been known as an argumentative groups, gets read as a simple observation instead of comic irony.

[Res Ipsa]

I am sorry stem is bowing out. Thanks for posting these threads, stem. I do enjoy them.

Thanks, Kishkumen. THat's really nice of you to say. I really enjoyed the threads. And I think there is plenty more to consider, so maybe I'd come back to it and start a new thread in time. This one soured on me, for sure. I'd love to keep the conversation going, but, as Honor's last post demonstrates (and perhaps my last post too.), there is an adamant effort to misunderstand each other, talk past each other, and condescend on weird-ass bases (anyone who thinks the pizza example or switching around the historical and myth was somehow a thoughtful demonstration clearly is not paying attention to the other side). And, no doubt, I was not helping the situation and couldn't see how to get out of it.

I asked myself, are we more likely to listen to each other, consider the ideas and respond without condescension and sarcasm? Or is it more likely, we'd misrepresent and misunderstand then offer sniping condescension in each post? The answer was clear.

Stem, I would love to understand what your point was in introducing the Linda problem into the discussion. It's clear that you see some important connection between the fact that some folks find evidence of a historical Jesus in Mark and the Linda problem. But, even after carefully reading everything you wrote and trying to understand your point, I still have no idea what you think that important connection is. The point of both of the examples I referred to was that the principle the Linda problem illustrates is true no matter what is put in the preamble. The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble. The only purpose of the preamble is to trick our brains.

If you can't succinctly explain why the Linda problem is relevant to this discussion, maybe you should rethink the point you were trying to make. As I've explained a few times, people are not resisting the actual Linda problem. They are arguing against your application of the problem in this context. If you can't figure out how to "get out of it," the best place to start is to rethink your position. Trying out an argument that happens not to work isn't some kind of sin –– we all do it from time to time. But blaming your audience for misunderstanding something you aren't able to explain doesn't advance anything.

If I understood your position and felt there was a better way for you to present it, I would do that. I literally cannot figure out a way to phrase or explain whatever your argument is in a way that makes sense.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks, Kishkumen. THat's really nice of you to say. I really enjoyed the threads. And I think there is plenty more to consider, so maybe I'd come back to it and start a new thread in time. This one soured on me, for sure. I'd love to keep the conversation going, but, as Honor's last post demonstrates (and perhaps my last post too.), there is an adamant effort to misunderstand each other, talk past each other, and condescend on weird-ass bases (anyone who thinks the pizza example or switching around the historical and myth was somehow a thoughtful demonstration clearly is not paying attention to the other side). And, no doubt, I was not helping the situation and couldn't see how to get out of it.

I asked myself, are we more likely to listen to each other, consider the ideas and respond without condescension and sarcasm? Or is it more likely, we'd misrepresent and misunderstand then offer sniping condescension in each post? The answer was clear.

Stem, I would love to understand what your point was in introducing the Linda problem into the discussion. It's clear that you see some important connection between the fact that some folks find evidence of a historical Jesus in Mark and the Linda problem. But, even after carefully reading everything you wrote and trying to understand your point, I still have no idea what you think that important connection is. The point of both of the examples I referred to was that the principle the Linda problem illustrates is true no matter what is put in the preamble. The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble. The only purpose of the preamble is to trick our brains.

If you can't succinctly explain why the Linda problem is relevant to this discussion, maybe you should rethink the point you were trying to make. As I've explained a few times, people are not resisting the actual Linda problem. They are arguing against your application of the problem in this context. If you can't figure out how to "get out of it," the best place to start is to rethink your position. Trying out an argument that happens not to work isn't some kind of sin –– we all do it from time to time. But blaming your audience for misunderstanding something you aren't able to explain doesn't advance anything.

If I understood your position and felt there was a better way for you to present it, I would do that. I literally cannot figure out a way to phrase or explain whatever your argument is in a way that makes sense.

Alright RI, I'll try again. I've told you this is no argument, but here it appears you are insistent that I'm making an argument. As I've said my mention of the conjunction dilemma was simply a thought on logic that seemingly turned into a bit of an exercise in logic. It is odd you think I can't succinctly say that after I've pointed that out already. I think your frustration continues because you want me to fit the thought into an argument for mythicism or against historicism. But, not an argument, just a thought after being told Mark is good evidence for Jesus without good explanation.

You say" it's clear that you see some important connection between the fact that some folks find evidence of a historical Jesus in Mark and the Linda problem. But, even after carefully reading everything you wrote and trying to understand your point, I still have no idea what you think that important connection is."

Where'd you get his? I've basically said the opposite. There's no important connection between people's claimed evidence and the Linda problem other than I mentioned the problem after people claimed evidence without explanation, or without sufficient explanation.

"The point of both of the examples I referred to was that the principle the Linda problem illustrates is true no matter what is put in the preamble. The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble. The only purpose of the preamble is to trick our brains."

No. Jesus is not more likely a pizza than a pepperoni pizza. If you think so please demonstrate it. There's There's little more to it. And there's more to the dilemma than someone outright suggesting the conjunction is more likely.

You said, "
. If you can't figure out how to "get out of it," the best place to start is to rethink your position. "

That feels like a blatant misuse of my "can't get out of it" comment. I was suggesting we can't seem to get out of the continued misreading and rudeness with each other.

I appreciate the effort. The continued statements about i" absolutely don't understandc only to be shown you're wrong then to state it again after dismissing everything else said was going nowhere. It was interesting to watch posters try and turn this little thought into something. Just a thought. I've been reading some related material and might start a new thread on it. Very interesting stuff. But I know some are not going to want to engage the material. I'll do my best to keep it interesting anyway.

Happy new year.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, I would love to understand what your point was in introducing the Linda problem into the discussion. It's clear that you see some important connection between the fact that some folks find evidence of a historical Jesus in Mark and the Linda problem. But, even after carefully reading everything you wrote and trying to understand your point, I still have no idea what you think that important connection is. The point of both of the examples I referred to was that the principle the Linda problem illustrates is true no matter what is put in the preamble. The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble. The only purpose of the preamble is to trick our brains.

If you can't succinctly explain why the Linda problem is relevant to this discussion, maybe you should rethink the point you were trying to make. As I've explained a few times, people are not resisting the actual Linda problem. They are arguing against your application of the problem in this context. If you can't figure out how to "get out of it," the best place to start is to rethink your position. Trying out an argument that happens not to work isn't some kind of sin –– we all do it from time to time. But blaming your audience for misunderstanding something you aren't able to explain doesn't advance anything.

If I understood your position and felt there was a better way for you to present it, I would do that. I literally cannot figure out a way to phrase or explain whatever your argument is in a way that makes sense.

Alright RI, I'll try again. I've told you this is no argument, but here it appears you are insistent that I'm making an argument. As I've said my mention of the conjunction dilemma was simply a thought on logic that seemingly turned into a bit of an exercise in logic. It is odd you think I can't succinctly say that after I've pointed that out already. I think your frustration continues because you want me to fit the thought into an argument for mythicism or against historicism. But, not an argument, just a thought after being told Mark is good evidence for Jesus without good explanation.

I apologize for being so frustrating. I use "argument" in the broadest of senses: if there's is any form of "therefore", express or implied, in a string of statements, I use the term "argument."

I don't want anything other than to understand whether the fact that you keep mentioning the "conjunction dilemma" together with "being told Mark is good evidence for Jesus without good explanation" means that you see some relevance of one to the other. And if you do see some relevance, I want to understand what it is. If you don't think the "conjunction dilemma" is relevant in any way to what was presented to you about Mark as evidence for a historical Jesus, then we're in agreement and we've spent a remarkable volume of words getting there.

You say" it's clear that you see some important connection between the fact that some folks find evidence of a historical Jesus in Mark and the Linda problem. But, even after carefully reading everything you wrote and trying to understand your point, I still have no idea what you think that important connection is."

Where'd you get his? I've basically said the opposite. There's no important connection between people's claimed evidence and the Linda problem other than I mentioned the problem after people claimed evidence without explanation, or without sufficient explanation.

Where did I get that? From you! You introduced the conjunction dilemma at the end of long post in which you disputed a number of arguments people had made about evidence they felt supported a historical Jesus. viewtopic.php?p=2757951#p2757951 You didn't present it as some random thought that had no relevance to the rest of your post. Then you repeatedly mischaracterized people's puzzled reaction to what we thought was an irrelevant concept as a denial of something that we all understand is definitionally true. Then, you treated your own mischaracterization of what people were saying as being interesting or meaningful in some kind of way.

If it was just a random thought that you found interesting but had no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion, it would have been very easy to say so pages ago. But, while you kept declaring that each person who suggested what the connection was was wrong, you just kept insinuating that the conjunction dilemma had some relevance without ever explaining why you found it relevant.

From your original post that raised the conjunction dilemma:

I'll end here with the conjunction fallacy. Is it more reasonable to assume Jesus, the mythologized character we find in any writing describing him, was myth or was a real person? The two options under consideration:

1. There was a mythologized character Jesus.

2. There as a mythologized character Jesus, who also, we must assume, have been a real historical person not necessarily resembling anything found in his mythology.
...

Quoted a little more than I needed to. But, it works to the point.

To what point?

From subsequent posts:

The use of the Linda problem goes like this. Marks story is like the preamble for Linda. Then we consider: Is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth or is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth and there is a real person behind the myth? It's a conjunction fallacy to think the added proposition is more likely than the other.

Given that no one in the thread had taken the described position, what is the point.

I'm suggesting if we take Mark as the story we see myth. Adding "and he's a real person" is the conjunction. Leaving it as "myth" [period]. Is the higher likelihood.

That's a pretty clear connection you are making.

That's a complete misunderstanding of the Linda problem as I applied it. I said if Carrier's mythicist argument doesn't work, if we can ignore it then the situation remains that the burden for a real life Jesus still needs to be resolved. So, no. Indeed, the point raised on the Linda problem is an interesting one, but it likely won't hit those who are feeling settled on our overall question.

The last sentence implies that the conjunction dilemma has relevance that you can see, but others who are settled on the question will miss. Why is the point relevant, let alone interesting? What exactly is the point?

Based on Mark as preamble it simply is more likely Jesus is myth than Jesus is myth plus was a real person. That's simply how the conjunction dilemma works. Everyone wants the homunculous who's shouting in our heads to be right.

Since no one in the thread ever argued that A+B was more probable than A, what is the point?

No, the whole point is its more probable that Jesus is myth, given Mark, then it is to say Jesus is myth and was a historical person. I know. I can hear you say again, but you're ignoring the the argument from history that situates the figure in Mark intoa historical context. But in so doing you are simply doing as Gould and Pinker caution against...your homunculus has tricked you.

By this point, it is crystal clear that you are, despite your most recent protestations, making an argument. And you are clearly arguing that that the conjunction dilemma is relevant to others' claims that Mark contains evidence of a historical Jesus. It's a terrible argument, but it's still an argument that depends on some meaningful connection between Mark as evidence and the conjunction dilemma.

Is Jesus myth

Or

Is Jesus myth and a historical person.

You keep thinking myth has something to do with the question of whether Jesus is a historical person. That's the conjunction you add and I don't. Remember on this point I'm dropping the myth only argument for a very specific reason you haven't caught onto. I mean at all. You keep dancing around trying to force something onto the point I raised all because you missed the point I raised.

And this is where it becomes fairly clear that your argument is based upon the completely arbitrary phrasing you chose to use. If, as you say here, "myth" doesn't tell us anything about whether Jesus was a historical figure, then both of the following are true:

Jesus is a myth based on a real person cannot be more probable than Jesus is a myth; and
Jesus is a myth not based on a real person cannot be more probable than Jesus is a myth.

Your decision to focus only on the first and to dismiss the second is wholly arbitrary. Both are definitionally true, and you have no rational basis for selecting one over the other, other than a homunculus inside your brain. It shows that, whatever you thought the point was, it's neither valid nor relevant to the topic being discussed.

I could go on, but I think the above is sufficient to show that (1) you've been making an argument about the conjunction dilemma and (2) the argument is premised on some relevance of the dilemma to the arguments people were making about Mark providing evidence of a historical Jesus.

"The point of both of the examples I referred to was that the principle the Linda problem illustrates is true no matter what is put in the preamble. The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble. The only purpose of the preamble is to trick our brains."

No. Jesus is not more likely a pizza than a pepperoni pizza. If you think so please demonstrate it. There's There's little more to it. And there's more to the dilemma than someone outright suggesting the conjunction is more likely.

You're right. When I described the conjunction dilemma, I was ignoring the extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%. What I should have said was "The probability of A+B can never exceed the probability of A, regardless of what is said in the preamble." There's no more to it than that -- it's just math. It doesn't matter what A, B and C are or what else is put in the preamble. So you're right that my technical wording of the problem was in error, but the error has no bearing on my point.

You said, "
. If you can't figure out how to "get out of it," the best place to start is to rethink your position. "

That feels like a blatant misuse of my "can't get out of it" comment. I was suggesting we can't seem to get out of the continued misreading and rudeness with each other.

If it was a misuse of what you meant, it wasn't intentional.

I appreciate the effort. The continued statements about i" absolutely don't understandc only to be shown you're wrong then to state it again after dismissing everything else said was going nowhere. It was interesting to watch posters try and turn this little thought into something. Just a thought. I've been reading some related material and might start a new thread on it. Very interesting stuff. But I know some are not going to want to engage the material. I'll do my best to keep it interesting anyway.

I don't understand what you are saying here at all. I've tried very hard to take your words seriously and not dismiss them. My impression, right or wrong, is that you have been continually claiming, both expressly and by insinuation, that the conjunction dilemma has some relevance to what was being discussed when you first raised it, but are unwilling or unable to articulate what that connection is. You may consider it to have been "just a thought" today, but that doesn't change what you've done throughout the thread.

So, is your position that the conjunction dilemma has no relevance whatsoever to the arguments in this thread asserting that Mark provides evidence for a historical Jesus? If that's not your position, what is the relevance?

Happy new year.

Same to you.

[dastardly stem]

I apologize for being so frustrating. I use "argument" in the broadest of senses: if there's is any form of "therefore", express or implied, in a string of statements, I use the term "argument."

What therefore?

I don't want anything other than to understand whether the fact that you keep mentioning the "conjunction dilemma" together with "being told Mark is good evidence for Jesus without good explanation" means that you see some relevance of one to the other. [/quote]

What more can I say And? I explained this in the very post you're responding to,, after already having explained it.

And if you do see some relevance, I want to understand what it is. If you don't think the "conjunction dilemma" is relevant in any way to what was presented to you about Mark as evidence for a historical Jesus, then we're in agreement and we've spent a remarkable volume of words getting there.

What is presented to me as evidence?

Where did I get that? From you! You introduced the conjunction dilemma at the end of long post in which you disputed a number of arguments people had made about evidence they felt supported a historical Jesus. viewtopic.php?p=2757951#p2757951 You didn't present it as some random thought that had no relevance to the rest of your post. Then you repeatedly mischaracterized people's puzzled reaction to what we thought was an irrelevant concept as a denial of something that we all understand is definitionally true. Then, you treated your own mischaracterization of what people were saying as being interesting or meaningful in some kind of way.

I appended at the end of a long post after I said even if the mythicist argument is wrong or faulty. Meaning aside from it, let's consider. I admit I didn't make that as clear as I should have and subsequently I said that over and over again in responses clarifying, this is but an appended thought on logic.

If it was just a random thought that you found interesting but had no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion, it would have been very easy to say so pages ago. But, while you kept declaring that each person who suggested what the connection was was wrong, you just kept insinuating that the conjunction dilemma had some relevance without ever explaining why you found it relevant.

Why do you say that? I've explained it dozens of times. You keep saying that I haven't explained then I explain and you complain again I did not explain it. This is why I question whether you're trying to understand at all.

From your original post that raised the conjunction dilemma:

I'll end here with the conjunction fallacy. Is it more reasonable to assume Jesus, the mythologized character we find in any writing describing him, was myth or was a real person? The two options under consideration:

1. There was a mythologized character Jesus.

2. There as a mythologized character Jesus, who also, we must assume, have been a real historical person not necessarily resembling anything found in his mythology.
...

Quoted a little more than I needed to. But, it works to the point.

To what point?

To consider a thought on logic.

From subsequent posts:

The use of the Linda problem goes like this. Marks story is like the preamble for Linda. Then we consider: Is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth or is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth and there is a real person behind the myth? It's a conjunction fallacy to think the added proposition is more likely than the other.

Given that no one in the thread had taken the described position, what is the point.

Explained over and over...and over. This is very tedious. The homunculus kept showing up questioning the thought, for some reason and refusing to acknowledge the obvious. Agreed...you did, after many pages. You say you agreed the whole time. I didn't see such agreement. Fine. I'm happy to think youbagrred the whole time.

That's a pretty clear connection you are making.

Odd. You keep saying I haven't explained a connection. Now you say it's clear. But then the next sentence you say...

The last sentence implies that the conjunction dilemma has relevance that you can see, but others who are settled on the question will miss. Why is the point relevant, let alone interesting? What exactly is the point?

Of the conjunction dilemma? It suggests that people will feel tempted to think the conjunction is more probable. As Gould indicates even though we know it's not we really want to appeal back to the explanation and say "see? It's suggesting the conjunction." Nearly every response to me neglected to admit the conjunction is less probable and yet continued to argue the preamble tends to suggest he was real. That was interesting. Mind you...I really didn't expect response to come as they did. I figured everyone would respond with something like..."yea...a conjunction is less probable...so?" But nah...no one responded as such until you did after a few pages.

Since no one in the thread ever argued that A+B was more probable than A, what is the point?

The point of what? The initial interdiction of the dilemma? Or the continued back and forth wherein no one straight agreed with the example? I didn't introduce it thinking anyone would try and argue A+B is more likely. What's the point of every response you offered until you said it was more likely given Jesus was myth rather than myth and a real person?

By this point, it is crystal clear that you are, despite your most recent protestations, making an argument. And you are clearly arguing that that the conjunction dilemma is relevant to others' claims that Mark contains evidence of a historical Jesus. It's a terrible argument, but it's still an argument that depends on some meaningful connection between Mark as evidence and the conjunction dilemma.

Making an argument when I introduced the thought? Let's keep this straight. Adding quotes to try and reframe the situation isn't helpful. I did not introduce the dilemma as an argument. Since as responses came I offered my observations which included as it were arguments in the broad sense to demonstrate or explain what I was seeing.

And this is where it becomes fairly clear that your argument is based upon the completely arbitrary phrasing you chose to use. If, as you say here, "myth" doesn't tell us anything about whether Jesus was a historical figure, then both of the following are true:

Jesus is a myth based on a real person cannot be more probable than Jesus is a myth; and
Jesus is a myth not based on a real person cannot be more probable than Jesus is a myth.

So? Do you think there's something unarbitrary about the Linda problem? Is it more probable that Linda is a bank teller or a feminist? It is no more probable she is a feminist bank teller than a bank teller that's a feminist.

Your decision to focus only on the first and to dismiss the second is wholly arbitrary. Both are definitionally true, and you have no rational basis for selecting one over the other, other than a homunculus inside your brain. It shows that, whatever you thought the point was, it's neither valid nor relevant to the topic being discussed.

Fine. I mean if you're that obtuse about it, I'm cool. There's no reason other than arbitrary to say Linda's a bank teller rather than a feminist.

I could go on, but I think the above is sufficient to show that (1) you've been making an argument about the conjunction dilemma and (2) the argument is premised on some relevance of the dilemma to the arguments people were making about Mark providing evidence of a historical Jesus.

Not exactly. I really thought people would be like"yea...so what?" Not avoiding stating the obvious. The claims of evidence seemed empty, for sure.

You're right. When I described the conjunction dilemma, I was ignoring the extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%. What I should have said was "The probability of A+B can never exceed the probability of A, regardless of what is said in the preamble." There's no more to it than that -- it's just math. It doesn't matter what A, B and C are or what else is put in the preamble. So you're right that my technical wording of the problem was in error, but the error has no bearing on my point.

This is why I figured you were getting it pages ago...then it seemed to all slip away in the next post.

If it was a misuse of what you meant, it wasn't intentional.

OK. Np.

I don't understand what you are saying here at all. I've tried very hard to take your words seriously and not dismiss them. My impression, right or wrong, is that you have been continually claiming, both expressly and by insinuation, that the conjunction dilemma has some relevance to what was being discussed when you first raised it, but are unwilling or unable to articulate what that connection is. You may consider it to have been "just a thought" today, but that doesn't change what you've done throughout the thread.

So, is your position that the conjunction dilemma has no relevance whatsoever to the arguments in this thread asserting that Mark provides evidence for a historical Jesus? If that's not your position, what is the relevance?

As introduced it was not relevant in the sense it later seemed relevant. I introduced it because the explanations were weak at best as to why Mark is evidence. Every point raised showed clearly to me Jesus was as likely not historical as historical. I wondered about people's logic or grasp thereof. As I said I figured people would be like "yea...so?"

It's interesting we continue back and forth repeating ourselves and we keep continuing it. I really saw all of this already said pages ago. We're tediously replaying the conversation for a reason you really want. I don't know why...but, meh...it's OK. Happy to do it if you are.

[honorentheos]

Stem -

The very first response to your posting about the Linda Problem came from Res. He questioned its value to the discussion. He specifically asked you why you framed the statements you chose to be the base and the conjunction over others, and if that wasn't faking an argument?
viewtopic.php?p=2757996#p2757996

You responded that if we used the Gospel of Mark as a preamble to the Linda Problem, then we should all assume the base is, "Jesus is a myth" which makes it more likely than the conjunction, "Jesus is a myth and a historical person".
viewtopic.php?p=2758025#p2758025

Res asked for clarification on why you chose to arrange the statements as you did since, if pointing out trivial logic for fun was the point, the arrangement was a choice that should be examined.
viewtopic.php?p=2758031#p2758031

You then tell us why you chose to introduce the Linda Problem to the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=2758034#p2758034

I'm suggesting if we take Mark as the story we see myth. Adding "and he's a real person" is the conjunction. Leaving it as "myth" [period]. Is the higher likelihood.

At that point, I joined to argue you were misrepresenting your own position as a base argument in the thread when it was legitimately a conjunction. That if we are in fact discussing the use of the Gospel of Mark to evaluate the probability of statements then you were arguing in the thread, dismissively, that evidence for historicity could very easily be the work of later authors attempting to insert Jesus in a geo-political context present in Mark that fit the timeframe claimed in what would be a generational past for the author. I argued then it made your position a conjunction itself but should have argued it makes your own position in the discussion an even longer conjunction, "Jesus is a myth and this Jesus fits the claimed geo-political context, but the historical contextual evidence in the text is the work of later authors rather than evidence for his being a historical person."
viewtopic.php?p=2758054#p2758054

It's even less probable this is the case than that Jesus as presented is a myth but based on a historical person.

I'll also point out I presented it this way as a response to your dismissal of this post prior to your having introduced the Linda Problem, combining your dismissal into your claims about how you were framing the statements.
viewtopic.php?p=2757951#p2757951

Your representation of this is wildly incorrect. The Linda Problem's introduction having trivial value to the discussion was the first thing questioned. You then argued it wasn't being presented purely as a fun little trivial logic problem, but that it was meant to support the higher probability of the statement "Jesus is a myth" when examining the Gospel of Mark. You introduced it in defense of the "Jesus is a myth only" position.

The point of the problem was to show how intuition about evidence causes people to make bad logical assessments in certain contexts. Once we actually begin to argue from evidence, as you admitted you were doing before anyone but Res responded, then the evidence demands examination.

Jesus is a pizza IS more probable than Jesus is a pepperoni pizza as a pure statement of logic. Jumping to the dismissal of this basic, trivial point is arguing the evidence matters to such a degree introducing a purely logical example obviously detached from evidence to the discussion is almost insulting to the reader. Funny how that works.

[honorentheos]

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 .

I wrote the phrase "never been known as an argumentative group" with extreme irony intended. I have remained puzzled as to why what I am pointing to gets zero traction in this discussion. Perhaps after enough sitting and nodding in LDS chapels the phrase ,never been known as an argumentative groups, gets read as a simple observation instead of comic irony.

In one of the previous threads I made the comment that it was likely Jesus was viewed as politically opposed to Roman to a sufficient enough degree he was publicly crucified. As I recall, both you and Physics Guy found that to be an argument missing from the gospels to which I responded the method of execution combined with an understanding of the historical context in which the narrative is positioned give this a better probability than that Jesus was not politically outspoken and threatening to Rome. I laid this out in more detail in this thread, here:
viewtopic.php?p=2757739#p2757739

It's critical to understand how much of a figurehead for Rome the Herodians were, and their fit in the story around John the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus is meaningful. The religious elite, supportive of Herodian rule, are the primary opponents of Jesus in the gospel narratives even in their current forms. The progression of the gospels chronologically from Mark to John show a softening towards Rome and hardening towards the Jews, reflective the Romanizing of the messages of Christianity and its ultimate conquest of the Empire contributing to its destruction.

The burning of Rome in July 64 CE being blamed on the Christians is contextualized by Publius Cornelius Tacitus as an attempt by Nero to use an unpopular group to shift blame from himself since many believed he caused the fires to make way for his own building projects. Tacitus doesn't claim Nero started the fire, nor that the Christians did, but he does claim the Christians were hated for apparent "abominations" and that their origin was a "mischievous superstition" requiring suppression when it first appeared. His disgust with Rome isn't hidden, suggesting it to be exactly the cesspool where Christianity might find footing.

The text in full:

“But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor (Nero) and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration (burning of Rome in 64 AD) was the result of an order (given by Nero). Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called “Chrestians” by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all (Christians) who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” Tacitus, Annals, 15.44

During this same time as Tacitus is writing of in Jerusalem, Jewish resentment of Rome was hot enough Romans were being attacked by rebels while the populace resisted taxation to which the Romans responded with plundering the temple of its wealth and capturing Jewish leaders. This set off the four year Jewish Revolt that was fought by two future emperors of Rome - Vespasian who left the fight after Nero's death to assume the position of Emperor of Rome, and Titus his son who ended the war in victory for Rome in 70 CE.

It isn't clear to me what you wish to have discussed, then, since it seems you wish to use the idea that the Christians were persecuted for being radicals but rejected the argument they were politically rebellious against Rome.

[dastardly stem]

Stem -

The very first response to your posting about the Linda Problem came from Res. He questioned its value to the discussion. He specifically asked you why you framed the statements you chose to be the base and the conjunction over others, and if that wasn't faking an argument?
viewtopic.php?p=2757996#p2757996

You responded that if we used the Gospel of Mark as a preamble to the Linda Problem, then we should all assume the base is, "Jesus is a myth" which makes it more likely than the conjunction, "Jesus is a myth and a historical person".
viewtopic.php?p=2758025#p2758025

Res asked for clarification on why you chose to arrange the statements as you did since, if pointing out trivial logic for fun was the point, the arrangement was a choice that should be examined.
viewtopic.php?p=2758031#p2758031

You then tell us why you chose to introduce the Linda Problem to the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=2758034#p2758034

I'm suggesting if we take Mark as the story we see myth. Adding "and he's a real person" is the conjunction. Leaving it as "myth" [period]. Is the higher likelihood.

At that point, I joined to argue you were misrepresenting your own position as a base argument in the thread when it was legitimately a conjunction. That if we are in fact discussing the use of the Gospel of Mark to evaluate the probability of statements then you were arguing in the thread, dismissively, that evidence for historicity could very easily be the work of later authors attempting to insert Jesus in a geo-political context present in Mark that fit the timeframe claimed in what would be a generational past for the author. I argued then it made your position a conjunction itself but should have argued it makes your own position in the discussion an even longer conjunction, "Jesus is a myth and this Jesus fits the claimed geo-political context, but the historical contextual evidence in the text is the work of later authors rather than evidence for his being a historical person."
viewtopic.php?p=2758054#p2758054

It's even less probable this is the case than that Jesus as presented is a myth but based on a historical person.

I'll also point out I presented it this way as a response to your dismissal of this post prior to your having introduced the Linda Problem, combining your dismissal into your claims about how you were framing the statements.
viewtopic.php?p=2757951#p2757951

Your representation of this is wildly incorrect. The Linda Problem's introduction having trivial value to the discussion was the first thing questioned. You then argued it wasn't being presented purely as a fun little trivial logic problem, but that it was meant to support the higher probability of the statement "Jesus is a myth" when examining the Gospel of Mark. You introduced it in defense of the "Jesus is a myth only" position.

I'll disagree with your assumption about why I did what I did. I did it as explained to res ipsa in my initial response to him:

The Linda problem isn't intended as applied here to compare the two hypotheses. The use of the Linda problem goes like this. Marks story is like the preamble for Linda. Then we consider: Is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth or is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth and there is a real person behind the myth? It's a conjunction fallacy to think the added proposition is more likely

I can appreciate there was a lack of clarity, but I assure you, as I suggested, this was not in consideration of the myth position held by Carrier. It was a simple thought on logic not intended to compare the two hypotheses Res Ipsa was after.

The point of the problem was to show how intuition about evidence causes people to make bad logical assessments in certain contexts. Once we actually begin to argue from evidence, as you admitted you were doing before anyone but Res responded, then the evidence demands examination.

What evidence was I arguing from? I posed a simple thought on logic. I tried to clarify that's what it was. And yes, it didn't matter the conjunction per se.

Jesus is a pizza IS more probable than Jesus is a pepperoni pizza as a pure statement of logic. Jumping to the dismissal of this basic, trivial point is arguing the evidence matters to such a degree introducing a purely logical example obviously detached from evidence to the discussion is almost insulting to the reader. Funny how that works.

If youbdont mind, please give the probability of Jesus being a pizza and Jesus being a pepperoni pizza. I thought res already dropped that absurdity. I would assume the probability is the same for each of those contentions.

[honorentheos]

Jesus is a pizza IS more probable than Jesus is a pepperoni pizza as a pure statement of logic. Jumping to the dismissal of this basic, trivial point is arguing the evidence matters to such a degree introducing a purely logical example obviously detached from evidence to the discussion is almost insulting to the reader. Funny how that works.

If youbdont mind, please give the probability of Jesus being a pizza and Jesus being a pepperoni pizza. I thought res already dropped that absurdity. I would assume the probability is the same for each of those contentions.

The proposition is combining set theory with the logic of the Linda Problem. Pizza is a set containing different subsets including pepperoni pizza. All pepperoni pizzas are contained within the set of "pizza" but not all pizzas are contained in the subset of pepperoni pizza.

If "X" were a pepperoni pizza, it would also be a pizza. But there are numerous other ways "X" could be a pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. Based purely on logic and set theory, it is more probable "X" is a pizza than it is that "X" is a specific subset of pizza, in this case a pepperoni pizza.

Inserting any object in for "X" doesn't change this logic, including Jesus.

[dastardly stem]

If youbdont mind, please give the probability of Jesus being a pizza and Jesus being a pepperoni pizza. I thought res already dropped that absurdity. I would assume the probability is the same for each of those contentions.

The proposition is combining set theory with the logic of the Linda Problem. Pizza is a set containing different subsets including pepperoni pizza. All pepperoni pizzas are contained within the set of "pizza" but not all pizzas are contained in the subset of pepperoni pizza.

If "X" were a pepperoni pizza, it would also be a pizza. But there are numerous other ways "X" could be a pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. Based purely on logic and set theory, it is more probable "X" is a pizza than it is that "X" is a specific subset of pizza, in this case a pepperoni pizza.

Inserting any object in for "X" doesn't change this logic, including Jesus.

Can you please give the probability for Jesus being a pizza and then provide it for Jesus being a pepperoni pizza. It looked like res ipsa agreed with me when he said, "You're right. When I described the conjunction dilemma, I was ignoring the extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%."

But I'm interested to see if this really plays out as you say.