DiscussMormonism.com

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:52 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:33 pm

This is one of those things I suspect we'll disagree about and move on. Thinking like a Bayesian, my question is should the existence of these parallels affect our prior probability. If you have to appeal to your prior to argue that the new evidence changes the prior, the answer is clearly "no." The parallelism argument should be discarded as irrelevant.

Yeah...I like continual disagreement being acknowledged. I got your question and I answered, to be clear, "it may or may not be expected", which I took as saying no.

ALlow me to clarify the point of mentioning the parallels. Mark's story represents the claim for historicity. We have to inspect the claim by confirming it with other evidence. If we have no other credible evidence supporting Mark's story, then we have nothing to put into the weight for historicity. So it may be that we have no weight added to mythicism. The point is there is no historicity data to tip the scales.

My mythicism is near 50/50. That is to say probability-wise I'd say its nearly as likely Jesus lived as did not live. I just happen to think the scales tip slightly in the direction of not existing.

To me there's plenty to discuss and agree upon here...but I'm happy if you wish to leave it as agree to disagree ultimately.

My comment was addressed to the narrow issue of the evidentiary value of the parallels. Again, as good Bayesians, we have to ask what we whether we should expect the evidence we see to be different in the two cases: mythologized real person and mythologized non-existent person. In both cases, we should see parallels to then existing myths. That being the case, the parallels are of no evidential value and we should discard them as irrelevant to the question we are asking.

I’m persuadable on this narrow issue, but only by a well reasoned argument that we should expect to see some difference in the two cases when it comes to finding parallels.

On the ultimate question, I lack the expertise to reach any informed conclusion on what we should expect the evidence to look like assuming a mythologized real person. I find the arguments interesting, but I’m not motivated enough to make historical judgments about the relevant time and events.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:04 am

In both cases, we should see parallels to then existing myths. That being the case, the parallels are of no evidential value and we should discard them as irrelevant to the question we are asking.

Exactly.

If the brethren are to be believed, you can just go up to the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and ask the blond haired blue eyed Aryan man in the red toga holding a lamb advising the First Presidency if he is the same Nazarene as depicted in the gospels.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:15 am

If the brethren are to be believed, you can just go up to the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and ask the blond haired blue eyed Aryan man in the red toga holding a lamb advising the First Presidency if he is the same Nazarene as depicted in the gospels.

I can’t, cuz you excommunicated me.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:15 am

If the brethren are to be believed, you can just go up to the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and ask the blond haired blue eyed Aryan man in the red toga holding a lamb advising the First Presidency if he is the same Nazarene as depicted in the gospels.

The brethren have never claimed that.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:17 pm

I think the Superman comparison is pretty silly and disrespectful, but illuminating as to where you’re coming from now.

Lol. K.

I’ll stick with Ehrman, since the mythesists don’t seem very serious.

I think I’ve pointed out it’s the opposite of this. Mythicists have worked to produce peer reviewed scholarship. Historicists have not.

Jesus’ historicity matters almost nothing to me, and I think Ehrman is open to the possibility he didn’t exist. But the mythesists seem to be on a crusade to turn Jesus into a comic book character. Jesus may have become that eventually, but just looking at the gospels you can see the progression from human to God right there in the text.

Comic book character. I mean what is a guy who can bring people back to life, spit in blind people’s faces smearing mud on them to get them to see, can walk on water, can float up to heaven? That is comic book character. But that’s the case for historicists andmythicists. Again the distinction is really one without a difference. We’re all mythicists really

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:31 pm

The epistles written by Paul that describe these interactions such as in Galatians show that a) the body of disciples existed independent of him and,

Where in Paul do we read about “disciples”? He doesn’t use the word or concept. A common problem with these discussions includes assuming Paul intended to say something similar to the later gospel stories. It’s silly to assume as you have here given the data. Paul doesn’t talk about disciples but somehow you are arguing for them.

b) he was modifying a prior belief regarding the role of Jewish tradition in the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem where he didn't have the upper hand.

That’s partly his story sure. The modification was preach to non Jews, basically. He had the upper hand, though. He had the power of the pen, as they say. It doesn’t appear others could quite articulate what Christian, if we can call it that this early, should be.

He was clearly subservient to James as was Paul.

Not at all. Not in the least, it seems. He alludes to other leaders but tends to dismiss them as irrelevant, almost.

His letter bragging to the gentile churchs of his ability to sit at the table as an apostle include the acknowledgement in 1 Corinthians the leadership questioned his status as an apostle which he claims for himself.

Don’t know what you mean here. 1 cor suggests those converted in Corinth were perhaps a bit divided. His push is to tell them everyone should be United.

There is clearly a prior belief system in place that not only superceded Paul but which was in tension with Paul's claims.

Yeah. Kind of. But it seems prior to Paul it was a bit disorganized and not well articulated.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:04 am

.
My comment was addressed to the narrow issue of the evidentiary value of the parallels. Again, as good Bayesians, we have to ask what we whether we should expect the evidence we see to be different in the two cases: mythologized real person and mythologized non-existent person. In both cases, we should see parallels to then existing myths. That being the case, the parallels are of no evidential value and we should discard them as irrelevant to the question we are asking.

I’m persuadable on this narrow issue, but only by a well reasoned argument that we should expect to see some difference in the two cases when it comes to finding parallels.

On the ultimate question, I lack the expertise to reach any informed conclusion on what we should expect the evidence to look like assuming a mythologized real person. I find the arguments interesting, but I’m not motivated enough to make historical judgments about the relevant time and events.

Thanks, res. I’m not sure where the issue is then. The point here is to address any effort by a historicist position suggesting we should treat mark as something supporting historicism. If mark’s story is but, as Miller and MacDonald argue, an attempt to utilize myths known in the cultural current to create the Jewish god hero, as Miller suggests, to compete with the other believed myths, then we can’t really treat Mark as credible history. That seems to be the situation to me. Without Mark what really can we look to to provide any weight to the historicists hypothesis? I’m not sure. Paul doesn’t provide much, if you ask me. Carrier for instance discards mark, basically, as a credible source. He gives credence to Paul in his evaluation. He grants the ambiguous sounding allusions from Paul as favoring historicity.

Anyway thanks for your thoughts. They helped me explain what I was thinking for this thread. Although I still object to your comparison of Nibley and MacDonald.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:18 am

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:15 am

If the brethren are to be believed, you can just go up to the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and ask the blond haired blue eyed Aryan man in the red toga holding a lamb advising the First Presidency if he is the same Nazarene as depicted in the gospels.

The brethren have never claimed that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... face_deep/

https://www.ldsliving.com/8-divine-acco ... or/s/86605

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 27, 2023 1:16 pm

I think I’ve pointed out it’s the opposite of this. Mythicists have worked to produce peer reviewed scholarship. Historicists have not.

This tells me you haven't actually seriously investigated this topic

Jesus: King of the Jews Paula Fredriksen
Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet Dale Allison
The Historical Jesus in Context
Who on Earth was Jesus? The Modern Quest for the Jesus of History. David Boulton
The Historical Figure of Jesus E.P. Sanders
The Five Gospels - Funk et al
The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Allison, Dale J., Jr.
After Jesus. Vol. 3, Finding the Historical Christ. Barnett, Paul.
Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times.
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Meier, John P.

Just google "historical Jesus studies" and start checking out some books from the library