Its not really all that important to me to wonder whether Jesus lived.
Honestly? I would have thought differently with all the time you spend talking about it.
Actually, however, it does make ALL the difference as to whether or not he lived and was who the New Testament portrays him to be and millions of followers/believers have looked to Him as being.
After all the dust settles and folks like Carrier, Ehrman, and others do their thing, Jesus has stood the test of time among all of the other ‘greats’. One might ask why this is so. Jesus’ s message travels across time into hearts of the poor, the rich, the educated, the not so educated, etc.
A message for all that has stood the test of time.
And then we have the Book of Mormon…
Anyway, I enjoy reading the views of those that disbelieve but at the end of the day there really isn’t anything there in the way of offering up an alternative that beats the message and hope found in Christianity.
Regards,
MG
Its hopeless, MG. You just don't realize it. But that's ok. There will forever be believers believing nonsense. It's always been.
Of course honestly. I've pointes this out a few times. The question is less interesting...the scholarship and ideas are what keeps me interested. I can't help that tons of people have devoted their lives to what clearly appears to be mythic ideas conjured up many centuries ago. The ideas are silly when we look them over, just as we'd expect from those of that era.
Anyway, all my best. Thanks for the typical MG thread distraction.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Honestly? I would have thought differently with all the time you spend talking about it.
Actually, however, it does make ALL the difference as to whether or not he lived and was who the New Testament portrays him to be and millions of followers/believers have looked to Him as being.
After all the dust settles and folks like Carrier, Ehrman, and others do their thing, Jesus has stood the test of time among all of the other ‘greats’. One might ask why this is so. Jesus’ s message travels across time into hearts of the poor, the rich, the educated, the not so educated, etc.
A message for all that has stood the test of time.
And then we have the Book of Mormon…
Anyway, I enjoy reading the views of those that disbelieve but at the end of the day there really isn’t anything there in the way of offering up an alternative that beats the message and hope found in Christianity.
Regards,
MG
There will forever be believers believing nonsense. It's always been.
I don’t disagree.
I would submit, however, that the message/proposition of life after death/eternal progression, and the means/miracle to make it so, are not “nonsense”.
It may be the most important message in the world.
But it is a matter of faith at the end of the day.
There will forever be believers believing nonsense. It's always been.
I don’t disagree.
I would submit, however, that the message/proposition of life after death/eternal progression, and the means/miracle to make it so, are not “nonsense”.
It may be the most important message in the world.
But it is a matter of faith at the end of the day.
Regards,
MG
You don't need Jesus or christianity for that idea anyway, MG. And it turns out, after some depth of inspection there is little hope found in that message. Faith is simply belief, MG. Don't hide your guesswork behind a mysterious notion that means very little. You think it? you feel it? great. I think you're just belieivng nonsense.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I would submit, however, that the message/proposition of life after death/eternal progression, and the means/miracle to make it so, are not “nonsense”.
It may be the most important message in the world.
But it is a matter of faith at the end of the day.
Regards,
MG
You don't need Jesus or christianity for that idea anyway, MG.
It seems to me that in order to ‘make the jump’ from death to ‘life’ and to have a path of continued progress there would have to be some predefined mechanism or way forward besides ‘random chance’.
Death doesn’t beget life by chance over and over again, does it? Or at all, when it comes right down to it. Of course, that is based on a foundational proposition that we continue as sentient entities after we die and that regeneration is even possible.
If you have any other alternatives that are widely accepted having to do with the mechanism/ways or means by which our deaths will morph into continued existence as individual beings/entities I’m all ears.
As it is, Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I would submit, however, that the message/proposition of life after death/eternal progression, and the means/miracle to make it so, are not “nonsense”.
It may be the most important message in the world.
But it is a matter of faith at the end of the day.
Regards,
MG
And it turns out, after some depth of inspection there is little hope found in that message.
Above all, I believe that the principal goal ought to be making people better thinkers, not strategizing to win at all costs. I was not impressed with Richard Carrier’s arguments because they lacked sensitivity to narrative and genre. It was as though he treated the gospels like 20th century history textbooks. He would subjectively judge that a sequence of events was plausible or not and conclude that no historical person would have experienced events in that way. I did not see his method really helping his readers understand the text on its own terms any better. We are better served learning about the thought world of antiquity to grapple with interpreting its texts than simply asking whether something is likely to have happened or not. I’ll walk you through Suetonius’ biography of Augustus and point out lots of things that probably did not happen as reported. That has no bearing on whether he existed or not. We know he did.
The guy’s work across the board is some of the lowest quality stuff I’ve seen from someone with his credentials. He wrote this book called ‘Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism’ that he had to self publish because the things he writes are so indefensible that no properly refereed publisher would ever let it see the light of day under their imprimatur.
Which is also why I think ‘Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus’ was published under Prometheus, because that isn’t refereed at all and just seen by an editor.
When he finished up ‘On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’ he got it through the Sheffield Phoenix Press review because: (i) they were relatively new and were interested in provocative submissions and (ii) they didn’t have the time nor staff to track down someone who actually comprehends probability theory that also had an inclination to read the submission.
There is a very good reason why Carrier has never sought to publish anything in the glut of Bayesian themed journals out there.
Atheists pay Carrier to say Jesus may not have lived and so his resurrection is even less likely to have happened. I think that’s a backward strategy unlikely to do much more than stoke shortcut thinking among atheists who find it exciting.
Honestly, I’m glad they do and it was enough to lure him away from teaching at public institutions. I’d much rather have some middle aged Redditor become enamored with Carrier because he wants to win arguments as opposed to some teenager taking a class from Carrier and thinking that employing Bayes means you are a critical thinker.
Well, employing it incorrectly, but yes, your point is well taken.
..... they didn’t have the time nor staff to track down someone who actually comprehends probability theory that also had an inclination to read the submission.
There is a very good reason why Carrier has never sought to publish anything in the glut of Bayesian themed journals out there.
Honestly, I’m glad they do and it was enough to lure him away from teaching at public institutions. I’d much rather have some middle aged Redditor become enamored with Carrier because he wants to win arguments as opposed to some teenager taking a class from Carrier and thinking that employing Bayes means you are a critical thinker.
Well, employing it incorrectly, but yes, your point is well taken.
Marcus, My familiarity with Bayes is limited to what I have read on this board. Pretty limited clearly but enough to see that there should be some situations where it would very useful. Unless I am misunderstanding writing insurance policies might find it useful. We all saw here it being used to prove the Book of Mormon to be actual history by some huge mathematical relationship. Bayes appears to be useful to give historical speculation or guesswork a patina objectivity.
Any small or more substantial clarification of what it is best used for from those of you who actually know would be a pleasant help.
Well, employing it incorrectly, but yes, your point is well taken.
Marcus, My familiarity with Bayes is limited to what I have read on this board. Pretty limited clearly but enough to see that there should be some situations where it would very useful. Unless I am misunderstanding writing insurance policies might find it useful. We all saw here it being used to prove the Book of Mormon to be actual history by some huge mathematical relationship. Bayes appears to be useful to give historical speculation or guesswork a patina objectivity.
Any small or more substantial clarification of what it is best used for from those of you who actually know would be a pleasant help.
By employed correctly, i meant inputting appropriate data. You are absolutely correct about the meaningful ways Bayesian analysis can and has been used, but it is my understanding from the previous discussions of Carrier's work here that while his actual analysis may have been technically correct, his starting data is disputed considerably, thus skewing his results to the point where they are virtually meaningless.
In that context, Bayesian analysis is reduced to a club with which to beat one's opponents about the head, while loudly declaring 'probability is on my side!' and not much more.
This reminds me of a study group partner i had in grad school who was an actuary in his previous life. His pain upon seeing people input invalid data into valid methodologies was palpable, and burned into me forever the concept of data GIGO. No matter how sophisticated the analytical technique it is a truism: Garbage in, garbage out.
