11 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeQuick question: My understanding is that Bayes Theorem and "Bayesian Analysis" (as opposed to the "Frequentist" position—which is what I learned in statistics so long ago— ) are two different things. And that Bayes Theorem is universally affirmed (as you note), but “Bayesian Analysis” is not?
Unfortunately that means that your subject is logically invalid.
All correct reasoning about evidence reduces to Bayes's Theorem [as RC demonstrates in proving history].
Any reasoning that does not reduce to Bayes's Theorem is by definition invalid.
It doesn't matter what subject you are doing, if you are analysing evidence and using it to compare ...[text shortened]... 't use it, then your approach to your subject needs to change.
Read his book to discover why.
Originally posted by AppleChessNo genuine scholars, sitting in whatever academic classroom you want, can turn the secondary source that Josephus represents, and which merely confirms what was believed more than half a century after Jesus died, into a primary source that "confirms" what you claim it confirms.
I suspect there is nothing in terms of evidence that could be laid before you that would appear convincing. I find it amusing that on this forum among I presume mostly non academics (by this I mean most of you are lay individuals in this field and not scholars) that you attack what notable scholars use. Regardless of your opinion, staying with Josephus, J ...[text shortened]... My point-you all run counter to the majority of scholars. I think who I'll side with is obvious.
If you believe that Jesus existed, as I do, then you should be content with your belief and faith and your willingness to accept what secondary and non-contemporary sources say and not engage, instead, in trying to change the nature of the "evidence" provided by the likes of Josephus into something that it is not.
11 May 15
Originally posted by vistesdHi vistesd, I read your post on the previous page and found it interesting. I think the relevant page on Wikipedia is "Bayesian Inference". Baye's theorem is clearly true and nothing in the Bayesian approach is in contradiction to the frequentist approach. I think googlefudge will disagree with me about this, but I don't think that Bayesian inference has the universal applicability (in the practical sense) he would like.
Quick question: My understanding is that Bayes Theorem and "Bayesian Analysis" (as opposed to the "Frequentist" position—which is what I learned in statistics so long ago— ) are two different things. And that Bayes Theorem is universally affirmed (as you note), but “Bayesian Analysis” is not?
Physics methods work extremely well in Physics, well in Chemistry, badly in Biology and not at all in Economics. Similarly how useful Bayes' theorem is for a given question depends on the question. In History I think that one has to be extremely careful in applying this kind of tool. I think a claim to have proven or disproven the historicity of Christ based on some Bayesian technique won't work. However, if the question is something about rates of migration into England in the early medieval period based on genetic analysis of skeletons from the era then one will get a reliable answer.
One thing it might help with is to find an estimate of the probability texts have been modified in copying. It's the kind of thing it's good at and having a handle on how likely a given source is to be accurate is something historians would find useful.
11 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThanks, DT. And, as always, be well.
Hi vistesd, I read your post on the previous page and found it interesting. I think the relevant page on Wikipedia is "Bayesian Inference". Baye's theorem is clearly true and nothing in the Bayesian approach is in contradiction to the frequentist approach. I think googlefudge will disagree with me about this, but I don't think that Bayesian inference ...[text shortened]... handle on how likely a given source is to be accurate is something historians would find useful.
11 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeSee above for my thinking about Bayes.
Apparently you don't.
Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly].
Is what I said.
As AppleChess is clearly not an atheist, but is quoting one, it is contextually completely clear that
I am talking about the quote by the atheist and not AppleChess.
Replacing the word 'you' in that sentence with 'him' would make it gibberish.
"Being an atheist does not stop one from..."
is probably the way forward, it makes it clear that the reader is not necessarily the person the comment is aimed at.
12 May 15
The following link gives accounts from early sources outside the Holy Bible that many believe makes reference to Jesus without using that name, but by using descriptive words and phrases like the Nazarene, the Galilean, Christus, Chrestus, a man who was crucified and worshipped by the christians, etc.
http://www.nelsonprice.com/early-secular-writings-regarding-christ/
12 May 15
Originally posted by AppleChessHopefully it's a case of you simply missed my post explaining the situation with the following rather than a refusal to address the salient points.
Why are you writing to me? Are you writing to my ideas or to me as person???
Actually, I see little reason to respond much more here. If you can't recognize the significance of Christ's person then if you are a Christian I have no idea where your theology begins and ends. Remove the Bible and Christ person still stands. Remove Christ's person and the ...[text shortened]... just the gospels and we would have enough to be saved. Lose the gospels and Paul is meaningless.
You are equating words with ideas I guess?
Words can be used to convey ideas which is what Jesus did and which is what you seem to continue to fail to consider in the context of the Roosevelt quote.
Certainly we are called to heed Christ's words. Yet, Christ's words were to bear witness of the truth (John 18:37) and Christ is the truth (John 14:6).
Let's look at John 18:37:
Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
The truth of His words. The truth of His ideas. Thanks for citing another example where Jesus emphasized the importance of His words.
BTW, if you're going to cite scripture, please post the content of the verses for the benefit of everyone.
I mean this kindly, but I think you misunderstand the application and proper order of faith. Faith is not so much in what Christ did but what Christ did! The righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:17-let's not get into discussion on N.T. Wright and the New Perspectives on Paul, fyi I think they are rubbish).
Save the "proper order of faith" for another discussion. It has nothing to do with the salient points of my post.
But this has become a matter of misunderstanding my post. The idea of Christ is nothing without the person. The person is what allows the idea to bear any significance.
Not sure why you think I misunderstood your post. Rather I am disagreeing with your position. Do you normally misconstrue disagreement as "misunderstanding"?
Jesus came to bear witness of himself-his words attest of himself. It is the person.
His words attest to the will of God and the importance of His words :
Matthew 7
21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
John 15:7-11
7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love
12 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJust to be clear, no such claim would ever be made. The claim would be that the probability that Jesus existed based on the given evidence has a specific value.
I think a claim to have proven or disproven the historicity of Christ based on some Bayesian technique won't work.
12 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think it would, you set a criterion for proof such as <1% and if the probability comes out less than that then the historicity is disproven with a confidence of 99%.
Just to be clear, no such claim would ever be made. The claim would be that the probability that Jesus existed based on the given evidence has a specific value.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI doubt that the criterion of <1% would be met. Certainly I don't think anyone here has claimed it has been met. I think the claim has only been that it is <50% (and for the record, I do not make that claim, I only claim it is <99% ie not proven that he existed.)
I think it would, you set a criterion for proof such as <1% and if the probability comes out less than that then the historicity is disproven with a confidence of 99%.
12 May 15
Originally posted by twhitehead😴
I doubt that the criterion of <1% would be met. Certainly I don't think anyone here has claimed it has been met. I think the claim has only been that it is <50% (and for the record, I do not make that claim, I only claim it is <99% ie not proven that he existed.)
12 May 15
vistesd wrote:
"(3) Judaism has no real doctrine of messiah, but, rather, many opinions.* And the Tanach (the Hebrew Scriptures—“Old Testament” ) actually records a number of messiahs. It is recorded in the Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud) that Hillel said: “Israel need no look for the advent of messiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy about him was fulfilled in King Hezekiah.” (Sanhedrin 98a.) I only cite that to show that the Talmud records even a disagreement over whether “the” messiah was to be a future event."
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that the concept of an afterlife was not universally embraced by Judaism at that time. Hence, the prophecy of the coming of a messiah would have been interpreted by many Jews to mean a worldly king who would lead the nation of Israel to liberate itself from the yoke of Roman occupation. This fits very well with the charge leveled against Jesus, that he had called himself a "king"--which was a crime under Roman law, amounting to sedition or incitement to revolt. The Romans wouldn't have cared whether Jesus was preaching heresies; local religion was the business of the local priests, according to Roman law.
The coming of the messiah in an other worldly sense appears to have been invented by Paul and retrospectively presaged by re-interpreting numerous prophetic passages in the Jewish OT.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat Bayesian inference does, is allow you to quantify the relative likelihood of competing hypotheses
Hi vistesd, I read your post on the previous page and found it interesting. I think the relevant page on Wikipedia is "Bayesian Inference". Baye's theorem is clearly true and nothing in the Bayesian approach is in contradiction to the frequentist approach. I think googlefudge will disagree with me about this, but I don't think that Bayesian inference ...[text shortened]... handle on how likely a given source is to be accurate is something historians would find useful.
given the available evidence [whatever that is].
It does not in any way guarantee 'proving' anything.
In fact it allows you to see if any firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence.
The conclusion is always probabilistic, and almost always as an inequality.
So the probability of hypothesis X being true must be < Y OR must be > Z
Thus, as Richard Carrier makes clear in his books, he has not, and did not set out to "prove" that
Jesus was mythical [in fact when he started the work he was of the position that JC was a historical
character] because proving as much is not possible.
What he did, was compare the relative likelihood of a mythical Jesus vs a Historical Jesus given the
available evidence. And what he found was that the Mythical Jesus hypothesis was significantly more
probable given the evidence than a historical Jesus.