Denying the Existence of Jesus

[the narrator]

Yeah. You shouldn't have been so fixated on the 50.000001% figure. A more relaxed posture of allowing a variation of plus or minus 0.07 would have left you in better shape.

Forgive me for being so ignorant. I blame my youth. In my limited experience, 2/9 was never considered anything close to being called "for the most part." Perhaps it was my pathetic skills at math that made me not realize that 2/9 equaled roughly 43%.

You should consider the possibility that you simply find my in-person person harder to misunderstand than my on-line persona. Because, regarding the latter -- certainly in this instance -- you're so far wrong as to be something of a prodigy of nature.

Duly noted. As far as being a prodigy of nature, I'm pretty much an idiot. I can barely figure out my own wife.

You've lost me. What "imaginary thread"?

The one which you alluded to in your OP, but does not exist as described by your OP.

It came from a visit to Capernaum a few weeks ago. I've been there several times, and the ruins of "Peter's house" continue to impress me.

My bad. I didn't realize that your "provocation" described as "a group of apostates" who "for the most part" were denying the existence of the person of Jesus occurred in Capernaum. This whole time I thought the "provocation" was a message board thread.

Boy do I have egg on my face. I'm such an idiot.

Quite so. The proximate reading that influenced the opening post was something by Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. I find him quite a reliable guide to the Holy Land. (I'm referring to his book from Oxford.)

Again, forgive me for assuming that the "provocation" was on a board, and not a group of apostates led by Murphy-O'Connor. I am sorry for confusing things. This is really all my fault for being such a silly pop psychologist.

[WalkerW]

Not yours alone. Trust me.

In an attempt to get back on track, what are some of the main evidences to you regarding the Resurrection of Christ (putting aside modern revelation and witnesses)? What are some of the ideas and sources one would find in your future book?

[Ceeboo]

Not yours alone. Trust me.

Common ground! (Humbling, yes? )

Peace,

Ceeboo

[phaedrus ut]

I don't believe there was a Jesus Christ.

Phaedrus

*Edit: and to clarify I'm not a atheist.

[WalkerW]

As far as being a prodigy of nature, I'm pretty much an idiot. I can barely figure out my own wife.

You and me both.

[volgadon]

It came from a visit to Capernaum a few weeks ago. I've been there several times, and the ruins of "Peter's house" continue to impress me.

It is impressive, far more so than the flying saucer superimposed over it.

Quite so. The proximate reading that influenced the opening post was something by Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. I find him quite a reliable guide to the Holy Land. (I'm referring to his book from Oxford.)

We wore out a couple of copies in my family.

[Daniel Peterson]

Phaedrus, in my view, may have just announced his entry into Crankland. Sigh.

As for outlining my reasons for believing in the historicity of Christ, I intend to wait until I can state them in a formal publication. They will rely, to a large extent, on a close reading of the New Testament. I'm impressed, too, by N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Stephen Davis, and a host of writers on the historical Jesus, as well as by the fact that such a minuscule proportion of those who have given the subject serious attention doubt his historicity.

But can we please drop this stuff about Jesus? This thread is now supposed to be about me.

In my limited experience, 2/9 was never considered anything close to being called "for the most part." Perhaps it was my pathetic skills at math that made me not realize that 2/9 equaled roughly 43%.

You apparently also don't recognize that three doesn't equal two, and that <9 doesn't equal 9.

Sigh. You jest about your youth being to blame, but it may be more of a factor than you realize. Math skills in the United States have, arguably, been declining rather precipitously over the past few decades. I'm sorry that you seem to have fallen victim to the decay of American education.

The one which you alluded to in your OP, but does not exist as described by your OP.

Precisely where, in your idiosyncratic view of mathematics, does 0 occur on the scale running from 2.2 to 5.0000001?

My bad. I didn't realize that your "provocation" described as "a group of apostates" who "for the most part" were denying the existence of the person of Jesus occurred in Capernaum. This whole time I thought the "provocation" was a message board thread.

I think that your problem is three-fold, at least: Poor reading, obsession, and a weirdly irrelevant agenda.

Boy do I have egg on my face. I'm such an idiot.

Don't take it too hard. Everybody has off days.

Again, forgive me for assuming that the "provocation" was on a board, and not a group of apostates led by Murphy-O'Connor. I am sorry for confusing things. This is really all my fault for being such a silly pop psychologist.

I like your fantasy about Murphy-O'Connor leading a troupe of apostate cranks in Capernaum. At least, it's funnier than your previous one.

[Doctor Steuss]

Dr Peterson and/or Rabbi Hamblin (or Phaedrus [iIRC, you've read quite a bit on this subject]),

What book/article/resource would you consider to be the best treatment (currently) on the evidences for a "historical Jesus"?

Unfortunately, the only thing I've ever read that was solely devoted to this topic was that Mormon-loving-scholar (*cough*), Lee Stroble's book.

[volgadon]

How would you rank David Flusser's book?

[Daniel Peterson]

Directly and sustainedly arguing for the historicity of Jesus is a fairly uncommon thing, since serious denials of his historicity are relatively rare. It just isn't much of an issue.

Something by James D. G. Dunn might be a good place to start.

[the narrator]

But can we please drop this stuff about Jesus? This thread is now supposed to be about me.

Isn't it usually?

You apparently also don't recognize that three doesn't equal two, and that <9 doesn't equal 9.

Dan. I am probably also really bad at counting too. When counting (which I am apparently poor at) I usually begin with 1, then I jump to 2, then 3, then 4, then make the unusual step to 5, then to 6, followed by 7, moving to 8, then to 9, next 11, on to 23, and finishing with 31. With this absurd form of counting, the first person to "confidently declare" that the person of Jesus did not exist was emilysmith (who was the sixth overall poster using my poor form of counting). The second person to "confidently declare" that the person of Jesus did not exist was some schmo (who was the he ninth overall poster using my poor form of counting). After counting to 9 I don't trust my ability to count anymore (which is, coincidentally the grade at which I dropped out of school). It seems, however, to my malfunctioning brain that, following the 2nd person to deny the existence of Jesus, the percentage of posters denying the existence of Jesus decreases.

Thus, at it's highest point the percentage of posters "confidently declaring" that the person of Jesus did not exist is 2/9 (or as my calculator says 22.22%), which I guess also means 42.%, which in the world of FauxNews and it's fans is close enough to declaring it as "for the most part."

Sigh. You jest about your youth being to blame, but it may be more of a factor than you realize. Math skills in the United States have, arguably, been declining rather precipitously over the past few decades. I'm sorry that you seem to have fallen victim to the decay of American education.

You'd think that with my Japanese blood I'd be better at math, but alas, I did not inherit those genes.

Precisely where, in your idiosyncratic view of mathematics, does 0 occur on the scale running from 2.2 to 5.0000001?

Perhaps in the same place that your idiosyncratic view of reasoning made you think that I made this claim.

I think that your problem is three-fold, at least: Poor reading, obsession, and a weirdly irrelevant agenda.

Poor-reading?--perhaps, but unlikely. Obsession?--only in your fantasies dear Dan. Weirdly irrelevant agenda?-- and what would that be? Can you please tell me what agenda it is that you believe I have?

Dan, perhaps this is all a big misunderstanding. Are you claiming that the "provocation" mentioned in your last sentence was not the supposed thread that you were alluding to in your first sentence? If you answer yes, then the problem is neither my reading ability, but either your honesty or your writing ability.

[phaedrus ut]

What book/article/resource would you consider to be the best treatment (currently) on the evidences for a "historical Jesus"?

Work on the historical Jesus can be divided into groups of scholars that are often called "quests". The First Quest group starts with scholars like Reimarus in the 1700's and finishes with people like Albert Schweitzer and Rudolph Bultmann. Schweitzer's book from Reimarus to Wrede the Quest for the Historical Jesus is a good coverage of this period. Next came the New Quest people beginning in the 1950's and included good scholarship on the Q gospel and work with the Gospel of Thomas. Notable in this group include James Robinson for his for with Q and the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi. Finally the Third Quest group includes members of the Jesus Seminar and scholars like John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, G

[volgadon]

I like your fantasy about Murphy-O'Connor leading a troupe of apostate cranks in Capernaum. At least, it's funnier than your previous one.

Father J- "What we see here is a synagogue..."

ACs (in unison)- "No it isn't!"

Father J- "Probably constructed..."

ACs- "Liar!"

Father J (unperturbed)- "at some point during the 4th century CE. This of course postdates Jesus by quite some time..."

ACs- "There is no Jesus! Jesus was an halluceogenic mushroom! The Mormon church lied to us about that as well!"

[Uncle Dale]

...people like Albert Schweitzer

...

I'll supply a longish quote from a web-page that I referenced near

the beginning of this thread. It has Schweitzer commenting on Bauer

and (as you mentioned) was published near the end of the initial era

of inquiry, and may serve as a forecast of modern scholarship:

At least it provides an interesting glimpse into the period back

before there was much discussion of "Q;" before the unearthing of

the Qumran and Nag Hammadi libraries, etc:

Professor Bruno Bauer (1809-1882)

BRUNO BAUER was born in 1809 at Eisenberg, in the duchy of Sachsen-Altenburg. In philosophy, he was at first associated entirely with the Hegelian "right." Like Strauss, he received a strong impulse from Vatke. At this stage of his development he reviewed, in 1835 and 1836, Strauss's Life of Jesus in the Jahrbucher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik, and wrote in 1838 a "Criticism of the History of Revelation" (Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung).

In 1834 he had become Privat-Docent in Berlin, but in 1839 he removed to Bonn. He was then in the midst of that intellectual crisis of which the evidence appeared in his critical works on John and the Synoptics. In August 1841 the Minister, Eichhorn, requested the Faculties of the Prussian Universities to report on the question whether Bauer should be allowed to retain the venia docendi. Most of them returned an evasive answer, Konigsberg replied in the affirmative, and Bonn in the negative. In March 1842 Bauer was obliged to cease lecturing, and retired to Rixdorf near Berlin. In the first heat of his furious indignation over this treatment he wrote a work with the title "Christianity Exposed," (Das entdeckte Christentum. See also Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit. [The Good Cause of Freedom, in Connexion with my own Case.] Zurich, 1843. which, however, was cancelled before publication at Zurich in 1843).

He then turned his attention to secular history and wrote on the French Revolution, on Napoleon, on the Illuminism of the Eighteenth Century, and on the party struggles in Germany during the years 1842-1846. At the beginning of the 'fifties he returned to theological subjects, but failed to exercise any influence. His work was simply ignored.

Radical though he was in spirit, Bauer found himself fighting, at the end of the 'fifties and beginning of the 'sixties, in the ranks of the Prussian Conservatives -- we are reminded how Strauss in the Wiirtemberg Chamber was similarly forced to side with the reactionaries. He died in 1882. His was a pure, modest, and lofty character.

At the time of his removal from Berlin to Bonn he was just at the end of the twenties, that critical age when pupils often surprise their teachers, when men begin to find themselves and show what they are, not merely what they have been taught.

Investigating Messianic History (1840s)

In approaching the investigation of the Gospel history, Bauer saw, as he himself tells us, two ways open to him. He might take as his starting-point the Jewish Messianic conception, and endeavour to answer the question how the intuitive prophetic idea of the Messiah became a fixed reflective conception. That was the historical method; he chose, however, the other, the literary method. This starts from the opposite side of the question, from the end instead of the beginning of the Gospel history. Taking first the Gospel of John, in which it is obvious that reflective thought has fitted the life of the Jewish Messiah into the frame of the Logos conception, he then, starting as it were from the embouchure of the stream, works his way upwards to the high ground in which the Gospel tradition takes its rise. The decision in favour of the latter view determined the character of Bauer's life-work; it was his task to follow out, to its ultimate consequences, the literary solution of the problem of the life of Jesus.

How far this path would lead him he did not at first suspect. But he did suspect how strong was the influence upon the formation of history of a dominant idea which moulds and shapes it with a definite artistic purpose. His interest was especially arrested by Philo, who, without knowing or intending it, contributed to the fulfilment of a higher task than that with which he was immediately engaged. Bauer's view is that a speculative principle such as Philo's, when it begins to take possession of men's minds, influences them in the first glow of enthusiasm which it evokes with such overmastering power that the just claims of that which is actual and historical cannot always secure the attention which is their due. In Philo's pupil, John, we must look, not for history, but for art.

The Fourth Gospel

The Fourth Gospel is in fact a work of art. This was now for the first time appreciated by one who was himself an artist. Schleiermacher, indeed, had at an earlier period taken up the aesthetic standpoint in considering this Gospel. But he had used it as an apologist, proceeding to exalt the artistic truth which he rightly recognised into historic reality, and his critical sense failed him, precisely because he was an aesthete and an apologist, when he came to deal with the Fourth Gospel. Now, however, there comes forward a true artist, who shows that the depth of religious and intellectual insight which Tholuck and Neander, in opposing Strauss, had urged on behalf of the Fourth Gospel, is Christian art.

In Bauer, however, the aesthete is at the same time a critic. Although much in the Fourth Gospel is finely "felt," like the opening scenes referring to the Baptist and to Jesus, which Bauer groups together under the heading "The Circle of the Expectant," yet his art is by no means always perfect. The author who conceived those discourses, of which the movement consists in a kind of tautological return upon itself, and who makes the parables trail out into dragging allegories, is no perfect artist. "The parable of the Good Shepherd," says Bauer, "is neither simple, nor natural, nor a true parable, but a metaphor, which is, nevertheless, much too elaborate for a metaphor, is not clearly conceived, and, finally, in places shows much too clearly the skeleton of reflection over which it is stretched."

Bauer treats, in his work of 1840 (Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes), the Fourth Gospel only. The Synoptics he deals with only in a quite incidental fashion, "as opposing armies make demonstrations in order to provoke the enemy to a decisive conflict."

He breaks off at the beginning of the story of the passion, because here it would be necessary to bring in the Synoptic parallels. "From the distant heights on which the Synoptic forces have taken up a menacing position, we must now draw them down into the plain; now comes the pitched battle between them and the Fourth Gospel, and the question regarding the historical character of that which we have found to be the ultimate basis of the last Gospel, can now at length be decided."

If, in the Gospel of John, no smallest particle could be found which was unaffected by the creative reflection of the author, how will it stand with the Synoptists ?

The Synoptic Gospels

When Bauer broke off his work upon John in this abrupt way for he had not originally intended to conclude it at this point how far did he still retain a belief in the historical character of the Synoptics? It looks as if he had intended to treat them as the solid foundation, in contrast with the fantastic structure raised upon it by the Fourth Gospel. But when he began to use his pick upon the rock, it crumbled away. Instead of a difference of kind he found only a difference of degree. The "Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptists" of 1841 is built on the site which Strauss had levelled. "The abiding influence of Strauss," says Bauer, "consists in the fact that he has removed from the path of subsequent criticism the danger and trouble of a collision with the earlier orthodox system."

Bauer finds his material laid ready to his hand by Weisse and Wilke. Weisse had divined in Mark the source from which criticism becoming barren in the work of Strauss might draw a new spring of vigorous life; and Wilke, whom Bauer places above Weisse, had raised this happy conjecture to the level of a scientifically assured result. The Marcan hypothesis was no longer on its trial.

But its bearing upon the history of Jesus had still to be determined. What position do Weisse and Wilke take up towards the hypothesis of a tradition lying behind the Gospel of Mark? If it be once admitted that the whole Gospel tradition, so far as concerns its plan, goes back to a single writer, who has created the connexion between the different events for neither Weisse nor Wilke regards the connexion of the sections as historical does not the possibility naturally suggest itself that the narrative of the events themselves, not merely the connexion in which they appear in Mark, is to be set down to the account of the author of the Gospel? Weisse and Wilke had not suspected how great a danger arises when, of the three witnesses who represent the tradition, only one is allowed to stand, and the tradition is recognised and allowed to exist in this one written form only. The triple embankment held; will a single one bear the strain?

The following considerations have to be taken into account. The criticism of the Fourth Gospel compels us to recognise that a Gospel may have a purely literary origin. This discovery dawned upon Bauer at a time when he was still disinclined to accept Wilke's conclusions regarding Mark. But when he had recognised the truth of the latter he felt compelled by the combination of the two to accept the idea that Mark also might be of purely literary origin. For Weisse and Wilke the Marcan hypothesis had not implied this result, because they continued to combine with it the wider hypothesis of a general tradition, holding that Matthew and Luke used the collection of "Logia," and also owed part of their supplementary matter to a free use of floating tradition, so that Mark, it might almost be said, merely supplied them with the formative principle by means of which they might order their material.

But what if Papias's statement about the collection of "Logia" were worthless, and could be shown to be so by the literary data? In that case Matthew and Luke would be purely literary expansions of Mark, and like him, purely literary inventions.

In this connexion Bauer attaches decisive importance to the phenomena of the birth-stories. If these had been derived from tradition they could not differ from each other as they do. If it is suggested that tradition had produced a large number of independent, though mutually consistent, stories of the childhood, out of which the Evangelists composed their opening narratives, this also is found to be untenable, for these narratives are not composite structures. The separate stories of which each of these two histories of the childhood consists could not have been formed independently of one another; none of them existed by itself; each points to the others and is informed by a view which implies the whole. The histories of the childhood are therefore not literary versions of a tradition, but literary inventions.

If we go on to examine the discourse and narrative material, additional to that of Mark, which is found in Matthew and Luke, a similar result appears. The same standpoint is regulative throughout, showing that the additions do not consist of oral or written traditional material which has been worked into the Marcan plan, but of a literary development of certain fundamental ideas and suggestions found in the first author. These developments, as is shown by the accounts of the Sermon on the Mount and the charge to the Twelve, are not carried as far in Luke as in Matthew. The additional material in the latter seems indeed to be worked up from suggestions in the former. Luke thus forms the transition stage between Mark and Matthew. The Marcan hypothesis, accordingly, now takes on the following form. Our knowledge of the Gospel history does not rest upon any basis of tradition, but only upon three literary works. Two of these are not independent, being merely expansions of the first, and the third, Matthew, is also dependent upon the second. Consequently there is no tradition of the Gospel history, but only a single literary source.

But, if so, who is to assure us that this Gospel history, with its assertion of the Messiahship of Jesus, was already a matter of common knowledge before it was fixed in writing, and did not first become known in a literary form? In the latter case, one man would have created out of general ideas the definite historical tradition in which these ideas are embodied.

Messianic Expectations an Historic Fraud?

The only thing that could be set against this literary possibility, as a historical counter-possibility, would be a proof that at the period when the Gospel history is supposed to take place a Messianic expectation really existed among the Jews, so that a man who claimed to be the Messiah and was recognised as such, as Mark represents Jesus to have been, would be historically conceivable. This presupposition had hitherto been unanimously accepted by all writers, no matter how much opposed in other respects. They were all satisfied "that before the appearance of Jesus the expectation of a Messiah prevailed among the Jews;" and were even able to explain its precise character.

But where apart from the Gospels did they get their information from? Where is the documentary evidence of the Jewish Messianic doctrine on which that of the Gospels is supposed to be based? Daniel was the last of the prophets. Everything tends to suggest that the mysterious content of his work remained without influence in the subsequent period. Jewish literature ends with the Wisdom writings, in which there is no mention of a Messiah. In the LXX there is no attempt to translate in accordance with a preconceived picture of the Messiah. In the Apocalypses, which are of small importance, there is reference to a Messianic Kingdom; the Messiah Himself, however, plays a quite subordinate part, and is, indeed, scarcely mentioned. For Philo He has no existence; the Alexandrian does not dream of connecting Him with his Logos speculation. There remain, therefore, as witnesses for the Jewish Messianic expectations in the time of Tiberius, only Mark and his imitators. This evidence, however, is of such a character that in certain points it contradicts itself.

In the first place, if at the time when the Christian community was forming its view of history and the religious ideas which we find in the Gospels, the Jews had already possessed a doctrine of the Messiah, there would have been already a fixed type of interpretation of the Messianic passages in the Old Testament, and it would have been impossible for the same passages to be interpreted in a totally different way, as referring to Jesus and His work, as we find them interpreted in the New Testament. Next, consider the representation of the Baptist's work. We should have expected him to connect his baptism with the preaching of "Him who was to come" -- if this were really the Messiah -- by baptizing in the name of this "Coming One." He, however, keeps them separate, baptizing in preparation for the Kingdom, though referring in his discourses to "Him who was to come."

The earliest Evangelist did not venture openly to carry back into the history the idea that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, because he was aware that in the time of Jesus no general expectation of the Messiah had prevailed among the people. When the disciples in Mark viii. 28 report the opinions of the people concerning Jesus they cannot mention any who hold Him to be the Messiah. Peter is the first to attain to the recognition of His Messiahship. But as soon as the confession is made the Evangelist makes Jesus forbid His disciples to tell the people who He is. Why is the attribution of the Messiahship to Jesus made in this surreptitious and inconsistent way? It is because the writer who gave the history its form well knew that no one had ever come forward publicly on Palestinian soil to claim the Messiahship, or had been recognised by the people as Messiah.

The "reflective conception of the Messiah" was not, therefore, taken over ready-made from Judaism; that dogma first arose along with the Christian community, or rather the moment in which it arose was the same in which the Christian community had its birth.

Moreover, how unhistorical, even on a priori grounds, is the mechanical way in which Jesus at this first appearance at once sets Himself up as the Messiah and says, "Behold I am He whom ye have expected." In essence, Bauer thinks, there is not so much difference between Strauss and Hengstenberg. For Hengstenberg the whole life of Jesus is the living embodiment of the Old Testament picture of the Messiah ; Strauss, a less reverent counterpart of Hengstenberg, made the image of the Messiah into a mask which Jesus Himself was obliged to assume, and which legend afterwards substituted for His real features.

"We save the honour of Jesus," says Bauer, "when we restore His Person to life from the state of inanition to which the apologists have reduced it, and give it once more a living relation to history, which it certainly possessed that can no longer be denied. If a conception was to become dominant which should unite heaven and earth, God and man, nothing more and nothing less was necessary as a preliminary condition, than that a Man should appear, the very essence of whose consciousness should be the reconciliation of these antitheses, and who should manifest this consciousness to the world, and lead the religious mind to the sole point from which its difficulties can be solved. Jesus accomplished this mighty work, but not by prematurely pointing to His own Person. Instead He gradually made known to the people the thoughts which filled and entered into the very essence of His mind. It was only in this indirect way that His Person -- which He freely offered up in the cause of His historical vocation and of the idea for which He lived -- continued to live on in so far as this idea was accepted. When, in the belief of His followers, He rose again and lived on in the Christian community, it was as the Son of God who had overcome and reconciled the great antithesis. He was that in which alone the religious consciousness found rest and peace, apart from which there was nothing firm, trustworthy, and enduring."

"It was only now that the vague, ill-defined, prophetic representations were focused into a point; were not only fulfilled, but were also united together by a common bond which strengthened and gave greater value to each of them. With His appearance and the rise of belief in Him, a clear conception, a definite mental picture of the Messiah became possible; and thus it was that a Christology first arose." (Here and elsewhere Bauer seems to use "Christologie" in the sense of Messianic doctrine, rather than in the more general sense which is usual in theology. TRANSLATOR.)...

(From Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910)

http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/1879Baur.htm#comments

UD

[Mortal Man]

This thread is now supposed to be about me.

I don't believe Daniel Peterson exists. I've never met him in person and the bizarre rantings he spews forth on this board could not possibly emanate from any real person.

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't believe Daniel Peterson exists. I've never met him in person and the bizzare rantings he spews forth on this board could not possibly originate from any real person.

There are days I doubt that I exist. I am merely phantasm in a dream of Shiva. When he awakens, I shall cease to be.

[Daniel Peterson]

People like MM are, sadly, all too real. I have no doubt whatever that they exist.

Isn't it usually [about you]?

Yup. Which is the principal reason I left the board that you're trying (quite successfully) to make this thread about.

It's boring, and I've just about had enough for today.

and finishing with 31.

The situation is far worse than I had thought. Your schooling didn't even extend to the number 32?

With this absurd form of counting, the first person to "confidently declare" that the person of Jesus did not exist was emilysmith (who was the sixth overall poster using my poor form of counting).

In the meantime, Poster #1 had expressed doubt that Jesus ever really existed, Poster #2 was a bit dubious, Poster #3 said that yes he existed but, Poster #4 was rather dubious (expressing explicit agreement with Poster #2), and Poster #5 shared an irrelevant sacrilegious video.

Quite resounding affirmations of the historicity of Jesus, no? Leading into Poster #6's rather firm declaration that he never existed? There had not yet been a declaration that Jesus did, in fact, plainly exist. At a glance, the overall tenor seemed to me, quite plainly, to be trending in the direction that he didn't, which is, to put it very, very mildly, a minority position among scholars. You plainly want, for the purposes of your calculations, to give each one of these testimonies a simple integer value, such that you can arrive at a neat fraction like 2/9, below. I don't think your preference for integers can be justified in this case. And, if you do insist in integers, I don't see how you can confidently "round up," such that, say, Poster #1 counts as a clear vote for historicity.

Be that as it may, posts 1-6 on that Other Thread were the sort of thing that led me to start this thread, but, of course, this thread has (or, better, had) everything to do with the historical existence of Jesus, and, as repeatedly noted, essentially nothing to do with Posters 1-6. It was, to put it as plainly as the English language allows me to put it, not about that thread.

I glanced at that thread, thought about the article I had just published in Mormon Times, and started this thread here, basically to link to that article. I had not realized that the reference to that thread would be subject to scrutiny as being of world-historical importance. Had I known just how important that thread would become to some here, I would have assigned precise ideological/numerical values to the utterances of Posters 1-5; to Poster 6; to Posters 7-9. I would have outlined a rigorous methodology for performing arithmetic operations upon those numerical values, derived an exact ideological-content value for them (perhaps varying it diachronically), and etc. As it was, however, since I didn't really care about that thread at all -- which, apart from reminding me of my Mormon Times article and provoking me to post a link to that article here, didn't matter to me -- I didn't bother.

Thus, at it's highest point the percentage of posters "confidently declaring" that the person of Jesus did not exist is 2/9

In post #15 on this thread, here on this board, DarthJ said that there were three [3] posters denying the historicity of Jesus. Is there any chance that your numbers are wrong? Is there any room for ambiguity here? For disagreement?

(or as my calculator says 22.22%), which I guess also means 42.%,

In the formal statement, above, I list a range of figures extending from 2.2 to 5.0000001.

You seem to believe that 0 occurs somewhere between those numbers. I'm curious about this. Can you please explain your number system?

which in the world of FauxNews and it's fans is close enough to declaring it as "for the most part."

Your disdain for Fox News has been noted. It's precisely as relevant to the subject of this thread as the rest of what you've been posting, though, and I pass it by without response.

You'd think that with my Japanese blood I'd be better at math, but alas, I did not inherit those genes.

Oh, thanks. Great. Now my critics will blame me for starting a thread that includes racial stereotyping, too.

Perhaps in the same place that your idiosyncratic view of reasoning mad you think that I made this claim.

You suggest that my characterization of the (to you) important Other Thread is wholly inaccurate, whereas, demonstrably, it's at worst partially inaccurate.

Trying to enter into the spirit of counting that you seem to favor, I assign a value of 0 to "wholly inaccurate," a data-driven minimum value of 2.2 to "partially inaccurate, and a value of 5.000001 to "accurate." Nobody, including you, has argued for a value less than 2.2 -- actually, your minimum figure is 2.22 -- yet you seem to be claiming that my characterization of that all-important Other Thread is "wholly inaccurate." Charitably, I'm attributing to you a number system in which 0 falls between 2.2 and 5.000001. Otherwise, your claim appears to be impossible. But I'm not familiar with the kind of mathematics that your claim, if valid, seems to presume.

Poor-reading?--perhaps, but unlikely. Obsession?--only in your fantasies dear Dan. Weirdly irrelevant agenda?-- and what would that be? Can you please tell me what agenda it is that you believe I have?

I find it exceedingly difficult to discern. I can't figure why you're so obsessed with this. And, truth be told, I'm really not all that interested. I merely find it bizarre.

Dan, perhaps this is all a big misunderstanding. Are you claiming that the "provocation" mentioned in your last sentence was not the supposed thread that you were alluding to in your first sentence?

Nope. Not at all. Never have.

If you answer yes, then the problem is neither my reading ability, but either your honesty or your writing ability.

See above.

But, since you've happily raised the question of my honesty and my writing ability, let's simply stipulate that I can't write and that I'm dishonest. I'm sufficiently bored with this truly odd and wholly irrelevant rabbit trail that I'll cheerfully do so.

[the narrator]

Yup. Which is the principal reason I left the board that you're trying (quite successfully) to make this thread about.

I'm not trying to make it about any particular thread. I'm making it about your attempt to misrepresent A thread in order to utilize it as "provocation."

[phaedrus ut]

Phaedrus, in my view, may have just announced his entry into Crankland. Sigh.

I don't see how my saying "I don't believe there was a Jesus Christ" automatically qualifies me for a all-day-pass into crankland*?

Phaedrus

*I assume this means a place more like crazytown not drugville.

[Uncle Dale]

I don't see how my saying "I don't believe there was a Jesus Christ"

automatically qualifies me for a all-day-pass into crankland*?

...

Nor do I.

Here are some logical possibilities.

1. Jesus existed, but never claimed to be the Jewish messiah

2. Somebody claimed to be Messiah, the name "Jesus" got attached to him

3. There is a Messiah, but his name is not Jesus

4. We misunderstand messiahship and are making an erroneous equation

5. Jesus existed, but acted out the role of the expected messiah

6. Jesus the son of Mary is indeed God's "anointed one"

--- and I've probably missed a few of the logical possibilities.

UD

[Cold Steel]

I'm aware of literally no reputable scholar of the subject who shares in that denial. And, before saying so in print, I ran the question by about half a dozen people who hold doctorates in ancient history or in New Testament and Christian origins, to see whether that statement was too sweeping. The unanimous response was No.

So I take it that you don't believe that the priesthood was restored by Peter, James, and Josephus?

.

[LT123]

It's kinda funny that the statement, "for the most part", was peer-reviewed.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're trying my patience.

And you're testing my confidence in your good will. I find it difficult to square your "I doubt neither your writing abilities, nor your honesty" with your reference to my alleged "attempt to misrepresent a thread in order to utilize it as 'provocation.'" An "attempt to misrepresent" sounds pretty dishonest to me, and doubly so when, as you apparently claim to do, you're able to identify the aim at which the attempted "misrepresentation" was directed. That sounds, to me, like a purposive attempt to deceive. How do you define "honesty"? What would be the point in my deception, since absolutely nothing substantial in my opening post depends, in any way, upon the comments on that Other Thread, except insofar as one or more of them inspired my opening post?

"Perhaps," you write, "you need to go back and read your OP. Your OP wasn't claiming that those on the Other Thread confidently denying the existence of Jesus outnumbered the number of those confidently affirming the existence of Jesus. Rather you said that 'For the most part, they're quite confidently declaring that he probably didn't [exist].'"

Good grief.

A hasty skim of a thread in which the overall tenor was doubt that Jesus really existed moves me to start a thread here that used that original thread (unidentified, on an unspecific board, by unnamed people) as a launching point for mention of a topic that had essentially nothing to do with the people or posts of that original thread, and you transform this thread into a discussion of that thread? I don't get this. Why do it?

Here's how I parse the first fifteen posts on that Other Thread:

1) Doubts that Jesus ever existed.

2) Dubious.

3) Yes, he existed, but the accounts aren't accurate.

4) Dubious, explicitly agreeing with #2.

5) An irrelevant sacrilege.

6) No! He didn't exist.

7) Yes he did.

8 ) Yeah, he did, sort of.

9) The author of #7, again: Yes, he existed.

10) Ambiguous, but see #15 below.

11) Yes, he existed.

12) Irrelevant.

13) No (as originally written)

14) A Mormon testimony.

15) No, he didn't. (Written by author of #10, above.)

Let's give the No posts a value of 1 (one) each. There are (or were) three of them. That's three of fifteen, or 20%. Counting only the relevant posts, that's three of thirteen, or 23%.

Now let's figure it a different way: The resolutely Yes posts will count as one (1) each, the "yes but" posts as 0.75 each, the "maybe didn't" post as 0.5, and the No votes as 0.00.

For the first thirteen relevant posts, using this scale, we have eight (8 ) points out of a possible thirteen, which yields a figure of approximately 61% inclination to the pro-historicity position and nearly 39% inclination against it. Factor in the two wholly irrelevant posts included in that sampling, and you come up with a figure of roughly 53% percent positive, with nearly 47% percent negative or at least not positive. For the first five relevant posts, by contrast -- the sampling that, I can say with some authority, most caught my eye during my quick scan of the thread -- we have only 51% inclination toward the pro-historicity position, while there is 49% inclination against it. And if we factor in the irrelevant sacrilege posted within that sample, we have only 46% expressed positive inclination toward the historicity of Jesus, while there is nearly 54% negative inclination or silence.

There are certainly different ways of parsing the ideological content of these posts, but it surely seems over the top -- not to mention uncivil and quite uncharitable -- to fault me for my impression, based upon a quick scan of the earliest posts on the thread, that the thread trended mostly negatively on the historicity of Jesus, to speak of "your need to begin your OP with a misrepresentation of a thread as 'provocation' for your OP." (Moreover, you make too much of the word provocation. Something can be "thought-provoking" or "provocative" without causing anger. Surely you realize that. Surely you've heard of "provocative remarks" and "provocative theses?) It was a passing, casual post on an internet message board -- not the opening of a formal academic publication -- neither attacking nor identifying any specific poster or group of posters. If I was a few percentage points off, on your reading of the posts, so what? Why focus on such a peripheral matter? Why obsess over it? Why the plainly-felt need to hijack this thread and to suggest dishonesty and other reprehensible moral traits on my part? Why the willingness to poison what little personal relationship we had over such a trivial and silly issue?

[the narrator]

You're trying my patience.

Something we have in common. Want to get some ice cream now?

And you're testing my confidence in your good will. I find it difficult to square your "I doubt neither your writing abilities, nor your honesty" with your reference to my alleged "attempt to misrepresent a thread in order to utilize it as 'provocation.'" An "attempt to misrepresent" sounds pretty dishonest to me, and doubly so when, as you apparently claim to do, you're able to identify the aim at which the attempted "misrepresentation" was directed. That sounds, to me, like a purposive attempt to deceive. How do you define "honesty"? What would be the point in my deception, since absolutely nothing substantial in my opening posts depends, in any way, upon the comments on that Other Thread, except insofar as one or more of them inspired my opening post?

I was just interested in why you claimed that "FOR THE MOST PART" posters on that thread "CONFIDENTLY DECLARED" that Jesus did not exist. If it was a simple error based on a hasty glance over the post, then fine. I'm totally cool with that. However, the absurd lengths you are going to defend your initial claim makes me feel that it wasn't a simple error based on a hasty glance. See below.

"Perhaps," you write, "you need to go back and read your OP. Your OP wasn't claiming that those on the Other Thread confidently denying the existence of Jesus outnumbered the number of those confidently affirming the existence of Jesus. Rather you said that 'For the most part, they're quite confidently declaring that he probably didn't [exist].'"

Good grief.

A hasty skim of a thread in which the overall tenor was doubt that Jesus really existed moves me to start a thread here that used that original thread (unidentified, on an unspecific board, by unnamed people) as a launching point for mention of a topic that had essentially nothing to do with the people or posts of that original thread, and you transform this thread into a discussion of that thread? I don't get this. Why do it?

Here's how I parse the first fifteen posts on that Other Thread:

1) Doubts that Jesus ever existed.

2) Dubious.

3) Yes, he existed, but the accounts aren't accurate.

4) Dubious, explicitly agreeing with #2.

5) An irrelevant sacrilege.

6) No! He didn't exist.

7) Yes he did.

8 ) Yeah, he did, sort of.

9) The author of #7, again: Yes, he existed.

10) Ambiguous, but see #15 below.

11) Yes, he existed.

12) Irrelevant.

13) No (as originally written)

14) A Mormon testimony.

15) No, he didn't.

A hasty skim also shows that your hasty skim is already inaccurate. For example you claim "3) Yes, he existed, but the accounts aren't accurate." Go back and read what #3 actually said.

I'll do ti for you. He says:

I, personally, believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but the most compelling argument that he didn't has been made, IMO, by Earl Doherty in his The Jesus Puzzle. It's an interesting read, but his arguments don't quite do it for me. His website ishttp://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm.

Where does he say that the accounts aren't accurate? While this may not affect your following work as a mathemagician, it still makes me wonder why you through the misrepresentation in. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of making a hasty mistake--we are human and do it all the time.

Let's give the No posts a value of 1 (one) each. There are (or were) three of them. That's three of fifteen, or 20%. Counting only the relevant posts, that's three of thirteen, or 23%.

Now let's figure it a different way: The resolutely Yes posts will count as one (1) each, the "yes but" posts as 0.75 each, the "maybe didn't" post as 0.5, and the No votes as 0.00.

For the first thirteen relevant posts, using this scale, we have eight (8 ) points out of a possible thirteen, which yields a figure of approximately 61% inclination to the pro-historicity position and nearly 39% inclination against it. Factor in the two wholly irrelevant posts included in that sampling, and you come up with a figure of roughly 53% percent positive, with nearly 47% percent negative or at least not positive. For the first five relevant posts, by contrast -- the sampling that, I can say with some authority, most caught my eye during my quick scan of the thread -- we have only 51% inclination toward the pro-historicity position, while there is 49% inclination against it. And if we factor in the irrelevant sacrilege posted within that sample, we have only 46% expressed positive inclination toward the historicity of Jesus, while there is nearly 54% negative inclination or silence.

Perhaps you forgot that you claimed that "FOR THE MOST PART" posters on that thread "CONFIDENTLY DECLARED" that Jesus did not exist. You can problematically attempt to set varying weights for each comment and try to mathemagically defend your claim. However, you did not say "based on an arbitrary system of measures on a thread that I happened to come upon, a simple majority of posters cumulatively deny the existence of Jesus." Instead, you said that "FOR THE MOST PART" posters on that thread "CONFIDENTLY DECLARED" that Jesus did not exist. Furthermore, both you and I know that your mathemagics is a mere game that doesn't hold an ounce of mustard on a day-old 7-11 cheese-filled bratwurst.

There are certainly different ways of parsing the ideological content of these posts, but it surely seems over the top -- not to mention uncivil and quite uncharitable -- to fault me for my impression, based upon a quick scan of the earliest posts on the thread, that the thread trended mostly negatively on the historicity of Jesus, to speak of "your need to begin your OP with a misrepresentation of a thread as 'provocation' for your OP."

In my original reaction, in which I was trying to be charitable, I simply said:

Because I believe that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is pretty much undeniable, I was interested in how "the most part" of any group of people could be "quite confident" in denying his existence. Upon finding the thread I was a bit disappointed. Only two of the posters denied Jesus's existence. Two. That's at most 2/9 (less that one-third) of the posters on the board. And the arguments they had to offer were quite pathetic.

Even FauxNews can't spin that into a majority. Why start off the OP with such a claim? I just don't get it. Why do that?

It was only after your overtly defensive response and defense of your OP, that I became dismissive and skeptical.

(Moreover, you make too much of the word provocation. Something can be "thought-provoking" or "provocative" without causing anger. Surely you realize that. Surely you've heard of "provocative remarks" and "provocative theses?)

I know the standard routine. Appeal to dictionary terms (and if that doesn't work, etymologically close words) to claim that what was said was not what was meant.

That's fine. I say the wrong things all the time too.

It was a passing, casual post on an internet message board -- not the opening of a formal academic publication -- neither attacking nor identifying any specific poster or group of posters.

As was my initial response. However, your opening "Sheesh" to respond to me set the tone for everything else.

Why focus on such a peripheral matter? Why obsess over it? Why the plainly-felt need to hijack this thread and to suggest dishonesty and other reprehensible moral traits on my part? Why the willingness to poison what little personal relationship we had over such a trivial and silly issue?

I'm not obsessing. At first I was just trying to understand why you opened the OP in the way in which you did, now I'm just trying to understand why you are strongly defending what could/should have just been admitted as being a hasty over-generalization.

[the narrator]

Oh yeah. And I'm done here.

Yes you are.