On historical probability

[liamconnor]

I read in one of Bart Ehrman's books (and I apologize I cannot find the reference) a statement to the effect that though none of the natural explanations for the Jesus movement and the belief, i.e., his resurrection, which sparked it are not at all satisfactory...but still, they are more probable than the miraculous.

(Please Note: this OP is for those in agreement with Bart and other scholars, i.e., that there is no easy, obvious natural explanation. If you think you've got what they have failed to produce, please post it in another OP).

I see a danger in Bart's language, and it lies in the wording "more probable".

The danger is that this language tempts skeptics to think that when highly improbable explanations are measured against miraculous ones, suddenly what was improbable is now probable.

Surely this obviously bad logic. If something has a probability of .08%, it does not suddenly bounce up to 99% because it is put side by side with an explanation having only .07% (or even 0%). It stays exactly where it is, highly improbable. If I fall short of only 3 inches trying to slam dunk a basketball, can I suddenly do so because you fall short by 4 inches?

Thus the right response to the question of the REsurrection is not, "All I need is one natural explanation, no matter how improbable, to refute the Christian explanation." That is not how historical studies work, as if on a learning curve. If the explanation is improbable, then it is improbable and should be shelved.

The correct response is, "So far I have no satisfactory natural explanation, but I don't believe miracles are possible. Therefore, until I find a satisfying natural explanation, I simply have to say, 'we are still looking'."

Is this not more intellectually honest than the kind of shifty, deceptive logic of the first response?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

If something has a probability of .08%, it does not suddenly bounce up to 99% because it is put side by side with an explanation having only .07% (or even 0%).

I don't think Erhman is suggesting that the explanation which has a probability calculated to be .08% shoots up to 99%.
I think he is saying that this probability calculation (.08%) is nevertheless higher than something miraculous, which by their very definition are beyond calculation. So why then should we go for the miraculous explanation, given that we cannot put a number on it?

If I fall short of only 3 inches trying to slam dunk a basketball, can I suddenly do so because you fall short by 4 inches?

No, it means that you were closer to the net than I was, and so, there is no reason (given the information supplied) to suppose that I am a better basketball player than you.

Thus the right response to the question of the REsurrection is not, "All I need is one natural explanation, no matter how improbable, to refute the Christian explanation.

No, it's that naturalist explanations can have numbers put to them, no matter how low they may go. Christian explanations cannot. They call it a miracle, say that it's beyond science. If you (general you) say that, then you disqualify yourself from saying that your preferred explanation is somehow better than the naturalistic ones, no matter how low their probability is.

If the explanation is improbable, then it is improbable and should be shelved.

If the probability of a proposed explanation cannot be measured...why should I consider it more plausible than this list of other explanations that can be measured?

The correct response is, "So far I have no satisfactory natural explanation, but I don't believe miracles are possible. Therefore, until I find a satisfying natural explanation, I simply have to say, 'we are still looking'."

If you accept that as a valid response, this negates the Christian explanation. After all...miracles are impossible. Not just improbable, but outright IMPOSSIBLE. Cannot happen. Including Jesus's.

[alwayson]

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact name of Jesus, describes him as "Rising", confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

If you accept that as a valid response, this negates the Christian explanation. After all...miracles are impossible. Not just improbable, but outright IMPOSSIBLE. Cannot happen. Including Jesus's.

I accept that as a valid response from someone who doesn't want to believe in the miraculous; either on sentimental or philosophical grounds.

What I don't accept is the answer, "All I need in order to disprove the miraculous is to come up with one half-baked explanation which doesn't care about historical context." That to me is tantamount to saying "All I need to do to disprove a theory I don't believe in, is to present another theory I don't believe in."

No, it's that naturalist explanations can have numbers put to them, no matter how low they may go. Christian explanations cannot. They call it a miracle, say that it's beyond science. If you (general you) say that, then you disqualify yourself from saying that your preferred explanation is somehow better than the naturalistic ones, no matter how low their probability is.

That is actually not true. We apply percentages to historical events as analogies for what is a psychological conviction. Perhaps it was my error to use this analogy to invite you to think historical explanations really could be assigned a rigid mathematical number.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Liamconnor-
Resurrection is possible, a God would simply need to reverse the damage done by three days of bacteria and oxidative damages to 37 trillion dead cells in the human body.

Without saying "God can do anything," as a definition, explain how a creature of any power could do this.
If you can do that you have not only won the debate, but won deism.
Good luck.

I'll give you a hint, it is impossible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by liamconnor]

What I don't accept is the answer, "All I need in order to disprove the miraculous is to come up with one half-baked explanation which doesn't care about historical context."

Are my 'half-baked explanations' calculable? I myself don't care for explanations that, by their very nature, cannot be calculated.

[rikuoamero]

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact name of Jesus, describes him as "Rising", confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

Haven't I already discussed this with you? Could've sworn I had. The Joshua being described in Zechariah 3 and 6 is the first high priest of the Second Temple.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Liamconnor-
Resurrection is possible, a God would simply need to reverse the damage done by three days of bacteria and oxidative damages to 37 trillion dead cells in the human body.

Without saying "God can do anything," as a definition, explain how a creature of any power could do this.
If you can do that you have not only won the debate, but won deism.
Good luck.

I'll give you a hint, it is impossible.

Waiting...

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I read in one of Bart Ehrman's books (and I apologize I cannot find the reference) a statement to the effect that though none of the natural explanations for the Jesus movement and the belief, i.e., his resurrection, which sparked it are not at all satisfactory...but still, they are more probable than the miraculous.

(Please Note: this OP is for those in agreement with Bart and other scholars, i.e., that there is no easy, obvious natural explanation. If you think you've got what they have failed to produce, please post it in another OP).

I see a danger in Bart's language, and it lies in the wording "more probable".

The danger is that this language tempts skeptics to think that when highly improbable explanations are measured against miraculous ones, suddenly what was improbable is now probable.

Surely this obviously bad logic. If something has a probability of .08%, it does not suddenly bounce up to 99% because it is put side by side with an explanation having only .07% (or even 0%). It stays exactly where it is, highly improbable. If I fall short of only 3 inches trying to slam dunk a basketball, can I suddenly do so because you fall short by 4 inches?

Thus the right response to the question of the REsurrection is not, "All I need is one natural explanation, no matter how improbable, to refute the Christian explanation." That is not how historical studies work, as if on a learning curve. If the explanation is improbable, then it is improbable and should be shelved.

The correct response is, "So far I have no satisfactory natural explanation, but I don't believe miracles are possible. Therefore, until I find a satisfying natural explanation, I simply have to say, 'we are still looking'."

Is this not more intellectually honest than the kind of shifty, deceptive logic of the first response?

Perhaps Bart Ehrman should pay a visit to DC&R then. Because the explanation for ALL OF IT has been presented on the forum repeatedly. According to the information provided in the Gospels, the chief priests believed that the followers of Jesus planned to relocate the body of Jesus from Joseph's personal tomb to another location and then claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. And what is it that actually occurred? The tomb of Joseph proved to be empty and six weeks later the followers of Jesus began to spread the rumor that he had "risen" from the dead. An "occurrence" only witnessed by them.

Joseph of Arimathea WAS HIMSELF A "DISCIPLE OF JESUS" according to Matthew 27:57, and John 19:38. And so the followers of Jesus had possession of the body right off of the cross, right from the beginning. Joseph's personal family tomb was never intended to be the final destination for the body of Jesus. It was simply used as a convenient private place to wash and prepare the body for transportation elsewhere because it was close to Calvary. How do I know this? BECAUSE THE TOMB LATER PROVED TO BE EMPTY! Also because John 19:42 mentions this specifically.

[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

The chief priests took physical possession of Joseph's closed tomb the next day, the Sabbath and Passover, but the tomb proved to be empty the following morning. So which explanation is actually more HISTORICALLY PROBABLE? That the priests took possession of a tomb that was already empty because the body was already in the process of being transported to its actual intended final destination? Or because the body of Jesus returned to life and left the tomb of it's own accord? If we are actually being INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!

[alwayson]

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact name of Jesus, describes him as "Rising", confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

Haven't I already discussed this with you? Could've sworn I had. The Joshua being described in Zechariah 3 and 6 is the first high priest of the Second Temple.

The original intent of the scriptures doesn't matter in Pesher.

Daniel 9 was about Onias III, but it was also used to form Christianity.

And the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 has Jesus, not Joshua.