Here, I'll start off simple.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty in historical claims or even scientific claims. History like science is about probability. A "truth" claim of history, is that a particular scenario is more probable than all other scenarios. 

A claim of Jesus existing in history, is: "It is more probable the Jesus existed, than not existed", that Jesus existing is a more probable explanation of the data/evidence we have at hand, than Jesus not existing. 

Our common Jesus mythicist, share patterns with creationist, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier and such, in that they attempt to create an argument purely out of doubt, rather than scenario building. In order for creationism to be true, it would have to portray the creationism scenario as a more probable explanation of the development of life than evolution. Creationist can cast doubts all they want, but unless they build a scenario that can be perceived as a more probable explanation, their efforts are in vain. 

To repeat again, In order for it to historically "true" that Jesus did not exist, than this would have to be a more probable explanation of all data we have at hand, than Jesus existing. 

Do you concur so far?

Now the question to you Rook, before we go any further, is do you believe that Jesus not existing is a more probable explanation for all evidence/data we have at hand, than Jesus existing? Or in other words, do you believe that it's more probable the Jesus did not exist, than exist? 

Let's confront this silly oddity first, since it's the source of the dilemma for the rest of your post.

I'm surprised an individual who claims to be an ancient text expert and historian, doesn't understand this basic point.

Giving a historical or scientific claim 100% certainty, affords it a sense of absolutism, and implies that it cannot be proven wrong, that no evidence can exist contrary to it. Science and history do not make claims of 100% certainty, because all historical and scientific claims retain with it the possibility of being proven wrong. 

Let's just confront the Alexander the Great was a man. You claim this has a 100% certainty attached to it, which implies that it cannot be proven wrong. That all other scenarios are impossible (0% probability). Yet it can be conceivably proven wrong.

It's possible to have or find evidence that Alexander the Great was really a woman disguised as a man. Unless you claim this is impossible (something that history nor science would claim), than affording a 100% certainty to Alexander the Great was a man, is false.

Even a basic student of history should understand this, and I'm surprised that I have to go over this with you.

Either you'd like to continue arguing this with me, or concede and revise your previous post accordingly. 

Your choice pilgrim.

One has to be aware that an individual speaks the same language first, before we begin to speak with him in English. 

You might be an exception to the rule, but in my experience with mythicist, one has to take him back to kindergarten and teach him the basics of historical analysis, often times I have to teach the meaning of evidence. Your notion that Alexander the Great was a man, is 100% certain, reveals even your own ineptness that needs to be addressed before we can continue. 

Without an established language and structure, our discussion would lack a certain coherency, and it tends to be more tedious confronting problems in communication when turtle heads emerge later. I prefer a more focused and structured discussion, so I tend to start such discussions gauging if we are on the same page before we begin. 

Ah, let's see whose actually shifted the goal post. Earlier you claimed that there is 100% certainty in science and history, now you've dropped the 100%. It's no longer science and history make claims of 100% certainty, now it's just science and history make claims of certainty. I agree with the latter; I don't agree with the former. Are you going to apologize for accusing me of shifting the goal post? Since it's quite clear that I haven't, but you have.

This is not that hard to understand my dear Rook. When you say a claim that Alexander was a Man is 100% certain, that means the possibility of any other scenario is 0%. Let's show you your own contradiction, you claim that Alexander is a man, but yet you still claim that it's possible that Alexander wasn't a man (when you say that future evidence can negate this). This statement alone reveals that Alexander was a man, is not 100% certain. You can says it 99.99999999% certain, leaving .00000001 that this is not true, but it's surely not 100% certain. 

Sure there is certainty that Alexander was a man, in fact it's quite certain that he was, it's just not 100% certain (implying that there is 0% probability of this being wrong). Do you understand this basic point Rook? It shouldn't be all that challenging for you to comprehend.

Perhaps one of your fellow trusted atheist on this forum can reveal your logical flaw for you, since you have trouble seeing it yourself. 

It wasn't my desire to get hung up on this point, but since someone is having a little difficulty comprehending what I consider to be an obvious and simple point, I feel like I have to. Perhaps some of our fellow Rational Responders would like to help Rook out, to make things go a little faster. 

Edit: Here I found a kindergarten breakdown for you. Let's say it's a 100% certain that every time you flip a particular coin that it's going to land on heads. That means no matter how many times  I flip it, it's going to land on heads, and that there is no possibility that it's going to land on tails. If i say that somewhere down the line it's possible for the coin to land on tails, perhaps on the 1 millionth toss, than it was never 100% certain to begin with.

One can say this expression in numerous ways, such as it's far more likely or more probable for the coin to land on heads, than tails. Or it can even be expressed in terms of it's numerical probability such as it is 99.999999% likely that the coin would land on heads and .000001% that it'll land on tails. 

You do realize this whole post you just made is all based on an ad hoc, right?  I never said I was dropping 100%.  Alexander was 100% certainly a man.  Because all the data we have suggests he was male.  Your whole diatribe here is nothing but a joke.  Perhaps you can grasp that easy enough?  Or, like you, do I need to throw in more ad hominems for it to be childish enough for you to grasp?

I see you have no interest in actually making an argument about a historical Jesus.  All you seem to want to do is waste my time. 

What are you rambling on about?

Are you asking for a simple question?  Do you know how to formulate a question correctly?  Can you write in English after all that dodging about speaking the same language earlier?

Why do you insist on deviating from the original point you had?  Where is your argument for a historical Jesus?  I have no problems accepting the definite fact that Alexander was a man.  Do you really think he wasn't?  If not, I see no value to you hounding the point that the possibility exists he was a she.  Sure, and you might be the opposite sex too, in some other universe.  We're in reality here.  Perhaps you should bring yourself back to it.  There is no reason at all to assume that Alexander was anything but male. 

You can speculate all you want, but the evidence for such a position does not exist.  You can claim that by speculating you are being critical, and to a lesser person (such as yourself, obviously) that may seem like a logical position.  But to somebody who knows something about how the historical evidence is interpreted, you look foolish.  There are billions of things we can speculate on, that does not mean that they are possibilities (certainly not probabilities - which you seem to think is the same thing as a possibility.  Get a dictionary for the difference between probability and possibility).  Real historical research doesn't work this way.  We let the evidence determine the perspective, we don't speculate on the vast possibilities of "what if", we examine the data and determine the best answer from what the evidence provides as possibilities.  The evidence does not allow for the possibility of Alexander being a woman.

But fine, if you WISH to continue pressing this.  We are 100% certain Julius Caesar was a man.  There is a 2nd example of a historical certainty.  Now can you PLEASE provide an argument for the original point.

Yes, Bart is apparently missing something if he is claiming that.  Part of the reason your flabbergasted is only because you don't know the sources Bart uses, nor do you seem to care to read beyond what you read in the text.  Bart Ehrman uses Charles Talbert as a source.  But Talbert is decades old (his book What is a Gospel is the one Ehrman cites).  Perhaps Bart should look into Michael E. Vines, Roland Boer, Mary Ann Tolbert and many others in the scholarly community who no longer hold to the genre being SIMILAR to Greco-Roman biography.  (By the way, if Bart is claiming Talbert said that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biography, he is wrong.  Talbert explicitly states in his conclusions that he believed the Gospels to represent a similarity to Greco-Roman biography - not that they were Greco-Roman biographies.  You should read more books outside of Bart Ehrman.)

This is a false statement.  If anything, as Vines shows in his thorough critique of Talbert's position, the Gospels resemble a narrative (not a biography) similar to Jewish Fiction writing in the Hellenistic and Second Sophistic periods (which the Gospels fall into).  His examination of the methods employed by Talbert suggest that Talbert was unequipped to handle the study because he lacked knowledge of proper literary-critical analysis.  I would also recommend you read Dennis R. MacDonald's book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark for more understanding as to why the Gospels do not reflect biography but literary fiction.  The genre you are suggesting is something out of date, and if Ehrman is suggesting this as well, he needs to brush up on his research. 

No. I'm suggesting you have the genre wrong entirely. 

You like ad hoc fallacies, don't you?  You thrive on making useless points and attack positions I never make.  I have yet to see a solid argument from you.  You keep whining about Greco-Roman biographies, but you have no knowledge of genre criticism or literary criticism, the same methods used to determine genre are the ones you need to study - not historical criticism (which has little basis on literary methods except by studying the means ancient authors wrote and why they wrote).   Come back to this discussion when you know what you're are talking about.

Then once more, your name suits your position.  You're an idiot.  History does make some certain statements in regards to the state of the evidence.  One more, I pose you a second example: Julius Caesar was a man.  This is certain.  Do you want to try to tell me he was a woman in disguise too? 

I reiterate my point.  You're name suits you.

Don't project.  This is what you've been doing all along.  I simply provided you with evidence showing you how the position you were holding (appealing to Ehrman) was actually outdated, and had been taken to task more recently.  It's your own fault for not checking sources and reading them.  Instead you've done exactly what you're claiming I've done (falsely, I would add).  You are reading things at face value and assuming their accuracy without question.

Do you really think that babbling on and on about me not having an argument is an argument?  Tell me, idiot, who do you think really lacks argument here?  Somebody who directly quotes from wikipedia without citing a source about something he clearly doesn't understand (you), or somebody who offers well-sourced books which have been published through academic series and academic presses? 

I don't have to show it.  It's been done already by those who are much better able to defend the position than I am.  The sources I have given you are not only exactly what you asked from me, but they are credible sources written by those with scholarly credentials (because apparently that is a big deal to you, even though I am certain you lack them as well).  Perhaps you feel sore because you weren't expecting me to give you an answer?  Maybe you just didn't realize that for your first several posts on this message board, ridiculing others about something you said they adamentaly didn't know would backfire on you.  All of a sudden, you're the stooge who doesn't know the difference between the genre of Luke-Acts and the genre of Epictetus' Life of Apollonius. 

I'm sorry, but it is not my fault you are not familiar with how modern literary criticism uses and often applies Bakhtin's theory of genre to the Gospel narratives.  I'm sorry you are not aware that Bart Ehrman cites Talbert, who wrote his book on genre in 1977, who has been taken to task by Michael Vines and Mary Ann Tolbert as recently as this past year.  Get a clue.  Read a book.  I am just toying with you in this discussion so far.  To me, you're not somebody to take seriously, and you've demonstrated continuously in this conversation that you are not capable of having a dialog.  So I will not do your homework for you.

Only somebody completely unfamiliar with my research would make a claim like that. Here's a clue for you, why don't you read one of my articles before assuming you know something about me.  Here, you can check this out as well:

Google Search This Site for Rook Hawkins on Earl Doherty
 

Or try my article on this very subject: Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors

And when you're done making assumptions, you'll cease making yourself look foolisj.

Actually I have a 100% certainty that you don't know shit about literary and historical criticism.

You complaining to me for 90% of this post is not the same thing as making an argument.  I know you feel embarrassed from being called out on your ignorance and intellectual laziness, but I don't have time to deal with childish rantings about it.  Get a clue.

This is you so far, "Whhhaaaaa!  Rook knows more than me and hurt my feelings so I'm going to attack him without knowing a thing about him and his position!  Wahhhhh!!!!"  Dude, grow up.  Get a tissue.  Act like a man. 

You have spent seven paragraphs telling me how much you're going to kick my ass in history and have not presented a single argument.  You just keep complaining about me.  Like I said, you're completely laughable.

Blah blah blah.  Look, you didn't know about me, you tried to make yourself all big and bad, and when push comes to shove, you fell off the horse.  Dust yourself off.  Get back up.  Man the fuck up and stop whining.

Oh this ought to be good.  *Gets popcorn*

Projection much?  Hmm, I recall you going on and on about Bart Ehrman's "Textbook" on the New Testament.  Problem is you were pwned on that and now have to find some way to deal with your embarrassment by trying to push it onto me.

Let me tell you about yourself.  You are a deluded, a silly little man who is a nobody who wants to act big.  You probably tackled some small, zit-faced teenager who wants to bang Acharya S and thought, "Yeah, I pwn mythicists".  You find out about me, think I share opinions with everyone out there, and try to taunt me.  When that fails, you insult me.  When you finally come up with some semblance of a statement (the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies) and later come to find out I know much much more than you do, you go on a tirade about how much I such at history and blah blah blah.  Look kid.  I've got no time for wannabes and bullshiters.  Make an argument.  Put out or shut up.

You could say that, but I didn't.  I would never be so brash as to make the ignorant claim that Joshua and Exodus were written during the Hellenistic or Second Sophistic periods.  The books of Joshua and Exodus (not "Moses&quot were written during the Persian Period. 

What I said was "the Gospels resemble a narrative (not a biography) similar to Jewish Fiction writing in the Hellenistic and Second Sophistic periods."  If you're clueless as to what this means exactly, I'm talking about a tradition of novelistic fiction writing that does date back to the Persian Period, but doesn't take root until the Hellenistic period, at least not in the same sense.  So, what we have is a tradition of Jewish fiction novels being written by Hellenistized and Romanized Jews for hundreds of years, and the Gospels fit right smack-dab in the center of this tradition.

I'm talking about the books of Tobit, the books of Kings, Samuel, the prophets, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Maccabees, Ester, Esdras, 1-3 Enoch, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Isaiah, Testament of Moses, Baruch, Shepard of Hermes, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, and the many other numerous Jewish fiction genre books written during the period when Alexander the Great conquered the ancient Near East in the 4th Century BCE through the end of the Second Sophistic some time around the 3rd Century CE. 

Why assume?  That's a silly thing to say, but then again, assumption seems to be your MO.  Instead of assuming things, why not just read the books from the scholars I recommended?  Here are a few to help you along:

• Michael E. Vines, The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel; SBL Academia Biblica 3 (2002)
• Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel (2005)
• Roland Boer, Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies; SBL SemeiaSt 63 (2007)
• G. Aichele & G.A. Phillips, Intertextuality and the Bible; SBL SemeiaSt 69/70 (1995)
• Marianne Palmer Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (2000)
• Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epic and the Gospel of Mark (2000)
• Thomas L. Thompson, The Bible in History: How Writers Create the Past (2005)

When you read all these books as (and many more) as I have, and you want to present a case against the position of the Gospels as literary fiction novels, we can talk.  Until then, citing Bart Ehrman and complaining about how I am disagreeing with you will not be helpful in this ''discussion" - if I were to even call it that. 

By creating another ad hoc fallacy again?  Like I said, you're superb at attacking arguments I never made.  If only you could actually address the issue.

Stolen from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

But I would still agree with the statement.  It seems to smack of intent rather than recalled memories.  This is a start to exploring the role that genre plays in literary research.  You can not adequately assume anything about a text unless you can first examine the genre.  As I have shown, as well as the scholars above, the books of the Bible represent fiction, not Greco-Roman biography. 

Pfft.   Like I really give a shit what you think about me?  You're a nobody who steals things from websites (wikipedia for Christ's sake!) after ostricizing me for citing an actual source for information.  You probably don't even realize you helped make my point!  The fact that topoi exist is exactly why the Gospels better represent novel fictions rather than Greco-Roman biographies.  If you had a clue as to how to interpret topoi, motifs, archetypes and tropes, you might have a fucking clue as to why no scholar (except perhaps people like you who are stupid enough to think that wikipedia is a good source to steal things from) familiar with literary-critical methods would claim the Gospels best represent Greco-Roman biography.  You're a damn joke.

If I catch you plagiarizing in the next post to me, you're on time out. 

Oh my God, I'm not going to even go through this shit with you anymore. I repeat again, history like science does not make claims of 100% certainty, all scientific and historical claim allow deviation. This is fucking basic logic, it shows how dumb you are that you can't fucking comprehend this.  History cannot claim 100% that Julius Caesar of Alexander was man, because 100% certainty does not allow deviation. But fuck it, we'll move on. 

Rook, do you suffer some sort of mental illness? Is this where your delusions come from? Did I go on and on about Bart Ehrman. I said I have never heard anyone claim that the gospels were not written in the style of Greco-Roman biography, I refereed to Ehrman's textbook as the last bit of material I read on the subject, that stated the same thing. Now, I have no idea what you're talking about you pwned me? You claimed that Ehrman is citing Talbert? When in fact he's not citing any authority, but rather he's comparing the gospel with other Greco-Roman biographies, such as those written by Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus. His claim is that people in antiquity would have read the Gospels as such. So, I have no clue, as to what I'm suppose to be embarrassed. 

I wasn't resorting to Ehrman as an appeal to authority. In fact I can see the Gospels as Greco-Roman biography by reading author Greco-Roman biographies as well, and see that they exhibit similar literary styles. 

Read the paragraph again, did I claim that you use Doherty as a source? I didn't even use your name. What I said was, most mythicist get their information from individual like Earl Doherty. That doesn't mean they get their information from Earl Doherty, but individuals like him.  I could have easily just of said that most mythicist get there information from individuals such as Rook Hawkins, and made the same point. They run with quotes, without having a clue as to what their talking about. 

Well, that's good you think that, but too bad you haven't shown that to be true. But go ahead, continue tooting your own horn, your content will reveal how knowledge you are and I'm not, so let's continue. 

This is even odder. I don't know how one could claim that the Gospels are written in the style of let's say the Maccabees. Now the Gospels share certain themes, such as notion of suffering and redemption with the Maccabees, but this is kind of no shit. It just goes to show the themes of the Gospel are grounded in certain strains of Judaism. Jesus as a Jew and the Gospel writers, are going to share a body of thought and influence with Judaism. But just because they share certain thematic elements, this doesn't mean they're written in the same style. Nor do these thematic elements negate that the gospels are written in the style of Greco-Roman biographies of religious figures. 

This is how you know someone doesn't have an argument. Do you really expect me to go out and spend over a $100 on books, and spend hours reading them, because you're ncapable of articulating a point? 

I doubt your fellow mythicist on this forum have read your book list. Are you incapable of arguing the relevant points yourself? If individuals look to you, and not those books as the source of their own position, they'd probably be quite uninformed wouldn't they, when you can't make the case yourself? 

You claim that literary-criticism reveals that the style of the gospels are more aligned with books such as the macabees than greco-roman biographies of religious figures. I asked you to make a case (or at least the beginnings of case) for this, not a reading list. If you actually knew how to apply the literary-criticism, it shouldn't be that hard to do this? 

Uhm, no. Greco-Roman biographies also incorporate topoi, motifs, archetypes, etc. 

One of the fundamental difference between ancient and modern biographies, is that ancient biographers were less interested in showing what actually happened in the lives of there subjects than in portraying their essential character and personality traits.

In Plutrach's greco roman biography of Alexander he claims that he was a descendent from Hercules, and has a mythological birth. In fact in his introduction to the life of Alexander, he said that he desired to express the "souls of these men". The ancient historian is writing a narrative of their subject. 

Greco-roman biographies do contain fictional elements, right? They incorporate literary devices such as topoi right? So what's your fucking argument. 

No my friend, what you do is provide a list of books, not even what is  in the books, but just a list of books, with the silly expectation that I read them. I would prefer that you provide uncited cut and pastes from the books, that elaborate your points, than expecting me to doll out over $100 bucks, and countless hours to read them.

And i really don't give a shit that I cited wikipedia for two quite simple points, or that I was too lazy to actually cite them. If you have a problem with what is being said, go ahead and argue it. Crying that it comes from wikipedia get's you nowhere, other than making you sound like a whiny bitch. You didn't provide information, you haven't made one single coherent argument. You make dumb claims that the Gospel are written in the style of the Maccabees, rather than claim the obvious, that they share certain thematic elements, particularly on redemption through suffering, and voluntary  suffering as the price of sin, but that's pretty much as far as it goes. 

Let's also move on to another point. 

The Gospels though deeply rooted in Judaism, is a drastic if not blasphemous re-visioning of it. Jesus claims that his purpose is to spread this radical revisioning, the Good news of the kingdom. He had a message, in fact we have the Gospel of Thomas, that contains no narrative account of the life of Jesus, but rather just sayings.  You have a message that exalts and empowers victimhood, and a communal table with the poor, sinners, and publicans. We have complex kingdom parables, we have the sermon of the mount, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile (a reference to the Roman law of Angaria), a love for one's enemy, and non-violence,  a radical revisioning of the law, etc. And most of narrative elements of the Gospel are an embodiment of this message. 

I'm an exegete, especially of the Gospels and the New Testament. I spend a great deal of time in this. And it's why i have an interest in history, because history helps to add depth and clarification in interpreting the message. One cannot really comprehend  the cross unless one understand it's context in history, as a Roman symbol of despair. 

When I read the gospels it seems obvious to me what's going on.

You have a message from a person of history, Jesus, and the Gospels are narrative of that message. In the same way that Plautrach writes of Alexander to express his souls, the Gospels are written to convey the meaning of the person and message of Jesus. There concern is to not to provide a literal history, to appease our modern sensibilities, but to convey what it all means. 

The Gospels are narratives based on the life of a Jewish religious figure, his message is found within it's pages. The writers of the Gospel take this message, and whatever pieces they know of his life, create mythologies out of the parts they don't know of like his birth, or the 30 years prior to his ministry, and use these elements in order to convey that message. This is the most probable scenario, that the Gospels are based on a historical person. 

But you claim to disagree? Please make an actual case as to why. Asking me to read books is not going to get you too far, in fact it seems more a less like an attempt to weasel your way out of debating me. If the book has something relevant to say, then provide quotes or summaries of the material you find relevant. But expecting to spend $20 on a book so I can argue your point for you, is ridiculous. 

I haven't had a chance yet to confront the definition of evidence, but I'm going to quote wikipedia for the definition and than provide "evidence"

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

So here, I'll provide some evidence:

Greco-roman biographies are evidence for a historical person. 

Individuals who believe a figure to be an existing person is evidence for a historical person, particularly when they trace back to the first century.

Lack of individuals who did not believe the figure was an existing person, is evidence in favor of a historical person. 

The best explanation for the bulk of the teachings, and parables of the Gospels (as well as non-canonical Gospels, such as the saying Gospel) is one person, particularly when the teachings are not found anywhere else in Judaism, is evidence for a historical person. A coherent skeleton of thought found etched in every Gospel, even the non-canonical ones, is evidence of historical person. 

The unlikelihood that the Jewish community would create a fictional messiah, the lack of any evidence of any community who would, the fact that communities that would have benefited from a purely fictional messiah such as the gnostics who still claimed christ came in the appearance of human flesh rather than claiming that christ came in a purely fictional form, is evidence of a historical person proclaimed as the Messiah. 

The fact that a historical Jesus is the best explanation of all the material we have at hand, is evidence of a historical person. 

The fact that the all the material/evidence we have is exactly what we would expect on a historical Jesus, the fact that there is not single bit of credible piece of evidence to assume otherwise, is all evidence for a historical Jesus. 

Chew on that for a bit. 

We can claim that we are a 100% certain of many things. But science and history cannot claim 100% certainty in anything, because all scientific and historical claims allow for deviation. 

I'll use a coin example again. If I claim that it's a 100% certain that no matter how many times a coin is slipped that it will land on heads, this allows no deviation. It's not possible for the coin to land on tails; it's not possible for the coin to land on anything but heads, that is what it means when we say a 100% certainty. A 100% certainty does not afford science and history to allow even a slim deviation. All historical and scientific claims allow deviation, there by all scientific and historical claims can never be afforded a 100% certainty. 

Are you 100% sure you are certain. This is fucking silly. This is like saying nothing we can say is correct, and therefore not worth our investigation. Everyone simply makes statements of opinions. Do we need to post a disclaimer before we speak our minds ?

   Attention: I am merely human , so what I have to say is basically worthless ....

     This thread is a major disappointment .... WTF ???  

                            Did I miss something ?

And not it isn't like saying nothing we say is correct. What its saying is that a correct statement in science, is the statement that is the most probable.

Hence, evolution is correct, because it's the most probable explanation of the evidence at hand. 

Since historical and scientific statements allow for deviation, all scientific and historical statements are less than 100% certain. You can go ahead and claim you're 100% certain about any thing, it's just that science doesn't claim that degree of certainty. 

Any claim that allows for deviation can not be 100% certain, all scientific and historical statement allow for deviation, therefore scientific and historical statement can not be stated as 100% certain. 

In science, isn't a Law 100 percent certain?

This statement is internally inconsistent. 'Science' means 'knowledge', 'to know'. If we can claim to know things with 100% certainty, that's science recognizing 100% certainty.

Science is not just some arbitrary label.

Your claim: Jesus being Jewish(a) explains the Judaic influences present in the gospel writings(b).

(a) implies (b)

You presuppose (a)

Therefore, (b) is accurate.

This is begging the question, otherwise known as circular reasoning.

...I already did what I intended to do. Pointed-out your misuse of the term 'cited', pointed-out that you were being intellectually dishonest and pointed-out that this strongly implies that you really have no knowledge of your own concerning the subject at hand.

'One fucking paragraph' that Rook was able to dig-up, sure. But this evidence now throws your entire argument into question - how much plagiarism have you engaged-in above that has gone unnoticed?

And don't lie. It certainly was intentional; it's not like you can copy/paste another author's work by accident.

And so say nothing ? You are a nihilist ?

I am not a 'Jesus mythicist' any more than I am a 'Darwinist' or 'Evolutionist'; I'm a skeptic.

'Jesus existed!' is a positive claim. If you wish to make that claim, the burden of proof lies with you. If I want to say, 'Megatron existed!' I imagine you'd ask the same of me; it's no use crying and whining that classical history is so murky - if a claim isn't falsifiable, it can never be accepted as fact. It doesn't make your case stronger, somehow, that evidence for much of anything in times of antiquity is so lacking.

theidiot is so smart, he has said nothing .... that's so cleaver, and worthless .... this is actually getting fun now .... a post of nothing  

My goof, that's worth something  

One for the idiot, I am 100% certain I am god. Got a beef with that ? 

I am 100% certain of many things , as I am what I am. Did jesus exist? If I must pick the religious bible one of a higher perfection above me , NO.

I am 100% positive. I cant lie to myself .... I am certain. I am the christ, as you !

     Yet there is lots to debate .... what was Jesus ? What are we, what are you , what am I ?  

     I am 100% certain my words confuse and my history will be distorted, ignored, forgot, but not 100%    I am important, and significant , I am god  , I am what IS ....  are you ? 

    Crazy Babel Games , get it on ....

All historical, and scientific claims allow for deviation, only claims that don't allow for deviation can be labelled as 100% certain. I'd wager that any actual scientist on this forum, can back this up, and I'm sure there's a few of them.

From Talkorigins: "In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. "

All he/she/it is doing is pushing a tangent for this entire thread instead of addressing the issue - which is annoying. Shit or get off the pot.

"I SHALL MAKE YOU SEEM DUMBER THAN ME BY USING LOTS OF BIG WORDS AND BELITTLING YOU!!" Compensating for the lack of something??

It's kind of funny. You can tell when he/she/it is cutting and pasting, the mis-use of then and than and the f-bombs stop.

Good eve, I hope you are well.

I also hope you don't mind small introjection.

Noting that for positive stuff the above holds.

We can, however, toss out the garbage.

E.g. While the 'TRUTH' may end up being a closer and closer approximation, the garbage may be tossed out with certainty on more than one occasion.

tq

Hi Rook, I don't want to detour the thread, but I thought it might be helpful for you in the future if this point was clarified.

It appears to me there are two points of view, each talking past the other. First, there is your view that if all the evidence points to X, then it is fair to call X a 100% certainty. Second, there is the statistical view that nothing empirical can strictly be claimed to be 100% certain, for there is always the possibility that future evidence may change things.

The point I would make to you is that while it is true that all evidence points to X, you will avoid a lot of misunderstanding if you avoid using '100%' to describe that level of 'certainty'. Ultimately, historical methods will rely on statistics, so sticking with statistical concepts will guard you from detours (such as the detour in the beginning of this thread) arguing over what 'certainty' means. In empirical studies, such as historical methods, using 100% would mean there's no possibility of ever finding contradictory evidence. The only time this could be the case is in the case of a logical impossibility, such as the possibility of finding a swan that is both completely white and completely black at the same time. It is 100% certain that we will never find such a swan.

However, if we are talking about the ordinary case, then we should avoid using '100%'. For example, if we find 100,000,000 white swans, we 'have no reason to think that there are black swans', but it would strictly be wrong to claim that it is 100% certain that the next swan we find (assuming there are more to be found) will be white.

In statistics there is the concept of a population vs. a sample. When you have the whole population (all possible evidence), then it is fair to talk about that population with levels of 100% certainty. For example, if there are only 100 swans in existence, and you have all 100 of them, then you could claim that 100% of the swans are white. But in nearly all practical cases, we don't have access to the entire population, only a sample from the population. E.g. We have 100 out of an estimated 1 million swans. In this case, we can only strictly make claims of less than 100% certainty.

So, while all the evidence we have points to X, we don't have all the possible evidence. There is still more evidence that may be found. We can only use sample-based statistics, not population-based statistics. Therefore, it is strictly wrong, from a statistical point of view, to claim with 100% certainty that X is true. E.g. it is strictly wrong from a statistical point of view to claim that it is 100% certain that Alexander the Great was a male, even though 100% of the evidence collected (so far!) points to him being male.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that it is 'certain' that AtG is a male if we do not use the statistical interpretation of 'certain', and instead mean 'with great confidence', such as 99.999% probable. In many statistical studies, the level of confidence is chosen at 95%, and I think in historical methods, this would probably be a very strong confidence level. In such cases, you might informally call a fact 'certain' if it meets this confidence criterion. Personally, I think the case for the non-historicity of Jesus is much better than 95%, as my own lay estimate. So, I think in this case it would be fair to informally claim that it is 'certain' that Jesus was not historical.

However, I still think that in the future it would be in your best interest not to use claims of '100%', especially because ultimately to support your research you must rely on statistical methods, which can never make claims of 100% certainty (unless they have the entire population of data, which is extremely rare).

Sorry for the long belaboured post. I just wanted to be very clear on what I'm saying.

He needs to shut the fuck up about this non-issue and bring up what the thread was actually supposed to be about and now on the second page?? I was starting to think maybe he was banned but I guess maybe he's been too butthurt to come back.

Yea, it looks like the pot’s calling the kettle black:

Is Rook Hawkins Plagiarizing: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-rook-hawkins-plagiarizer.html

Of course when David from Myspace showed that you plagiarized somewhere else.

You said that this: “Biggest Cop-Out Of All Time.”

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_mail_bag/637

I didn’t properly cite a source, and on a number of occasion neither have you. So what, let’s move on. I’ll make sure to be more careful next time.

Yea, and I’m guessing this doesn’t:

Yep, you’re the big dude with the mod power. You can say whatever you want, and try to censor others who do the same. But that’s fine. I’ll start to moderate my tongue.

I can see that our discussion has gotten out of hand, and I’m willing to acknowledge my hand in this. I was unnecessarily provoking. So perhaps we can start over. I finished quite a lengthy response to your previous post. It’s far more polite, far more to the point, and I covered an extensive amount of ground. It’s quite polite to you, though I do take some playful jabs, but you should be light hearted enough not to mind.

But let’s get a few things straight. I don’t claim to be an expert, I said I’m quite informed, but I don’t declare myself an expert or a historian. I read as much as I can on the subject of history, but I’m student of economics and risk assessment, and juggle a semi-hectic personal life. Though I read a lot, on many different subjects, I don’t have a stack of 600 books on my bookshelf.

The Mythicist that I’ve ran into on forums are not as informed as me, not because they are less intelligent than me, but because they have no desire to pursue even a hobbyist interest in ancient history, and are not to eager to venture past the shallow.

And  this is why, I came to this forum, and called you out, because I figured you’d offer me the challenge I was looking to spurn my brain juices. And you have, and so I am thankful for that.

But let’s get a few things straight. I’m not looking for entire paragraphs ranting about how intelligent you are, how many books you’ve read, how superior you are to me. I’m not looking for someone to point out when I’ve mispunctuated a sentence, or improperly cited Bart Ehrman. I’m not looking for you to hide behind your backgrounds or your books, but actual arguments.

I don’t have self-esteem issues, when I’m wrong I can admit it better than most people.

I care little if you actually are more intelligent than me or not, so constantly trying to rub your credentials in my face, get you nowhere. And it’s nothing but a waste of time

As far as I’m concerned I could care less if I used my peasant farmer of a grandfather as source, argue with what’s being said not that man or wikipedia.. I wouldn’t care if a mythicist quoted a 25 year old with nothing but a HS diploma, as long he made a decent case.  

I don’t want to hear nothing about I’m deluded, or whatever other ad hominems you can flay at me, particularly since you have just threatened to ban me from these forum. If you feel that I have given into “delusions” i.e. cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias etc.. point it out, show me how and where I’d done so.

It’s should be pointed out, that the classification of me a theist, is not accurate. I’m surely not represenative of Christianity. I’m not looking to save no soul. I like woman, boos, and violence, and all the pleasures that hedonism offers. My acceptance of Jesus as a historical person, is not the result of my religious belief, or whatever else have you. There was a period in my life before I actually knew much about anything, that I was exposed to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, and I thought it was fucking cool. I felt it spokes volumes for the human imagination. And it was out of a more learned understanding of history that my position changed. I accept that Jesus was a historical figure, the same way that I accept evolution, I don’t have a real vested interest in these positions, such as you may having being a member here.

 If someone can reasonably argue that the mythicist case is more probable than Jesus being a historical person, I’d be quite happy for the enlightenment.

 Rook, no one is holding a gun up at you. I’m going to post my response to you, regardless if you plan on responding to it or not. I don’t really care for your comments of how I’m not worthy of you responding or whatever shit like this. Keep them to yourself. If you’re obliged to respond do so, if not, that don’t

 Anyways, I’ll post my response to you later in the day, after I spell and content check it. I’m going to start another thread with it, since this is pretty much covered in feces.  And so we can start the new one fresh. I apologize for taking so long with it, but it’s just that your post required a lengthy response, and with my weekly obligations it generally takes me a few days to complete it.

You can't be an adult. I'll just call it. You started an argument about literary styles and have ended up in a metaphysical quagmire made of ad hominems.

Rook was obviously saying that reasonable humans have no evidence that contradicts the notion that Alexander was a man. If you have evidence that Alexander was a woman, then we could change that, and we'd all be impressed with your new probability figure of 99%, or whatever. But that hasn't happened. With no reason (zero) to believe otherwise, Alexander was a man with 100% probability.