|
Name: betty47 •
Title: Evidence for Resurrection •
Date posted: 08/12/07 21:45
|
Q: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/resurrection.html
Here's a very interesting article at the link above. Obviously, the author is biased towards his own religion, but his arguments are powerful. After reading his thoughts, one would be more inclined to believe that the Jesus Family Tomb has been found.
|
|
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 08/13/07 13:11 |
A: http://members.aol.com/SHin-richs9/rssrdeb.pdf
remov-e- the dashes
4. CONCLUSION
As recorded by the five New Testament accounts, the resurrection was quite a complex event. These accounts have been shown by an essentially straight forward and reasonable process to produce a single consistent reconstruction. This process is often necessary when reconstructing a complex event from the testimony of multiple witnesses. Based upon this reconstruction, each of the alleged contradictions are addressed so the reconstruction passes the critical test of consistency. The pieces can fit together to make a consistent picture. Thus, an internal comparative analysis of the accounts does not present a strong reason to consider them unreliable.
In a remarkable way, the different accounts compliment each other when they are lined up sequentially. There are apparently unintentional, remarks that corroborate the other accounts. This supports the view that the New Testament resurrection accounts are reliable testimonies of a complex event that actually occurred as reported.
|
|
Name: betty47 •
Date: 08/14/07 4:19 |
A: R3:
I will respect your opinion, but we're really on opposite sides of the globe on this one. I am interested in Jesus, his life and what he said. I don't think every word in the bible is true. A lot is made up including the story that Jesus rose from the dead, in my opinion, which I realize millions of other Christians would debate me on, such as yourself. The gospels contradict themselves constantly which Dr. Tabor has pointed out endlessly. If you don't want to believe it, fine. The story of the ressurection is in the New Testament only. There is no other proof for it, and statistics would show that it's very unlikely to have happened. You want to use your statistics to prove what you believe and then say we can't use statistics for what I believe. It doesn't make sense, but if you want to believe in Christ's resurrection, then believe. It's your right which is what is wonderful about a democracy. There is freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 08/14/07 4:50 |
|
A: The posts I have made make it evident your statement is false. I have never claimed you cannot use statistics for what you believe. In fact all my comments about statistics have only been encouraging people to use valid statistics. And that is the right and honest thing to do.
|
|
Name: betty47 •
Date: 08/14/07 20:54 |
|
A: No, R3. You've said that statistics are not acceptable for the supernatural. But of course, Christ probably did not rise from the dead which means he's not supernatural.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 08/14/07 22:43 |
|
A: I'll let you two duke this one out.
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 08/15/07 6:36 |
A: In Ref. 6, I said “the probability for super natural intervention cannot be directly calculated for or against. Betty’s claim about resurrection odds have no objective basis. It is the natural results of an super natural intervention that can be evaluated by probability for or against super natural intervention.”
To understand my point you must read Section 4.3 of Ref 1 to know the difference between an extont and nonextont probability. Debating super natural intervention is a debate about whether or not it occurred; thus it is not possible to calculate a extont probability for it. Thus, one cannot calculate odds for or against whether or not an resurrection occurred. Most historical arguments are of the same type. Most often scholars claim some explanation is likely true or false, but seldom ever list a calculate probability because it is not calculatable. Note the common 5 historical criterion in Section 3.4 of Ref. 4. Seldom can extont probabilities be calculated for such criterion. To satisfy your request I have to know the probability for God existing and the probability of this God being the Gospel Jesus who can resurrect.
Probability values for many things in science cannot be calculated directly by an extont probability , but inferred by proof by elimination (using nonextont probabilities) the key logical principal used in Science. Just because the conclusion is obtained by inference rather than directly does not mean the reasoning is less valid.
You calculate a probability of 1 in approximately billion for the Gospel Jesus resurrection is not valid. It is based on a sample space of ordinary people who on their own cannot resurrect, so the total probability for your sample space is zero which shows it is an invalid sample space. You need to understand what a valid nonextont or extont sample space is and explain what is the valid sample space for the probability which you ask me to calculate.
However, it is more common to be able to calculate a nonextont probability for claims about whether or not something occurred or existed. Craig in Ref. 5 does so in a qualitative way but not a quantitative way. Historians seldom present quantitative probabilities for the qualitative claims about what is probably true or false. The Talpiot Tomb is just about name frequencies so it is a quantitative problem. I prove in Section 4.5.1 of Ref. 1 how to correctly calculate a nonextont and extont probability for the relation of the Gospel Jesus family names with those in the Talpiot Tomb.
In Ref, 3 I do present an nonextont probability of 0.00356 for supernatural evidence that points to the Gospel Jesus. As explained in Section 7.4 of Ref. 1, this is 208 times stronger than the nonextont probability for the Gospel Jesus being buried in the Talpiot Tomb.
References remove dashes
1. http://members.aol.com/SH-inrichs9/jesustomb.pdf
2-.- http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.pdf
3. http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/critic7.pdf
4. http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/reason.pdf
5. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bi-llcraig/menus/historical.html
6.- http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum-/Recalculating_the_Stats-15-271-0-0/-
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 08/15/07 6:48 |
|
A: The Ref. 5 qualitative probability arguments are for the ressurection of the Gospel Jesus
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 08/15/07 7:05 |
|
A: Forgot to mention that Ref. 2 explains the rational method for identifying supernatural intervention
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 08/15/07 7:07 |
|
A: I do not take an posiiton that the bible is inerrant
|
|
Name: betty47 •
Date: 08/15/07 23:45 |
|
A: R3, such silliness. That's why people are leaving Christianity in droves. It's silliness when you make such comments. There is no historical proof other than in the NT that Christ rose.
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 08/22/07 21:31 |
A: Betty43,
I support you, and I mentioned caution regarding r3 many weeks ago. These posts validate that caution.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 08/23/07 15:28 |
|
A: I stayed out of this round.
|
|
Name: betty47 •
Date: 08/29/07 2:49 |
|
A: Thank you, Anchorite.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 09/01/07 16:10 |
|
A: WHO WON?
|
|
Name: betty47 •
Date: 09/03/07 6:05 |
A: No one won. It all depends on a person's belief. Read the latest from Dr. Tabor on the statistics regarding the frequency of the nickname Yose/Yoseh. It's very rare, as previously indicated. Peer reviewed articles are coming out soon according to his post. A quote from the Dr. Tabor's blog is below:
"Much of the statistical work on the Talpiot cluster of names has been done using the nickname Yoseh as if it was the equivalent to the much more common name Joseph/Yehosef (8.6% of male names), which it plainly is not. All the rhetoric about “these are the most common names of the period,” begins to have much less force if this is taken into account. I know of two new statistical studies that have factored in this nickname as it occurs in the 2nd Temple period, and the results are startlingly different. One is a paper authored by Profs. Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliot, that will be posted on their college Web site later this week. I will publish the link when it is up. The other is the formal paper presented by Prof. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto, in a fully peer-reviewed session of the Joint Statistical Meeting in Salt Lake City in July, and now being prepared for publication. My sense is that the discussion of the names in the Talpiot tomb is going to take a significant shift when these and other factors come to full play in our ongoing discussions." End quote.
This is getting exciting. Everyone asked after the movie, why weren't there more peer reviews. Well it looks like that's being done.
|
|
Name: eirini_cy •
Date: 09/03/07 16:22 |
A: hmm....THE TOMB FOUND?
Well wait.... first I want you to consider something.
I watched the documentary. Yes ok... they have good arguments and made alot of money. The stats first are flawed...
Second the owner of the Joseph osscuary was recently arrested for forging other historical artifacts...
The DNA was so degrated that the answer was always going to be we can speculate that they arent related - so there is doubt... and they only tested TWO ossuaries... hmm... why? hmm....
One last thing - the Mariamne ossuary - aha! there is a problem here
the inscrpition is in GREEK! ok well thats not the problem...The problem is the idiot who inscribed it - inscribed it in MODERN Greek Alphabet. OPS! that was not spoken or written in 1000+ years after Jesus! ;)
Very fake ossuary.... and tomb... the arguements against it are very powerful also ;)
If you want me to explain you the difference is modern and ancient script i can - the μ, ρ and α on the tomb are modern greek format - but I can explain in more detail if you like
seeyou ;)
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 09/04/07 17:02 |
A: Eirini_cy,
What does your name mean?
Have you read the Jesus Family Tomb--the book the movie is based on?I think you got some of your facts twisted.Also take the time to read the information listed on the left side of your monitor starting with The Movie and go all the way down and carefully read everything on this website.
There are plenty of arguments for and against the validity of this tomb finding after all this is huge and has a great impact on Christianity as a religion.And there many skeptics who have problems accepting or understanding the evidence presented.They(the skeptics) are simply in a mental state of denial and the arguments will go on for a very long time as they weigh and examine the scientific and forensic evidence.
So,if you find the time I highly recommend reading everything on this website including the multitudes of posts on the forum after all you have now entered the proverbial "Lions Den" of discussions.Please substantiate your findings.ie:the Greek Alphabet can be found on WIKIPEDIA----and hand writting analysis would prove that there are differences in the way letters are writtien or chiseled by several individuals--even forgers make mistakes.
DNA does not lie.The testing was to establish that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not blood relations.The other Mary found in the ossuary was Jesus's mother.The Ossuary culture lasted approximately a century and anything related to that period of time is legit.There are many tombs in Isreal and the remains of many historic persons from the New Testament have been located.
My question to you is this:Why would educated people who dedicate their lives to digging up the truth and who are trained experts want to commit the crime of forgery and then go public with this and jeopardise their reputations and careers?And if the motive is money then I'm going to ask you:Do you live on air alone--do you live a-gratis?Money is an evil necessity and a means to exchange for a service or a commodity.There are too many people in this world at this time for us to barter or trade for something we need to live on ,on a daily level and basis.And most people don't haggle over prices and it's just easier to have it set for you when you want to purchase something.This a reality of life and one of the other big facts is that a well-rounded education can open many doors....and that costs money,too.I'm paying off a student loan along with a mortgage and all the other necessities of life.The only thing that is free is the right to make choices--everything else costs something.
Well now that we've resurrected the evidence argument please explain your angle.
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 09/06/07 4:29 |
A: Excerpt from Section 11 of
http://members.aol.com/SHi-nrichs9/jesustomb.pdf
remov-e- dashes
11. YOSE NICKNAME USSAGE
The Yose inscription has only been found on one ossuary, the one in the Talpiot Tomb making it a very rare occurrence for Ossuary Inscriptions. The nickname Yose is mentioned in the list of brothers in the Gospel Mark and the other 3 Gospels mention the basic name, Joseph, as Jesus brother. It is not known which Gospel is more correct in identifying the name, in fact both names are probably correct for he probably used both names. Just like today those with the given name Joseph are called by their nickname, Joe or Joey, during the Gospel Jesus times, those with the given name of Joseph would have often been called Yose. Just like today the more formal the document, the less likely the nickname rather than the basic name is written. Tombstones are very formal so this is why nicknames seldom show up on tombstones even though nicknames are commonly used in every day life. For this reason Yose has a low occurrence on ossuaries. So the low percentage of Yoses on ossuaries is not because it is a rare name, but because it is a nickname. If the Talpiot tomb Yose is in the immediate family of the Jesus in the Talpiot Tomb, then the parents would have preferred to call him by his nickname rather than his basic name to distinguish between the two. Also, it is a preferred tradition for the Father to name their child after himself. In additional no family with a child name Joe or Joey (Yose) would name another child Joseph. So this shows that the nickname is essentially like the basic name in terms of the portion of the sample space it takes in the probability relations. For probabilities of two events to be the probability of the individual events multiplied together, the events have to be independent. Yosi and Joseph are clearly not independent, rather interrelated. So it is not appropriate to assign a low probability for a Yose ossuary representing a match for a brother of the Gospel Jesus as a multiplier of the other probabilities, rather it should be assigned the probability for the basic name Joseph.
Originally the Jacabovici team did not use the low probability value for the “Yose” ossuary because it is obviously not appropriate; however, with Pfann’s dismissal of Mariamne [7], the Jacabovici team is looking for an alternative to come up with a low probability. The previous paragraph has shown it is inappropriate to use the low probability relation of the nickname Yose on Ossuary #705, rather than the higher probability for the basic name, Joseph, to relate to Jesus’ Brother. The low probability Yose argument is achieved only through a contradiction. In the first step of the reasoning the low probability interpretation is chosen by avoiding the high probability interpretation so in the second step in the reasoning they can claim they have discovered a low probability relation with the Gospel Jesus. Then they claim the low probability relation with the Gospel Jesus should be rejected as by chance from some other Jesus, implying the ossuary must have contained the Gospel Jesus. If low probability explanations are consistently rejected, then the low probability for a nickname would be rejected in the first step so their conclusion in the second step would not be achieved. If the first step in the reasoning is invalid, then it does not matter what the second step in the reasoning implies. Thus, there is no validity in using the low probability for the nickname, Yose, to make a low probability association with the Gospel Jesus.
|
|
Name: r3 •
Date: 09/06/07 6:16 |
A: revised last paragraph
Originally the Jacabovici team did not use the low probability value for the “Yose” ossuary because it is obviously not appropriate; however, with Pfann’s dismissal of Mariamne [7], the Jacabovici team is looking for an alternative to come up with a low probability. The previous paragraph has shown it is inappropriate to use the low probability relation of the nickname Yose on Ossuary #705, rather than the higher probability for the basic name, Joseph, to relate to Jesus’ Brother. The low probability Yose argument is achieved only through a contradiction. In the first step of the reasoning the low probability interpretation is chosen by avoiding the high probability interpretation so in the second step in the reasoning they can claim they have discovered a low probability relation with a random Jesus. Then they claim the low probability relation with a random Jesus should be rejected as by chance for some other Jesus, implying the ossuary must have contained the Gospel Jesus. If low probability explanations are consistently rejected, then the low probability for a nickname would be rejected in the first step so their conclusion in the second step would not be achieved. If the first step in the reasoning is invalid, then it does not matter what the second step in the reasoning implies. Thus, there is no validity in using the low probability for the nickname, Yose, to make a low probability association with a random Jesus.
|
