[Serious] The Story

[Jehanne]

Why?

Probabilistic reasons, perhaps. Something like a Bayesian approach.

If you want to appeal to Bayesian statistics, please state your prior probabilities.

[Mister Agenda]

The level and extent of persecution of Christians by Rome has been exaggerated, but it was far from nonexistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, in the three hundred years or so that there were christians in rome..before christianity captured the roman state....there was about a decade..a little more, that christianity was actively suppressed by the roman admin. There were mass renunciations of the christian faith in reaction to the edicts, which were spottily enforced across the empire. This right before those roman admins fears were realized, in the christian capture of the roman state - which is what christianity was being actively suppressed to prevent. It was a slow rolling theocratic populist coup in the face of foreign invaders. After christianity grabs the reigns, there's one last gasp for the pagan world in the form of julian, but that dies with him.

All of that is a part of the story of the nt, as I see it. I would be impossible to understand the nt, imo, if you approached it with a christian fantasists lens.

[Vicki Q]

Grand Nudger, GUBU

I can't see evidence presented for your claims. I would think then Hitchen's razor applies: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

To repeat, I am not talking about Imperial persecution, but local and largely unplanned. It was still vicious and ongoing. Just like in Kyrgyzstan . That's how it is now, and that's how it was then. I have shown more than enough of the evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not asking anyone to accept the lordship of Jesus Christ, sing Shine Jesus Shine loudly out the window, and use their new spiritual powers to bring dead goldfish back to life; but just to engage with the reality of the situation. The first Xians got beaten up for their beliefs by people angry at the rejection of nation, faith and community. It's what a certain sort of angry person does- there are plenty in the world now and there were then.

Accepting the reality of the persecution does not require you to accept 'miracles'. No laws of nature were broken, only bones and the odd internal organ.


True, it raises some interesting questions about why those closest to Jesus put themselves through it. But I'm sure you can deal with those well enough.

[Jehanne]

Vicki,

The Romans did NOT persecute Christians due to their religious beliefs; they persecuted them if they caused political trouble for the Empire. The Romans didn't give a shit about the Christian religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I'll sing shine jesus shine at the drop of a dime - no need for convincing! I'm not really worried about miracles in christian stories. It just comes with the territory, christianity is an extremely superstitious faith.

Anywho, the "people closest to jesus" would not have put themselves through anything. They would be dead before persecutions began. Long dead. That's another part of the story of the nt. You've got no living witnesses, alot of ingroup disagreements, and there's a perceived need to come up with some unitary body of literature in order to make a christian whole.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If you want to appeal to Bayesian statistics, please state your prior probabilities.

I don't believe the math behind Baye's rule is necessary to make better judgments. It is still a way of thinking about evidence and how to change your mind in relation to it, even if your prior probabilities are nothing more than guesses.

The most reasonable thing to do is start with what is known—the dates mentioned in the book. Not arbitrarily assuming there's deception and pulling a different date out of thin air. You take the initial known date and start updating your confidence in it given new information.

[Jehanne]

If you want to appeal to Bayesian statistics, please state your prior probabilities.

I don't believe the math behind Baye's rule is necessary to make better judgments. It is still a way of thinking about evidence and how to change your mind in relation to it, even if your prior probabilities are nothing more than guesses.

The most reasonable thing to do is start with what is known—the dates mentioned in the book itself. Not arbitrarily assuming there's deception and pulling a different date out of thin air. You take the initial known date and start updating your confidence in it given new information.

Okay, state your evidence, please.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you want to appeal to Bayesian statistics, please state your prior probabilities.

I don't believe the math behind Baye's rule is necessary to make better judgments. It is still a way of thinking about evidence and how to change your mind in relation to it, even if your prior probabilities are nothing more than guesses.

The most reasonable thing to do is start with what is known—the dates mentioned in the book. Not arbitrarily assuming there's deception and pulling a different date out of thin air. You take the initial known date and start updating your confidence in it given new information.

Ever occur to you that you're the one assuming deception, John?  Missed and rejected content....

Further, by wildly misrepresenting how a book comes to be dated for what is clearly no reason other than your particular (and particularly christian) religious sensibilities masquerading as a "traditional" or "conservative" interpretation...this appears to be about as genuine as any immediately abandoned claim to some sort of "bayesian" analysis.

I think it's ironic that a strong preference for a claim to historicity leads to a rejection of an understanding of the book of daniel that lends it historicity, as opposed to the work of pure thematic fiction it would be otherwise.

[Pat Mustard]

Grand Nudger, GUBU

I can't see evidence presented for your claims. I would think then Hitchen's razor applies: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

To repeat, I am not talking about Imperial persecution, but local and largely unplanned. It was still vicious and ongoing. Just like in Kyrgyzstan . That's how it is now, and that's how it was then. I have shown more than enough of the evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not asking anyone to accept the lordship of Jesus Christ, sing Shine Jesus Shine loudly out the window, and use their new spiritual powers to bring dead goldfish back to life; but just to engage with the reality of the situation. The first Xians got beaten up for their beliefs by people angry at the rejection of nation, faith and community. It's what a certain sort of angry person does- there are plenty in the world now and there were then.

Accepting the reality of the persecution does not require you to accept 'miracles'. No laws of nature were broken, only bones and the odd internal organ.


True, it raises some interesting questions about why those closest to Jesus put themselves through it. But I'm sure you can deal with those well enough.

There's plenty of evidence, if only you'd takd your head out of the sand.