Name:r3 •
Title: Valid Probability for TLTJ •
Date posted: 08/10/07 5:36
Q: I was planning on posting my article on the discovery discussion group, but they closed it down so I will submit it here before they close this one down
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/jesustomb.pdf
leave out the dashes
13. CONCLUSIONS
Bayes equation, the basic formula commonly used to evaluate conditional probabilities, is the correct equation for evaluating the probabilities associated with the level of matching found between the Talpiot Tomb and the Gospel Jesus Family. Section 4.5.1 proves that Bayes equation is the correct formula for evaluating the probability for this type of problem. Thus, any formulation that is not consistent with Bayes equation would be invalid. Section 4.5.1.7 shows that the Feuerverger formulation is incorrect for the many reasons listed in Section 8.1. Other methods are also shown incorrect in Section 4.5.1.3.
Section 5 lists the equations that are used in Bayes equation to determine the extont and nonextont probability for the level of matching found between the Talpiot Tomb and the Gospel Jesus Family. The extont is fundamentally based on the number of other Jesus son of Josephs that could have been placed in the Talpiot Tomb. The nonextont is fundamentally based on the number of found inscribed male names on ossuaries that aside from their specific name would be consider as candidate ossuaries for the Gospel Jesus just as the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries are by TLTJ. Based on the calculations in Section 7 conservative odds of at least 59:1 against the Talpiot Tomb containing the Gospel Jesus are determined. The nonextont probability cannot be used to directly measure argument strength; however, it’s value of at least 0.669 is very high and is order of magnitudes higher than a minimum standard used in science use to make a significant argument. The probabilities imply that the match found is at a level well expected to occur just by random. Thus, valid probabilistic analysis of TLTJ clearly does not imply the Gospel Jesus was buried in the Talpiot Tomb.
Name:r3 •
Date: 08/10/07 5:44
A: Please just posts comments about probability calculation for TLTJ in this posting. Theology, sociology, philosophy, religion are all important ; however, please try to keep at least just this posting to focus just on the probability calculation for TLTJ . Those topics could be discussed in other threads.
Simchi set up this website to promote TLTJ based on probability. I have proven Simchi's probability wrong and as far as I am aware have done the best job on developing the proper calculation. So please keep this dicussion to just probability. I appreciatate honest attempts to show my calculation wrong.
Name:r3 •
Date: 08/10/07 6:00
A: My website leave out the dashes
http://members.aol.-com/SHinrichs9/homepage.htm-
Name:Panluna •
Date: 08/10/07 15:13
A: Hi R3,
I hope they don't close this website down.I enjoy my "conversations" with everyone who contributes to these posts.I honestly didn't know that the Discovery Channel had a forum but then I miss alot of things anyway.Even if they were forced to close any forum related to the Jesus Family Tomb the truth is out there and is being accepted.The only thing that would change the facts about this subject would be IF they found another tomb with the same cluster of names--AND I DON"T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 08/10/07 16:39
A: R3,
I have it from the highest authority that this forum will not be closed down.
Name:r3 •
Date: 08/12/07 5:34
A: There is no rational basis for the Panluna’s claim that the probability for a certain level of matching which actually occurred is the same as the probability of a double occurrence of exactly what occurred. Such a claim is not based on valid probability such as bayes equation, in fact I could provide a valid probability calculation that proves Panluna’s claim is false.
I proved bayes equation correctly solves the Talpiot Tomb probability. So any claim for a Talpiot Tomb probability that does not use bayes equation is invalid. Panluna’s claim definitely does not use bayes equation. The Talpiot Tomb is a conditional probability. It is well known that bayes equation is the one that solves conditional probabilities. To make a Talpiot Tomb probability inference or claim without using bayes equation is equivalent to claiming that all those probability professors who teach probability are wrong when they teach bayes equation solves conditional probabilities. Bayes equation has been accepted for over 200 years. Why reject it now?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 08/12/07 15:33
A: R3,
My claim is based on common sense.I question,analyze and then I accept the facts presented.
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 08/22/07 21:13
A: R3, conditions set upon what? Conditions standing alone would not be productive.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 08/23/07 15:31
A: Yeah R3 what were you talking about?
Name:r3 •
Date: 09/02/07 12:36
A: My analysis is based on a two groups of evidence, the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary evidence and all the other evidence in the Tomb. When you have more than one group of evidence for evaluating a hypothesis it is not appropriate to just simple multiply the probability for the two evidence together rather according to probability theory one should do a conditional probability analysis. The problem is the condition of finding of one evidence in association with the other evidence. So the problem to solve is the probability of finding the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary in the condition of finding it with the other ossuaries. I proved in the following url that bayes equation correctly solves the condition probability for this type of problem and I also proved the Feuerverger approach used by Jacabovici is wrong.
The common sense of most all the professors that teach probability is to use use bayes equation to solve contional probability. Bayes equation is the well know basic formula for dealing with condition probability. It is most always mentioned in the first few chapters of Probability text books [14,16] and books on logic [15]. Wikipedia has a very good explanation of Bayes equation, so this article will not provide much explanation of Bayes equation, rather the reader should do a keyword search on “Bayesian inferences” & “Bayes theorem” on Wikipedia and read the article. Also, the reader should do a keyword search on “Prosecutors Fallacy“ and read the article.
A: R3,
I'm not sure if I can argue with you at this time--I'm running out of steam--I'll puff at you later.Have you thought of taking up your argument with the probability expert on this website?He's listed on the left side of the screen under experts.
Name:betty47 •
Date: 09/03/07 5:52
A: 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:r3 •
Date: 09/07/07 2:52
A: Excerpt from Section 11
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 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.
Name:r3 •
Date: 10/14/07 5:05
A: Can anyone tell me what the population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was?
See section 6 of Ref. 1 for population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus.
A: I Think the probalities analizys is important anytime, but it would be much more conclusive if the bones buried at one Israel cemetary in 1980, should be found and submited to DNA tests. Doing this is the way to save time and get more (and fundamental) data for calculation the probabilities. Why I don't hear nothing about testing te DNA on the bones at the cemetary ?
Name:r3 •
Date: 12/25/07 14:05
A: Randy Ingermanson was the first to use bayes equation to evaluate the Extont probability of the Talpiot tomb and I was the first to evaluate the Nonextont probability of the Talpiot tomb. Also I was the first to prove the correct way to evaluate the probability of the Talpiot tomb is to use bayes equation. I know Tabor is aware of the Randy Ingermanson work and I am sure he is also aware of mine for it dominated both this discussion group and the discovery channel discussion group. Also Tabor refer to the following link which explored bayes equation but does not really use it. Ingermanson throws in some in some but not all of his calculation. Also, Ingermanson leave out some important factors. I present the complete correct calculation so there no objective excuse to waste scholars time with invalid calculation.
With this conference coming up in January I am wondering if the complete correct calculation as I have documented will be presented. I would like to know. If not, then it proves that Tabor or Jacabovici are not objective scholars, rather just salesmen eho personally prefer to present a spin to sell something when they know it is wrong.
Have you been able to find out what the population was at the time of the crucifixtion?
And what would the stastical chances be of finding a group of people related or not related directly to your family group with the exact same names currently living in the world now populated by over 6-billion people?
HAPPY NEW YEAR and pray or work towards world peace.
Name:sam •
Date: 01/03/08 23:37
A: Dear Panluna,
You asked this question, "Have you been able to find out what the population was at the time of the crucifixtion?"
That came after r3 quoting this, "With this conference coming up in January I am wondering if the complete correct calculation as I have documented will be presented."
Finding the gospels and among them Judas, then finding the tomb of Jesus proved that what came in the teaching of the churches were not right and the four chosen gospels are bringing a lot of false stories.
It is not important to make never ending calculations to find the truth, because the truth is that the people who wrot them were not honest in bringing the story of Jesus from the biginning to end.
Any one who understand LOGIC can seperate the true from the false, here an example:
The story goes on to tell us”
J- 20:1 Now on the first day of the week MARY MAGDALENE CAME EARLY TO THE TOMB, while it was still dark, and SAW THE STONE ALREADY TAKEN AWAY from the tomb.
- 2 So she ran and came to SIMON PETER and the other disciple....
L- 24:1 ..........”THEY CAME” TO THE TOMB bringing the spices.....
:2 ..they found the stone rolled away....
:3- they entered .....:4 - TWO MEN suddenly stood near them in DAZZLING clothing.
MK- 16:1 ...Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome...
:2/3 ....THEY CAME TO THE TOMB....they were saying to one another “WHO WILL ROLL AWAY THE STONE for us...
:4 LOOKING UP, they saw that stone had been rolled
:5 Entering the tomb, they saw a YONG MAN sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were AMAZED .
MAT- 27:50 Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
:51 ......the earth shook and rocks were split.
:52 the tombs were opened, and MANY BODIES OF THE “SAINTS” who had fallen asleep WERE RAISED , (this story cannot be true. No one witnessed these things)
:53 ....THEY ENTERED THE HOLY CITY, and appeared to many. (There is not even one name of those who seen them)
MAT- 28:1 ...the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
:2 And behold, A SEVERE EARTHQUAKE had occurred, for AN ANGEL OF THE LORD DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN and came and ROLLED AWAY THE STONE AND SAT UPON IT . (This is not a true story. Never been mentioned by the others)
:5 THE ANGEL SAID TO THE WOMEN “DO NOT BE AFRAID.....
A- AT THE TOMB:
J- 20:1 Mary Magdalene was ALONE.
L- 24:1 THEY CAME ... (that is more than one).
MK-16:1 Mary Magdalene, and the mother of James and Salom.
MT- 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary ( He doesn’t know exactly who is the other..)
Question-1: which one is telling the truth?.
B- THE STONE:
J- 21:1 The stone already taken away.
L-24:1 They found the stone rolled away.
MK-16:4 They saw the stone had been rolled.
MT- 28:2 AN ANGEL,,,,, ROLLED AWAY THE STONE AND SAT UPON IT .
Question-2 : Which one is telling the truth?.
C- THE ANGELS:
Matthew, ONE ANGEL sitting upon the stone (for sure that mean OUTSIDE the tomb)
(The angel seen by THE WOMEN)
Mark, ONE MAN (ANGEL), INSIDE, sitting at the right.... (AMAZED )
(The angel seen by, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.)
Luke, TWO MEN (ANGELS), INSIDE, ..... (DAZZLING )
(The angels seen by, THE WOMEN)
John, TWO ANGELS, INSIDE,....one at the head and one at the feet, where Jesus the body of Jesus had been lying.
(The angels seen by Mary Magdalene only (J-20:11), after the disciples went away to their own homes (J-20:10)
Question-3 : Which one is telling the truth?.
D- THE APPEARANCE:
Matthew, 28: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary....Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet AND WORSHIPED HIM.
Mark, 16: ... He first appeared to Mary Magdalene...She went and reported....
Luke, 24: .... Two of them.... while they were talking and discussing, JESUS HIMSELF approached and began traveling with them.... BUT THEIR EYES WERE PREVENTED FROM RECOGNIZING HIM....Then their eyes were opened and THEY RECOGNIZED HIM; ans HE VANISHED FROM THEIR SIGHT.
Jesus said, “See My hands and My feet, THAT IS MYSELF; touch Me and see, FOR A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH NAD BONES as you see that I have.”
John, 20: She (Mary Magdalene) turned around and SAW JESUS standing there, and DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS JESUS .
Jesus said to her, “stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, “I ASCEND TO MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, AND MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.....and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, JESUS CAME AND STOOD IN THEIR MIDST...He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced....
Therefore many OTHER SIGNS JESUS ALSO PERFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DISCIPLES, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK...Jesus is the Christ, the son of God...
(Son of man or the son of God, which one is right?.)
Questions: 1- Did those people who wrote these stories understand the first commandment of God, “YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.”
2- When they say that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “WORSHIPED HIM”, and, Thomas said “My Lord and My God”. Is that against the commandment of God and against Jesus word when He said,”NO ONE IS GOOD EXCEPT GOD ALONE....THE ONE AND ONLY GOD...THE SON OF MAN //THAT I AM HE....NOR THE ONE WHO IS SENT (JESUS) GREATER THAN THE ONE WHO SENT HIM (GOD)?.
3- WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?.
Before answering this question, let us look at the power that God gave Jesus, (I can do nothing on My own initiative- so it is God power), the power that no one had before Him or after Him.
RAISING THE DEAD... VANISHING...TRANSFIGURED HIMSELF....CONTROL THE FISH IN THE SEA...TURNING A CLAY INTO A LIVING BIRD...STANDING AND WALKING WITH HIS DISCIPLES AND THEY DO NOT RECOGNIZE HIM, AND THE COUNTLESS OF OTHER MIRACLES.
A- It is possible that He might vanished when surrounded by His enemies?,
B- It is possible that God sent an angel to replace Him, or Jesus Himself created one that looks like Him?, (it happen before)
C- If the story about seeing Mary Magdalene first and alone is correct, Is that means that He showed Himself to the one who worried about Him most (specially if she is His wife and had a son), and the chosen one whom He trusted to keep His secrets?.
D- “See My hands and My feet, THAT IS MYSELF; touch Me and see, FOR A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH NAD BONES as you see that I have.” Is that show the truth that He is among them In flesh, and nothing happen to Him, there are no scars to show that He was harmed or crucified?.
Before centuries ago, most of the books which hold the truth been burned, even those belong to the disciples . And the books which were written by the four (Mark & Luke never met Jesus and they are the students of Paul) are influenced by Paul teaching and his ideas.
---- I believe in Jesus words, but there are many false stories about Him in the gospels, and that is not fair and not right.
He is the messenger of God and He is protected by God and no devil can come to Him and test Him and He neve walked with the devil to the top of the temple or to the top of a high mountain.
I hope that one day people understand that they are saying about Him Make of Him less than what He is.
God bless you.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 01/04/08 17:51
A: Hi Sam,
Happy New Year and how did your operation go? Are you alright?
I know the Bible is full of contradictions and various versions of the Nativity and Crucifixtion are told.One of the big hints as to the time of year for the Nativity has to do with the shepards in the fields with their flocks. The sheep etc. were still in the pastures.Farmers usually bring their animals in when Winter approaches.It's to protect them from predators when food is scarce and they stable the livestock which was spared from the slaughter in the Fall.And I know the Middle East gets colder during the winter months. Am I right? The crucifiction took place during the week of Passover that year.(33 A.D.)? I tried to get an astrological birth chart and a Luna record based on calculations done based on the dates given in the URANTIA BOOK but for some reason it's very diffucult to do calculations .......there are several calendar conversions etc. and my computor skills are very limited.I have to "wing' most of it.My son who is a computor tech helps me when I get stuck.
The Bible can be read verbatum or between the lines and words.And I asked R3 those two questions because of the stastical chances and probability for a similar equation relating to R3.I have no idea if the Romans kept written records of the census or if it still exists.
I'm glad to see that you are back here on this forum.I'ts been really quiet lately.I wonder how the symposium went.I am waiting for the verdict from the PEERS.But I know the truth is based on archaeological facts and the proof is in the scientific testing and retesting.
Have a nice day.
Name:sam •
Date: 01/06/08 0:14
A: Dear Panluna,
Happy new year , I wish you and your family all the best. God bless you all.
Thank you. If I was away for several weeks, but you and the other friends been in my mind all the time, I am honored to have such a good friend and a great person like you.
My operation went well, thanks God, but the cut inside my eye, as I been told will take 6-8 weeks to heal, still my sight in my right eye is poor, and on jenuary 7 I have an appointment with my sergeon in the hospital , {that is 1 day before my big 70 birthday, witsh comes in the same day with ELVIS}.
---- I know the Middle East gets colder during the winter months. Am I right?
Dear Panluna, you are right, In my town BAALBECK in Lebanon, we had more snow than Toronto { in my school day , I remember the big snowfall of nearly 2 meter and there was no school or shoping for seeral days, and at that time there was no snow blowers, it is somewhat like Denver Colorado}, and the temp. might reach minus 5 or 10 centigrade several time in winter.
In Jerusalem it is less colder and with less snow, but it is for sure cold at the time of the when Jesus was born.
The weather changed all around the world as you know, and it is not the same in my town today also it is not the same here in Toronto as it was in the 80s when we arrived.
We spent 9 years in Australia and there was hardly any big new abot the forest fires and the flood which are happening in the last few years. The world are changing to the worse, and the man today is responsible, and we are destroying the beautiful world that God gave us.
The word of God came to us in the Quran asking us to look after His earth:
7:56 AND CAUSE NOT CORRUPTION UPON THE EARTH AFTER ITS REFORMATION.
The land we live on is not ours, WE THINK THAT WE OWN IT, IT IS GOD'S LAND, and our bodies and soul are not ours, the body belong to the earth, and there it will end, and the soul belongs to God and it will end in God's world, and in God's world will be judged, and there is no escape.
Q- 10:45 And on the day when HE (GOD) will gather them, it will be as if they had not remained in the world , but an hour of the day, and they will know each other. Those will have lost who denied the meeting with God and were not guided.
Q- 17:85 And they ask you [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair [concern] of my Lord. And you [mankind] have not been given of knowledge except a little." 86.. And if WE willed, WE could surely do away with that which WE revealed to you. Then you would not find for yourself concerning it an advocate against US. 87... Except WE have, left it with you as a mercy from your Lord. Indeed, HIS favor upon you has ever been great.
GOD FAVOR UPON US IS GREAT, and we should not ever forget that, and we should take care about what God gave us, body , land and soul.
God bless you.
Name:r3 •
Date: 01/26/08 18:46
A: Sam claims the gospel Resurrection accounts contradict each other. Sam presented interpretations that maximize contradictions. One could chose interpretation that can make any multi-witness account contradict but that does not prove anything. To prove a multi-witness account is contradictory one has to show that there are no plausible interpretations that make the accounts consistent.
leave out the dashes
http://members.aol.com-/SHinrichs9/rssrwit.htm
Whe-n- several different witnesses testify of what they observed at the same complex event, seldom do they all report the exact same thing; however, if they are all reliable, their accounts should be able to be pieced together to form one single consistent story. If they all reported in a court room the exact same thing and they were all friendly to one side, there would be reason to suspect they had met and decided to fabricate their accounts so they could frame the accused. On the other hand, if their accounts contradicted each other there would also be reason to consider their testimonies unreliable. Real testimonies usually fall some place in between accounts that report the exact same information and accounts which are impossible to make consistent. Since the 5 different testimonies of the New Testament report the resurrection of Jesus was a complex event, it is of interest to compare their accounts to determine their reliability.
An objective reconstruction of a historical event considers the ability of different hypotheses to explain all relevant data concerning that event (1). Thus, this article presents a full evaluation of the data concerning the resurrection of Jesus. A proposed reconstruction of the resurrection of Jesus is given in this article. The best rebuttals to this proposal, in the form of alleged contradictions, are dealt with in this article which is the critical test of the success of the proposed reconstruction.
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 does not imply any 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:sam •
Date: 01/27/08 1:14
A: Hi r3,
You said:
1- "To prove a multi-witness account is contradictory one has to show that there are no plausible interpretations that make the accounts consistent."
----I did prove that , the truth can be just one of the different stories. The LOGIC prove that.
2- " if they are all reliable, their accounts should be able to be pieced together to form one single consistent story."
------ FIRST, They are not reliable witnesses. Their stories are telling a complete different stories for the same subject. Second, You connot make then consistent if they are not. Third that will make them fabricated to what you want, and not for the benefit of the truth. I did study laws.
3- "The pieces can fit together to make a consistent picture."
------ Taking it your way , that what happen in some court rooms today when the police and the false witnesses create and fabricated evidence and pieces them bring them together on someone enocent, and jail him, so that they look good in the eyes of the public, and to get exta benefits (better position).
4- " the New Testament resurrection accounts are reliable testimonies of a complex event that actually occurred as reported. "
------ If it was occured as reported, then it will be just on true story, and not five different stories.
And if this story is accurate:
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Mark
----- That is a lie, Never a human being been up in the heaven and saw God, or saw Jesus sitting on HIS right hand.
"While He was blessing them, He parted from them AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN. " Luke
------ That is another lie, You think anyone saw Jesus moving up far beyond the earth, and see Him landing in heaven?.
Finding Jesus tomb is a solid proof, that Mark and Luke were not telling the truth, and that prove that their words cannot be trusted, and the same can be said about John:
"And Jesus did such a number of other things that, if every one was recorded, it is my opinion that even the world itself is not great enough for the books there would be." John
----- All what Jesus said and Did in the less than three years of His ministery is recorded in less than 50 pages. and what John claimed even as an opinion is wrong, and cannot be accepted LOGICALLY, you should know this fact.
God bless you.
Name:r3 •
Date: 02/16/08 6:12
A: The basis for my points is the key logical concept used in science, proof by elimination. You claim to have reason without ussing proof by elimination, then you dismiss my reasoning becuase I try to use proof by elimination. You should read about proof by elimination in the following url. Remove the dashes.
http://members.aol.com/SHin-richs9/reason.pdf
http://members.ao-l.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.pdf
http://-members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/homepage.ht-m-
Name:sam •
Date: 02/17/08 16:57
A: Hi, r3
You said before:
A- "3- "The pieces can fit together to make a consistent picture."
----That is true, it is like the pieces of a puzzle, and the true picture {THE MESSAGE OF JESUS} will come only by using the original pieces, but if YOU (they) try to fit other pieces from another puzzle to the original, then the picture will became DISTORTTED, twisted, out of shape and does not represent the truth.
B- "the key logical concept used in science, proof by elimination."
------ Sure, Your concept can work in the LAB, also it will work by analyzing the holy books, and eliminating all the pieces which been put by people other than Jesus, those pieces which hold CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS , and those which represent FALSE and unlogical stories {myths}.
You should know that you cannot eliminate the original pieces, the pieces which holds the words of Jesus, to get to your PERFECT & CONSISTENT picture for the truth.
IF you try to eliminate or change the words of Jesus , by using pieces from the other puzzle which Paul and the Roman creates, then the only picture you will get is a FUZZY, BLURRED & UNCLEAR PICTURE. That is what create all the debates which we see today.
Jesus misistery lasted less than three years, and His message came very short and very clear, and it it only His word which can represt the truth and the clear picture.
There are millions of books written by the other people {in the church or outside } about Jesus and His message, and those created endless of pictures which may confuse any readers even those who are within the curcle of the chuches:
Catholic online:
1_ "A DOCUMENT CALLED THE GODPEL OF JAMES, THOUGH IN NO WAY SHOULD THIS DOCUMENT BE TRUSTED, TO BE FACTUAL, HISTORICAL, OR THE WORD OF GOD"
2- Mary possesses a unique RELATIONSHIP with all THREE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY,..... SHE WAS CHOSEN BY GOD THE FATHER TO BE THE MOTHER OF HIS SON; GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT CHOSE HER TO BE HIS VIRGINAL SPOUSE......and GOD THE SON CHOSE HER TO BE HIS MOTHER."
Mary Ann Collins, the former catholic NUN, wrote:
"I BELIEVE IN TRINITY...BOT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORK"
Retired bishop John S. Spong wrote:
"THE BIBLE FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS....THE GOSPELS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE RELIABLE"
r3, CAN YOU SEE A consistent picture IN WHAT YOU READ ABOVE?
There will be no clear and true picture until all the wrongly added pieces are eliminated.
God bless you.
Name:dianadsc •
Date: 03/02/08 22:08
A: "http://live-tv-channels.com/ has only the best sport,
movie, music, entertainament and anime channels.
Absolutely free, without annoying ads."
Name:r3 •
Date: 03/08/08 5:28
A: So far for showing contradictions between the ressurection, all that has been done is use freedom to choose whatever interpetations makes them contradictory. Well that can be done for any multiple witness account to claim they are contradictory. But it does not prove anything.
To prove a multi-witness account is contradictory one has to show that there are no plausible interpretations that make the accounts consistent.
Name:sam •
Date: 03/08/08 16:38
A: Hi, r3
Few questions, please give me your answers.
1- Are the books of theBible {OT &NT} the words of God?
2- Are the words of God hold within any wrong or false information ?
Abraham, Moses and Jesus are the messengers of God and their words came from God to represent HIS will. but
3- are the words of Paul and his personal letters, and the words of Mark, Luke and the rest , from popes to bishops etc. are the words of God ?.
4- Do you believe that everything written in the Bible and the Gospels , and all the stories and information in them to be 100% true ?.
5- Do you believe in Jesus words ?
6- (A) --- If Jesus say " I AM THE SON OF MAN & A PROPHET"
(B)--- and Paul say "JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD"
(C) --- and constantene say "JESUS IS GOD"
Knowing that Paul never met with Jesus or spoke with Him, and knowing that Paul created his formula in Damascus away from the holy land and after Jesus death, and knowing that the trinity formula was created in Rome by the Roman Emperor and with few bishops who spent more than 50 years in debating this formula.
Who is one among those three A,B. &C is telling the truth ?
and which one you suppose to follow ?.
Hope to get your answers.
God bless you.
Name:r3 •
Date: 03/08/08 19:49
A: I do not take the positon that the bible has no errors
The Bible does have it’s difficulties of which most all can be resolved in a reasonable manner. In some cases, conjectures not implied from the archaeological record are necessary (as is the case with reconstructing most ancient history because the data is so sparse) in order to produce a consistent historical reconstruction. If these proposed conjectures are not accurate then the original Biblical text may actually have inaccuracies. There are passages that definitely present real difficulties such as the Genesis creation and the flood account. However, just because there are errors are even the influence of legends, does not necessarily mean that God did not at all inspire the Bible because the imperfect people that put the Bible together could have included some of their imperfection along with God’s perfection. According to the famous christian philosopher C.S. Lewis (39), “The Divine Inspiration of the Bible was not always present in the same mode and degree”.
If there is supernatural evidence that supports a specific claim in a sacred book, then there is support for the supernatural credibility of the human author of that specific sacred book. If a specific claim is supported by supernatural evidence, then the more a concept of the sacred book relates to this specific claim the more it’s supernatural credibility is supported. Supernatural evidence for one author of a sacred book does not mean supernatural credibility for all authors of that sacred book. However, if an author whose supernatural credibility has been established, claims credibility to another author then this other author's supernatural credibility is supported. Negative evidence such as contradictions or evidence that supernatural claims were concocted up weakens the supernatural credibility of a claim or author of the sacred book. If a specific author has negative evidence, then the more a sacred book credibility is based upon that author the more its supernatural credibility is weakened. If a specific claim has negative evidence then any concept that requires that claim to be true has the same problem. A contradiction cannot be explained as a revelation from God, because God is typically considered to not error. However, an error in a sacred book does not exclude the possibility that there is evidence for the supernatural in that sacred book. A sacred book could be a combination of inspiration from God and inspiration from the ordinary human author. On the other hand, a sacred book having remarkable or even compelling supernatural evidence does not make the whole sacred book inerrant.
If an author of a book was directly inspired by God then one would expect the author to claim within that book that God provided revelation. If the supernatural intelligence is consistent, then if there is purpose that can be identified with the supernatural intervention of that supernatural intelligence, then that purpose should be consistent with any other purpose that can be identified with any other supernatural intervention of that supernatural intelligence. Any plan or purpose of God would not be illogical. It is my hope that God’s plans and purposes are good.
The authors of the sacred book are typically part of the religious movements; thus, have the potential to be motivated to concoct up stories or theology that supports their religious views. This should also be considered when investigating the credibility of the sacred books. For example, testimony which includes self-supporting theology is subject to possible motivation. However, theological motivation does not necessarily mean the author is not trustworthy, especially when the theology is not self-serving. If the author is unreliable, then typically the author should be able to be shown unreliable based upon the typical tests for historical reliability.
Name:r3 •
Date: 05/31/08 13:36
A: Just a reminder
VALID PROBABILITY CALCULATION DOES NOT IMPLY GOSPEL JESUS IN TALPIOT TOMB
Name:Sassy •
Date: 06/01/08 2:12
A: Perhaps not the "GOSPEL JESUS" is there in Talpiot, but the "HISTORICAL JESUS" is in the Talpiot tomb.
Name:r3 •
Date: 06/07/08 13:09
A: The probability calculation relates to a Jesus which had a family whose members have the names mentioned in the Gospels. So valid probability calculation does not imply jesus in talpiot tomb had a family whose members had the names mentioned in the Gospels. So even if the “historical Jesus” is the real historical person that Gospels wrote about and much of the Gospels are not true (which I do not believe), still VALID PROBABILITY CALCULATION DOES NOT IMPLY HISTORICAL JESUS IN TALPIOT TOMB.
Name:Sassy •
Date: 06/07/08 20:17
A: I disagree.
Name:Sassy •
Date: 06/07/08 20:33
A: Just to note, the Bible is full of errors, mis-translations -some by accident, some on purpose to suit the scribe's own 'agenda'. We don't have originals of the NT texts, we don't even have copies of copies of copies. the Bible is not reliable as historical; it's full of myth and contradictions. Also, women's roles were downplayed in the Bible - you should read Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" - a real eye opener.
Name:r3 •
Date: 06/08/08 5:09
A: I familiar with most all the main arguments for all the different sides.
You should read my website.
Steve Hinrichs Rational Site with a Meaningful Purpose
The goal of the Steve Hinrichs web page is to present in an accurate and concise manner the best arguments for and against the position that there is a meaningful explanation for humans because a genuine investigation involves studying the best rational arguments for and against all the different possible hypothesis.
Rational Reasoning for Reality explains that proof by elimination is a key logical concept used to rationally determine the truth about reality. The Steve Hinrichs Rational Site presents Steve Hinrichs' rational evaluation of issues related to determining if there really is a meaningful explanation for humans. Also, external links are provided for further study.
Name:QuebecIndieAnna •
Date: 11/06/09 5:26
A: .
I'm home with H1N1 and have time to read a bit.
Dr. Tabor posted on Nov. 3 2009 remarks about a presentation at a conference on the stats analysis.
http://jamestabor.co-m/blog/
Bonsoir.
Indie
.-
Name:sam •
Date: 11/12/09 16:46
A: Hi Indie,
I read first your post about Palestine , and how can be shared by the Jews and Palestinians, I spent few days looking for information about that land and its people, and wrote my answer according to what I read, and these books are scientifically representing the historical fact to a degree. And today I come to read the other posts.
Sorry to hear that you are not feeling well. H1N1 is going around. I am thinking of taking the vac. when available.
Hope by now you are feeling very well, and God be with you always.
Sam.
