Bayesian Jesus

beliefnet

JC do you have ANY idea what the elements of this historical method even is?  Fact is that your dimissal of people's lifelong work without knowing anything about it or them is your bias. Kwinters

I dismiss nothing.  Everything is in the pot.  Even the canonical garbage. 

In Bayesian analysis each bit of data is assigned a likelihood of being relevant and correct. Biases of the contributor are part of the equation.  Also it is important to know what you are trying to study. 

In re. a Galilean Jewish preacher probably named Jesus or one of the common cognates, who was strongly influenced by Hillel the Elder and the Mithra myths and by his wife (who was never allowed to speak at his gatherings according to Jewish religious traditions) I find his existence to be nearly certain.  One critical piece of authenticating data is Paul's need for a popular, charismatic, contemporary preacher to become his Christ.  
In re. the words put in his mouth by oral history of contemporaries including his wife who I find quite likely to be the Q source and nearly as likely to be Mary Magdalene, I assign a high probability of authenticity to all.  Even in English translations.

In re. the disruptions at the Temple in Jerusalem I find them to be likely in essence and consistent with his preaching in the sticks. That he pissed off the Jewish authorities in some way to cause them to take action against him is even more likely.  Whether the Romans even cared is insignificant, but the Jewish authorities probably did try to kill him. Such an important challenge to their authority could not be ignored.

I assign a low likelihood to actual death, but a reasonable probability to his appearance to followers after his punishment by the authorities as a spectacular blow off to his ministry and his resumption of a normal life with family after the show.  I find it unlikely that he was a leader of any of the Jesus cults, his part of the show was over.  

In re. anything related to God and Christ, there is a high probability of everything being fabulous stories made up by followers and the usurper Paul.  Truth value negligible, influence value high.  

Atheists and Jesus

Atheists and Jesus - Beliefnet :

"Atheists arguing about the existence of Jesus or the 'truth' in the Gospels among themselves are being willfully blind to the importance and humanistic message of the preacher who probably was called Jesus or Yeshua depending on the language assumption.

The story if you will or oral history which was probably the case in that illiterate culture was probably originated by a companion of Jesus in his travels, my guess is Mary Magdalene. She probably helped him hone his message, I see a lot of anti-misogyny in it, at least in the context of the time. No man thought up the tale of the unstoned whore.

I am of course speaking of the Synoptic Gospels, by the time John and Paul came around to create a God the story was destroyed beyond recognition. I think there is a lot to be learned by atheists from the Synoptics, I generally use Jefferson's extract. Hey, if a famous atheist like Jefferson can find value in the Bible who am I to argue.

Disclaimer: I owe much of my interpretation of the Gospels to Heinlein and his allegory of Jesus in Michael Smith and Gillian Bordman in Stranger in a Strange Land. The thinking is of course mine."