Maladict Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) But that's not even the biggest issue. The much more important issue, statistically speaking, is that the conjunction of names reportedly found in the tomb (although this has been since disputed) matched exactly the relations reported in the Gospels. Except of course Judah, son of Jesus. Kind of strange to take the four names that match the relations mentioned in the writings as statistically significant while leaving out the one that doesn't. Edited January 24, 2008 by Maladict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) There is no such thing as the "statistical chance of finding the one tomb of Jesus". The probability of a single event is either 1 or 0. In contrast, the probability of finding a tomb belonging to somebody named Jesus can be calculated (from the incidence rate of the name). As can the probability of finding a tomb belonging to somebody named Mary, Joseph, etc. From these, it is possible to calculate the probability of finding these names together simply by chance. Thus, you're asking for a comparison that is statistically meaningless. I can play with numbers too... Proving that 4 correct names are related in a correct manner tells us that on a population X large the chance for this would be Y with a known relation between how common the names are. I want to compare this to how many tombs we have from the timespan, lets say 100 years +/- (and that would be tight, another 100 years would probably have to be added at least). Now add that we do not even know if Jesus was burried. I arguee that the chanse for us finding finding this one tomb (if it exist) out of how many hundred of thousands is what? Improbable wouldn't be the word. Therefore I will not accept a Jesus tomb untill their's more evidence then just name relations. And there's no use giving me points on the difference of statistical and probability, I know it. I just normally don't think in the terms and I'm quite sure you understand me anyway. Edited January 23, 2008 by Klingan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Demetrius Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 One other possibility is that the Romans and their cronies probably expected the Jesus' Messianic movement to fizzle out after his execution.Gamaliel says very much the same thing early on in the Book of Acts. Probably the Romans didn't really care that much so long as there wasn't any trouble. Once the High Priest made it an issue, though, Pilate's purpose was to restore order, even if it meant being the proxy executioner for the Sanhedrin. They probably were not expecting a belief in a resurrected Messiah to come back to haunt them. When it did there seems to be no doubt that they made short work of the so called Jerusalem Church. How I wish more contemporary documents would have survived that could have probably shed more light on the matter. You're not alone in that wish. Not just in Jerusalem, but Rome, Egypt (alas for the Alexandrian library) and other places. Razing a city to the ground and burning the rubble was commonplace when the seige was over. Who knows how many tons of scrolls and parchments were lost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Proving that 4 correct names are related in a correct manner tells us that on a population X large the chance for this would be Y with a known relation between how common the names are. I don't know if it's an issue of your English, but this is statistical gobbledygook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 But that's not even the biggest issue. The much more important issue, statistically speaking, is that the conjunction of names reportedly found in the tomb (although this has been since disputed) matched exactly the relations reported in the Gospels. Except of course Judah, son of Jesus. Kind of strange to take the four names that match the relations mentioned in the writings as statistically significant while leaving out the one that that doesn't. That's a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 There is no such thing as the "statistical chance of finding the one tomb of Jesus". The probability of a single event is either 1 or 0. In contrast, the probability of finding a tomb belonging to somebody named Jesus can be calculated (from the incidence rate of the name). As can the probability of finding a tomb belonging to somebody named Mary, Joseph, etc. From these, it is possible to calculate the probability of finding these names together simply by chance. Thus, you're asking for a comparison that is statistically meaningless. 'Probability' is the operative word, not 'certainty'. Then there is that old saw: 'There are liars; damned liars, and then there are statistics'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.