• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I corrected your typo, so i am replying to this ^, and not to what you said.

You need to realise that (as i already explained earlier, here we go again) this ^ is a logical category error. There is a distinction between PEOPLE and STORIES

STORIES can be partly true, partly myth, but PEOPLE (like Jesus) cannot be. The mythicist vs historicist debate is about the PERSON Jesus, it is not about the STORIES.

WOW! No Max, Jesus is a story - connecting that story to a real person is called 'establishing historicity', you seem to have misunderstood the entire concept being discussed here.

Jesus is a story, connecting that story to a historical person is the topic here.

Whether or not the STORY of Jesus is based on a real person, several real people or mythology is up for debate. The STORY can most definitely be part truth and part myth. We are talking about the STORY Max.
Therefore the only possible positions are that Jesus was either fully real, or fully unreal, there are no other options.

Do you understand that? im taking it slowly with you as you have sub-normal intelligence.

To illustrate this simple point, take yourself for example, are you (1)fully real, (2)fully unreal, or (3)partially real and partially unreal? - Obviously, you are (1)fully real, and option (3) is not conceivably possible. The same logic applies to Jesus.
 
Last edited:

maxfreakout

Active Member
Jesus is a story, connecting that story to a historical person is the topic here.

This ^ is the core of your misunderstanding. Jesus is not a story, Jesus is a person from Nazareth, and the topic here is whether or not this person existed. This is nothing whatsoever to do with percentages, despite your repeated moronic insistence that it does.

'People' and 'stories' are two entirely different kinds of thing. Jesus is a person, NOT a story. Does that make sense to you? That is the reason why your idiotic insistence about "percentages" doesnt make any sense, it is a logical impossibility for a person to be less than fully real, or more than fully unreal. A person can only be 100% real, or else 100% unreal, therefore mentioning "percentages" is completely redundant. The only issue is whether Jesus is real or unreal, not what percentage real he is. It is one or the other, all-or-nothing, completely real or completely unreal.

We are talking about the STORY Max.


Only you alone are talking about the story, everyone else (including every writer on the subject, historicist or mythicist) is talking about the person Jesus, and whether or not he existed, that is what the historicism vs mythicism debate is all about. I doubt you will ever understand this, you are alone arguing for a position which nobody else holds in a debate which you have no understanding of.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Right. Here's a perfect measure of your honesty when it comes to debate:

Where is the problem Legion? I explained this to you several times.
Paul is not contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ because he did not meet the historicial Jesus.

How was that dishonest?

You did not quote the entire sentence Legion, and I have specifically explained this to you several times.
Paul is not contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus, because Paul did not meet the histrorical Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
This ^ is the core of your misunderstanding. Jesus is not a story, Jesus is a person from Nazareth, and the topic here is whether or not this person existed. This is nothing whatsoever to do with percentages, despite your repeated moronic insistence that it does.

'People' and 'stories' are two entirely different kinds of thing. Jesus is a person, NOT a story. Does that make sense to you? That is the reason why your idiotic insistence about "percentages" doesnt make any sense, it is a logical impossibility for a person to be less than fully real, or more than fully unreal. A person can only be 100% real, or else 100% unreal, therefore mentioning "percentages" is completely redundant. The only issue is whether Jesus is real or unreal, not what percentage real he is. It is one or the other, all-or-nothing, completely real or completely unreal.




Only you alone are talking about the story, everyone else (including every writer on the subject, historicist or mythicist) is talking about the person Jesus, and whether or not he existed, that is what the historicism vs mythicism debate is all about. I doubt you will ever understand this, you are alone arguing for a position which nobody else holds in a debate which you have no understanding of.

Max you are attacking your own quote buddy - the 100% thing was a quote from YOU. That is about the 5th time ypu have made that same comment - I was quoting YOU Max. You mentioned percentages Max - you are attacking me over and over for a comment YOU made.


WOW!

History Max, hiSTORY.

The STORY of Jesus can be part truth part myth. I know that a person can not partly exist Max, we are discussing historicity - whether or not the STORY of Jesus is true, false or a little of both.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Where is the problem Legion?

Wow. So clearly contradictory statements don't present a problem to you? I should have expected as much. You stated that Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus and you claimed you never said any such things. You can dress your lie up in whatever trappings you wish, but it's there for all to see: two statements you make which can't both be true.

Alas, this is only one of your tools used to avoid supporting your points while ignoring those made by others. To it we may add your backtracking, playing the victim, reliance on ad hominem arguments, and general refusal to present any evidence for any of your claims while demanding that others do when they already have.

if you identify a specific claim you believe I have made, I will happily explain and defend it.

I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate specific claims you made, but nowhere more clearly and comprehensively than in the post you wrote off by dodging once more. But we can easily determine whether you've made claims you haven't supported and whether I've supported the claims I've made:

To begin with, I claimed that this:
Two contemporaneous cross-references are required (likely along with other criteria) and two contemporaneous cross-references do not exist.
was not a required criterion. You disagreed here:
Well my field is history. Sapeins is correct.

I provided a small sample of some of my sources supporting my position here.

Did you ever provide any support (apart from appealing you your own authority with "my field is history") for your position? No.

Now let's look at the claims you've made more than once about scholarly opinion on the historical Jesus and our evidence for him:

Of course historians doubt his existence, there is barely a shred of evidence for the life of Jesus.
Many serious scholars have done so, you are wrong.
For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert, I could post as many citations to support or deny anything.

And so on. What scholarship or scholars have you cited to support any of these or similar claims? Perhaps one, except that even then you did so by defeating your own argument:

All serious scholars have doubt. Richard Carrier references many dozens of other notable scholars in his recent book on the topic. The historicity is not proveable, nor proven - that is just how history works.

The first of Carrier's two-volume work on the historical Jesus was entitled Proving History and both (as well as much of his professional and non-professional work) argues that the above is wrong, that all historians should rely probability theory, and that he has proven historians who don't rely on (his mistaken conception of) Bayes' Theorem are using sub-par methods. The sole "serious scholar" it appears you've cited in support of your claims undermines more of them than he supports.


I have claimed that most historians believe we have more than enough evidence to conclude Jesus exists and that hardly any serious scholars believe we don't. Unlike you, though, I substantiated my claim:

"we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'."

p. 200 of Grant, M. (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's.

"The question ‘Did Jesus exist?’ seemed likely to be of central importance to it, though professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago."

Casey, M. (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of his Life and Teaching. Continuum.

I could keep going forever quoting scholars in multiple fields over the last few decades to indicate not only that historians agree Jesus existed (and a few other facts about him, such as when he lived and that he was executed), but given how hard it is to find a single scholar with a relevant specialty who doubts Jesus existed, why not provide some evidence for the claim that "of course historians doubt" what Price, Carrier, and perhaps 1 or 2 other biblical scholars/historians/etc. doubt?

Akenson, D. H. (2000). Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus. Oxford University Press.
...

Byrskog, S. (2002). Story as History, History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Brill Academic.

...

Grant, M. (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scriber's.

Habermas, G. R. (1996). The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press.

...

Theißen, G., & Merz, A. (2011). Der historische Jesus: ein Lehrbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

...

Wills, L. M. (1997). The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. Routledge.

I supplied you with a paper which, while limited by the fact that I was only an undergrad when I wrote it, is still vastly more comprehensive than any post could provide and in which I go into great detail on our sources for ancient persons as well as reasons for which (and that) historians don't agree with you or your evaluations of their opinions as to our evidence for Jesus' historicity. I analyzed the Greek of Paul and referenced how we can differentiate literal vs. metaphorical kinship by citing Dickey's study.

Instead of supporting your claims, you play the victim while simultaneously relying on ad hominem you dismiss others for:
That is just a particularly childish ad hominem attack. Why not respond with a reasoned argument instead of the schoolyard taunts?

Why not indeed:

Sheesh buddy - you could whine at an Olympic level.

Please mate, your posts are 95% insulting the scholarship of others and avoiding any direct exchange of ideas.

(what scholarship did I insult?)

Wow mate, you sure are a gasbag. A rambling blowhard

and so on.



I explained this to you several times.

No, you've asserted nonsense you can back up about "contemporary", including the claim that Paul wasn't a contemporary of Jesus and then that you never claimed he wasn't. Nowhere have you cited or referenced any source demonstrating that historians wouldn't find your idiomatic definition ludicrous.

Paul is not contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ because he did not meet the historicial Jesus.

How was that dishonest?
You first claimed that he wasn't a contemporary and then claimed you never had. This is clear from your own words. Your backtracking notwithstanding, even had you actually stated that Paul didn't provide contemporary evidence you'd still be relying on an idiomatic definition historians don't use and isn't common parlance. It's just another specious argument you support by regurgitating it.

You did not quote the entire sentence Legion
I linked to your post. Your lies and backtracking are obvious to anybody capable of reading.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Wow. So clearly contradictory statements don't present a problem to you? I should have expected as much. You stated that Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus and you claimed you never said any such things. You can dress your lie up in whatever trappings you wish, but it's there for all to see: two statements you make which can't both be true.

Legion, you are arguing about definitions. You brought this up pages ago and I told you that Paul WAS contemporary - BUT DID NOT MEET JESUS. Paul is not CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF JESUS because they never interacted. We have gone through this several times. I ask yet again - forget about the personal attack and try to engage the topic.

For this entire post you are attacking a simple misunderstanding that was explained to you in detail several times.

Ok Legion, so what if we use slightly different definitions for a couple of words? I have agreed to use your definitions and have explajned in detail several times the point I was making.
Alas, this is only one of your tools used to avoid supporting your points while ignoring those made by others. To it we may add your backtracking, playing the victim, reliance on ad hominem arguments, and general refusal to present any evidence for any of your claims while demanding that others do when they already have.



I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate specific claims you made, but nowhere more clearly and comprehensively than in the post you wrote off by dodging once more. But we can easily determine whether you've made claims you haven't supported and whether I've supported the claims I've made:

To begin with, I claimed that this:

was not a required criterion. You disagreed here:


I provided a small sample of some of my sources supporting my position here.

Did you ever provide any support (apart from appealing you your own authority with "my field is history") for your position? No.

Now let's look at the claims you've made more than once about scholarly opinion on the historical Jesus and our evidence for him:





And so on. What scholarship or scholars have you cited to support any of these or similar claims? Perhaps one, except that even then you did so by defeating your own argument:



The first of Carrier's two-volume work on the historical Jesus was entitled Proving History and both (as well as much of his professional and non-professional work) argues that the above is wrong, that all historians should rely probability theory, and that he has proven historians who don't rely on (his mistaken conception of) Bayes' Theorem are using sub-par methods. The sole "serious scholar" it appears you've cited in support of your claims undermines more of them than he supports.


I have claimed that most historians believe we have more than enough evidence to conclude Jesus exists and that hardly any serious scholars believe we don't. Unlike you, though, I substantiated my claim:





I supplied you with a paper which, while limited by the fact that I was only an undergrad when I wrote it, is still vastly more comprehensive than any post could provide and in which I go into great detail on our sources for ancient persons as well as reasons for which (and that) historians don't agree with you or your evaluations of their opinions as to our evidence for Jesus' historicity. I analyzed the Greek of Paul and referenced how we can differentiate literal vs. metaphorical kinship by citing Dickey's study.

Instead of supporting your claims, you play the victim while simultaneously relying on ad hominem you dismiss others for:


Why not indeed:





(what scholarship did I insult?)



and so on.





No, you've asserted nonsense you can back up about "contemporary", including the claim that Paul wasn't a contemporary of Jesus and then that you never claimed he wasn't. Nowhere have you cited or referenced any source demonstrating that historians wouldn't find your idiomatic definition ludicrous.


You first claimed that he wasn't a contemporary and then claimed you never had. This is clear from your own words. Your backtracking notwithstanding, even had you actually stated that Paul didn't provide contemporary evidence you'd still be relying on an idiomatic definition historians don't use and isn't common parlance. It's just another specious argument you support by regurgitating it.


I linked to your post. Your lies and backtracking are obvious to anybody capable of reading.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Here is what you appear to have missed:
I have claimed that most historians believe we have more than enough evidence to conclude Jesus exists and that hardly any serious scholars believe we don't. Unlike you, though, I substantiated my claim

That is an appeal to authority Legion. It is the appeal to authority I am challenging. History is not conclusive, it is speculative - that is about the most basic understanding of the historical method and you seem unaware of it.

The only support you have given for it is further appeals to authority. I can and have supported my claims Legion amd I have explained anything I may not have been clear with you just ignore everything and repeat the same accusations that have been addressed ad naseum and which are irrelevant anyway.

YOU Are claiming that the majority of scholars agree that we have more than enough evidence to conclude that Jesus existed.
I AM SAYING That the majority of scholars agree that the historicity of Jesus is THE BEST EXPLANATION OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

Which is ABDUCTIVE reasoning. Abductive reasoning by definition gives best guesses - not conclusions.
To mistake an inference to the best explanation (abductive reasoning) for a conclusion is a fallacy called AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.

Hence I am arguing that your claim is fallacious.

The reason why I do not cite various scholars is because I am not making an appeal to their authority, I am pointing out a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
The debate over Jesus historicity concerns whether or not Jesus existed as a real person or not, that is what everybody else besides you means when they have this debate.

:yes:

As i quoted from Doherty's book several times in this thread:
Do you understand that quote? The debate is not about what percentage of truth there is on the stories, it is more basic than that, it is just about whether or not Jesus existed. In other words the debate concerns the PERSON, not the STORIES.

:yes:

That is what everybody else besides you is debating on this thread, and that is what every writer means when they contribute to the debate (such as mythicists like Doherty, and historicists like Ehrman). You clearly have never read any books relevant to this topic, as none of them mention a less than fully real or unreal Jesus. I already proved this point with quotes from the relevant writers, but you were too dumb to understand the quotes.

:yes:

Mythicists think that Jesus was unreal, historicists think that Jesus was real. Those are the only two positions in the debate, because a person cannot be less than fully real, or more than fully unreal, despite your repeated braindead assertions to the contrary

Bunyip, why don't you start a thread entitled: "Level of confidence we have in Jesus being real"?

In that thread, your position might be halfway respectable, maybe.

You alone are having a meaningless debate that nobody else is having, you hold a position that nobody else holds.

No, I hold the same position that he holds. That it is impossible to prove that Jesus was real, or that he was mythical for that matter. I also hold this opinion in every single other aspect of inquiry, except for mathematics, and even that has it's own can of worms.

But I also agree with you that debating from that position is meaningless, and I have stated as such numerous times, but it just doesn't seem to get through for whatever reason.

You are incredibly slow and stupid.

Mods, do I get a warning about personal attacks, if I type "What he said" with up arrows, below the above quoted statement? :shrug: :angel2:
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Mythicists think that Jesus was unreal, historicists think that Jesus was real. Those are the only two positions in the debate, because a person cannot be less than fully real, or more than fully unreal, despite your repeated braindead assertions to the contrary

No....... You got this wrong. Historians are in much contention about the historicity of Jesus, although a good % seem to accept that he was a real person 'on the balance of probabilities'.

'A person cannot be less than fully real..' ?? really?

I support the historicity of Jesus, based upon 'the balance of probabilities'. But before any more of your posts shoot off, if it came down to the crunch, and you had to bet your house (or whatever) on it....... would you? Would you? :shrug:
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
You are the only moron on this thread who doesnt understand that a person cannot be less than fully real, every time you have mentioned percentages (or Jesus' less than full reality) i have repeatedly pointed out to you that it is meaningless and absurd to make such a suggestion, but to no avail. I have never indicated that JEsus was less than fully real, you are the only poster on this thread stupid enough to make such a retarded self-contradictory suggestion.



FINALLY you have understood! Well done, it only took several days and several hundred posts for it to sink in to your head. We got there in the end, you finally managed to understand an extremely simple point.




This ^ is just your persistent moronic misunderstanding of what the actual historicism vs mythicism debate is all about, "we" are discussing something entirely different from what "you" are discussing

The debate over Jesus historicity concerns whether or not Jesus existed as a real person or not, that is what everybody else besides you means when they have this debate.

As i quoted from Doherty's book several times in this thread:
Do you understand that quote? The debate is not about what percentage of truth there is on the stories, it is more basic than that, it is just about whether or not Jesus existed. In other words the debate concerns the PERSON, not the STORIES.

MAAAAAAX

Earth calling Max..........

Come in Max.

Max, I 'm not Doherty. I'm saying that the STORY of Jesus is part myth and part truth. That was my position from the beginning.

Take a breath, calm down and think a little harder.

The STORY of Jesus is part truth and part myth. Ok?
That is the claim - Doherty isn't here mate, it's just me. That the STORY of Jesus is part truth and part myth is a perfectly sound and rational postion mate.
That is what everybody else besides you is debating on this thread, and that is what every writer means when they contribute to the debate (such as mythicists like Doherty, and historicists like Ehrman). You clearly have never read any books relevant to this topic, as none of them mention a less than fully real or unreal Jesus.
And of course neither did I, not tht you noticed.
I already proved this point with quotes from the relevant writers, but you were too dumb to understand the quotes.

Mythicists think that Jesus was unreal, historicists think that Jesus was real. Those are the only two positions in the debate, because a person cannot be less than fully real, or more than fully unreal, despite your repeated braindead assertions to the contrary

You alone are having a meaningless debate that nobody else is having, you hold a position that nobody else holds. You are incredibly slow and stupid.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Nash8

Interesting.

So you admit that my position is TRUE, in that we can not be sure.

But then characterise my position as not respectable and meaningless.
So it is true, and I am correct about the claim I am challenging being a fallacy.

And your objection to that is that it is not a respectable or meaningful position? Because I am 'incredibly slow and stupid'?

And that made some sort of sense to you how?
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Nash8

I can simplify if it helps.

How can my position be both true and meaningless? And if it is true, why are you guys contesting it?
I believe we left it at a similar point in the past when you conceded that it was true that we can not be sure - but it was a useless answer.

So alternatively could you please explain how an answer can be both the most accurate and useless?

Is that really the best you've got? Because it is not really very well thought through I'm afraid. Sure, the correct and most accurate position is not respectable, meaningless and useless? It's just correct?
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
This ^ is just your persistent moronic misunderstanding of what the actual historicism vs mythicism debate is all about,
.

Agreed.


No credible historian doubts the character is based on mythology through oral traditions.


The level of myth used is a reasonable debate as long as one is in the extreme parameters on either side of what is guessed at.

100% myth is not a reasonable position as only a slight few dissent. It is to the point many call it a consensus that he is historical.
 
Last edited:

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
Nash8

Interesting.

So you admit that my position is TRUE, in that we can not be sure.

As is for anything else in life.

But then characterise my position as not respectable and meaningless.
So it is true, and I am correct about the claim I am challenging being a fallacy.

As far as your position being not respectable, from my perspective it has changed numerous times, without you actually saying "my opinion has changed". You've just kinda evolved it over time without ever really saying you changed anything, and no, I don't really find that position highly respectable.

As far as being meaningless, pointless was a better term for it. Your position, now, has meaning, but within the context of this thread, and from my perspective in life in general, it is pointless to argue from that position, unless you are arguing against someone who is saying something is 100% proven or true, then your position would have a point to it.

Within the context of the thread, and from what I've seen, no one is arguing that Jesus' existence is 100% proven, save for maybe Outhouse, and I don't agree with him when he says that it is a fact either.

What people have been arguing on the other hand, is that Jesus' historicity is MORE LIKELY to be true, than him being a fictional character, based on the evidence that we have.

So essentially from my perspective, your argument that Jesus' existence is not "100% proven" is a Red Herring from the get-go because it's not relevant to the debate at hand.

The debate at hand is whether the evidence we have supports a mythical Jesus or a historical Jesus, not whether Jesus historicity is 100% proven. Do you understand what I mean?

And your objection to that is that it is not a respectable or meaningful position? Because I am 'incredibly slow and stupid'?

And that made some sort of sense to you how?

As stated above, my objection to your position is that it is not relevant to the topic at hand. You are essentially arguing for a position that no one is arguing with you about, at least not most of the main contributors to this thread that I have seen.

Secondly, I did not claim that you were incredibly slow and stupid, that was another member on the forums. But I do find it hard to believe that if you are as educated as you say you are, that you can't understand the point that I'm trying to make to you, which I will make one more time.

Unless someone is saying that something IS a 100% proven fact, the position that something is NOT a 100% proven fact is not a relevant position.

Again, no one is arguing with you that Jesus' historicity is 100% proven (and if they are arguing that point then I don't agree with them either) they are arguing that the evidence that we have supports that Jesus' historicity.

So the counter position to that argument is that the evidence we have does not support Jesus' historicity.

There are no other positions to hold in this particular debate, yet you seem dead set on holding a totally different position nonetheless.

Why don't you write a quick post summarizing your views on Jesus' historicity. I think that would clear a lot of things up, because I see you stating that many different views, that while not opposing, are not necessarily related to on another, and that could be a point of confusion.

Nash8

I can simplify if it helps.

I don't think it will, but your welcome to try.

How can my position be both true and meaningless?

One example that someone on this forum gave to me a while back, that is great for demonstrating this point.

Let's say we are trying to decide what causes someone to be a serial killer. We do a study, and find out that all serial killers drink water. While it is true that all serial killers drink water (because all human's do), it is meaningless for our original inquiry because it doesn't really tell us anything about why people are serial killers.

The same thing goes for the position that Jesus' historicity is not 100% proven. While I agree with you that the above statement is true, it doesn't tell us anything regarding the point of this debate.

Which the point of this debate is to decide "Is it more likely that Jesus was a real person or a mythical creation based on the evidence that we have?"

So in summary, you are presenting a true statement, but it, in reality, has nothing to do with what is being debated.

Another example for ya. Let's say I switch my position up on this subject to "The Earth is round". While I think we can both agree that the statement is true, would you not also agree that it is pointless with regard to the subject at hand?

And if it is true, why are you guys contesting it?

Who exactly is contesting that Jesus' historicity is 100% proven? Please name names.

I believe we left it at a similar point in the past when you conceded that it was true that we can not be sure - but it was a useless answer.

It is not a useless answer altogether, but it is a useless answer within the context of this thread/debate?

So alternatively could you please explain how an answer can be both the most accurate and useless?

Refer to my above examples regarding serial killers and the earth being round.

Is that really the best you've got? Because it is not really very well thought through I'm afraid. Sure, the correct and most accurate position is not respectable, meaningless and useless? It's just correct?

My new position regarding this matter is that 2 + 2 = 4. So there, now I have the most correct and most accurate position on this thread, which is simultaneously the least respectable, the most meaningless, and the most useless. It's just correct. ;)
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
My new position regarding this matter is that 2 + 2 = 4. So there, now I have the most correct and most accurate position on this thread, which is simultaneously the least respectable, the most meaningless, and the most useless. It's just correct. ;)
2+2=4 only if you are using base 10.
 
Top