RE: Did Jesus exist?
February 2, 2016 at 12:51 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Who's claimed absolute knowledge? Who's demanding it? No one in this conversation. What is being claimed, firstly, is that there is a criteria by which they can determine what would embarrass a specific author...whose identity isn't even known, and that further this is a means of inference for the historicity of the narrative.
This is -beyond- speculative, it's purely imaginative, and as already explained, incredibly irrational from the outset -as- a question. Even if we could determine what would be embarrassing to an anonymous author, which we can't, we can't conclude from it's inclusion or their embarrassment or any combination thereof that the event happened (or didn't). That would be a massive non-sequitur. It gives us neither either way in that regard.
We are not, in any of this, discussing the historicity of the narrative. That's why this question is uninformative, as is the defense by reference to embarrassing details, if the question is the historicity of the narrative...and not, as the comments above would be discussing, the religiosity or beliefs of the author, or even what would be embarrassing to them regardless of it's historicity.
HJ isn't just a person not in evidence, it's a person argued into acceptance with unreasonable statements and inferences.
This is -beyond- speculative, it's purely imaginative, and as already explained, incredibly irrational from the outset -as- a question. Even if we could determine what would be embarrassing to an anonymous author, which we can't, we can't conclude from it's inclusion or their embarrassment or any combination thereof that the event happened (or didn't). That would be a massive non-sequitur. It gives us neither either way in that regard.
We are not, in any of this, discussing the historicity of the narrative. That's why this question is uninformative, as is the defense by reference to embarrassing details, if the question is the historicity of the narrative...and not, as the comments above would be discussing, the religiosity or beliefs of the author, or even what would be embarrassing to them regardless of it's historicity.
HJ isn't just a person not in evidence, it's a person argued into acceptance with unreasonable statements and inferences.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
