There's no need to negate the historicity of jesus...........if you're asking people to negate it you're begging the question.

The updated list, for parsimony....lol.

-Deliberate Scam
-Unknown Reasons
-Part of Tradition
-Belief of Author
-It really happened.

Right. If we just believe any testimony is likely to be true at points where it appears to be embarrassing, without further evidence, we're in a very strange position.

I could go ahead and write some stuff now which appears to embarrass me. Will it be true in 2000 years, if little else from the era survives for comparison?

To me, we've got far more reasons to think these people made things up and weren't particularly interested in historical accuracy. But this is just my opinion. We are only dealing in probabilities.

I once cast the runes over an elm which uprooted itself and engaged in glorious battle with the neighbors veranda.  I was so embarrased by all the damage, I had only intended to move the elm to my side yard, but I got the cantrip wrong.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:21 am)robvalue Wrote: Right. If we just believe any testimony is likely to be true at points where it appears to be embarrassing, without further evidence, we're in a very strange position.

I could go ahead and write some stuff now which appears to embarrass me. Will it be true in 2000 years, if little else from the era survives for comparison?

The term "embarrassment" in the context of Biblical analysis criteria means that it goes against the views that the author held.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_...arrassment

For example, if the Messiah was supposed to have come from Bethlehem, then it is an embarrassment that the person the authors believed to be the Messiah was instead from Nazareth. Another example is that if the Messiah was so great, why did he have to be baptized by someone who's supposed to be less great than him. Have a read of at least Matthew and you should see that they provide "filler verses" to provide explanations for some of these embarrassments.

That's great, you've had a lot to say about embarrassment but you still haven't told us how we're supposed to use it to make an inference as to the historicity of the contents. Which is frankly -all- that matters in the first place.

Are you arguing for the Historical Embarrassed Man or a Historical Jesus?

(February 3, 2016 at 9:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's great, you've had a lot to say about embarrassment but you still haven't told us how we're supposed to use it to make an inference as to the historicity of the contents.  Which is frankly -all- that matters in the first place.

I told you many times, this is using principle of parsimony as well. You keep thinking deductive logic.

Also, your updated list of parsimony is silly. I don't think you're even trying to be serious.

You keep using the word parsimony but I haven't seen you use any. Inductive is fine, deductive is better. It's best to avoid fallacious arguments or statements, as rule, no matter what you're discussing or by what other standard..wouldn't you agree? The standards of history can't be below the standards of reason.......surely? There -has- to be some reasonable way to phrase historical jesus. I can think of a few off the top of my head but I doubt they would satisfy you.

If you think my list is silly, tell me what's silly about it.  I'm not gonna blow smoke up your ass and tell you I had to tried too hard.  I simply took the two of robs you didn't complain about, my two, and your own. If there's some specific item you want to include or exclude just pipe up with which/what one and why, eh?

(February 3, 2016 at 7:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: The updated list, for parsimony....lol.

-Deliberate Scam
-Unknown Reasons
-Part of Tradition
-Belief of Author
-It really happened.

Ok, I'll go quickly through the list, and then I'm done for tonight.

Deliberate scam: Not a better explanation because it doesn't, for example, satisfactorily account for why the authors would actually try to "correct" the embarrassments. And the whole intentionality of including embarrassments out of nothing just to confuse people sounds a bit too convoluted, and without evidence for such intentionality, this doesn't bode well as an explanation over all.

Unknown reasons: Is not even an explanation. It's just pretty much agnosticism. Fine, if you don't know, you don't know. But experts can, and do know things that laymen like you and I may not know.

Part of Tradition: And? Where does the tradition come from? Why is it part of tradition if it is such a theological embarrassment? That's what I meant earlier by this explanation not being satisfactorily complete. We know it's part of tradition ... so?

Belief of Author: Again, so what? Same as the previous one.

(February 3, 2016 at 10:21 am)Irrational Wrote: Ok, I'll go quickly through the list, and then I'm done for tonight.

Hop back in tomorrow.  Sweet dreams.

Quote:Deliberate scam: Not a better explanation because it doesn't, for example, satisfactorily account for why the authors would actually try to "correct" the embarrassments. And the whole intentionality of including embarrassments out of nothing just to confuse people sounds a bit too convoluted, and without evidence for such intentionality, this doesn't bode well as an explanation over all.

Agreed.  I don't think we have anything that would indicate that the writing of the texts in question was a deliberate scam.

Quote:Unknown reasons: Is not even an explanation. It's just pretty much agnosticism. Fine, if you don't know, you don't know. But experts can, and do know things that laymen like you and I may not know.

Agreed, unknown reasons are the same as no reasons at all.

Quote:Part of Tradition: And? Where does the tradition come from? Why is it part of tradition if it is such a theological embarrassment? That's what I meant earlier by this explanation not being satisfactorily complete. We know it's part of tradition ... so?

It doesn;t matter where the tradition comes from.  You asked why these details would be included.  If they were included as part of the tradition -that's why they were included-...regardless of where the tradition arose.   We can answer one question without answering -all- questions....I think.  

Quote:Belief of Author: Again, so what? Same as the previous one.

Same as the previous answer.  If the author believed it.....it's not exactly a surprise to see it in the text, now is it?  Doesn't matter why the author believed it, really.  Could have been an eyewitness, could have been told a compelling tale. Could be batshit insane.

Now...wait a minute......what about "It really happened".......?