Did Jesus exist?

[GrandizerII]

So believe what you wish to believe, but I can't agree that you're being reasonable here.

You say this as you appeal to probability..with no math included, while begging the question, in pursuit of a non sequitur...and what I'm being "unreasonable" about is not accepting any of that.....

OFC I can't use it, belief isn't even a factor.  Even if I did believe in HJ your argument would still be useless, I still couldn't use it to demonstrate the truth of the HJ proposition, and it's being tore up from the floor to the ceiling still doesn't demonstrate the reverse.  This argument very literally tells us nothing.

I accept jesus for what he demonstrably is and no more.  A character in the NT.

We're talking history here, not deductive logic or maths ...

Perhaps you've never had to do textual analysis of historical records.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean that I should just take an irrational proposition floated in the absence of evidence to be true because were talking history? Thanks, I'll pass.

Textual analysis..what are you analyzing them against...invalid inferences? Good luck.

[robvalue]

Maybe the authors deliberately included what may look like "embarresing details" in order to try and sneakily add credibility.

But I agree, I don't see how anyone can claim to know what would embarress an unknown author. And even if it did embarress them, I still don't see it as much of an argument. We're then assuming they are being dishonest enough to miss stuff out, to try and establish that they are actually being honest and we should believe what they say. Except, you know, they talk about a load of ridiculous shit that didn't happen as well. Kind of blows anyone's credibility for me, and I'd stick to what could actually be verified. I wouldn't take their word for squat.

[The Grand Nudger]

or how anyone can claim to know what would or would not be historical on the basis of embarrassment.........

Forget all the scheming. No need to reference anyone trying to trick anybody or manufacture credibility. Maybe the author included "embarrassing details" because they were part of the tradition, or maybe the author simply believed them to be true.

[GrandizerII]

Maybe the authors deliberately included what may look like "embarresing details" in order to try and sneakily add credibility.

But I agree, I don't see how anyone can claim to know what would embarress an unknown author.

Yes, we can, because if the text written by the author suggests that the author was embarrassed or inconvenienced by a certain detail, and tries to rectify it or be an apologist about it, then we can know (not absolute knowledge, mind you, but it's still reasonable knowledge).

[The Grand Nudger]

You might infer that the author was embarrassed by the contents, I'm being very generous...but what does that have to do with the historicity of the contents?

[GrandizerII]

You might infer that the author was embarrassed by the contents, I'm being very generous...but what does that have to do with the historicity of the contents?

Ok, good question, but do you ever attempt to answer it with better (more parsimonious) answers than the one being suggested?

So a Gospel author is inconvenienced by a certain detail regarding the Messiah so he attempts to address it by coming up with an ad hoc explanation for it that would make it look more convincing to the readers. Why is he inconvenienced by it? And why try to fix it? If the theologically embarrassing detail was not true, why bother to inconvenience himself by mentioning it at all?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok, good question, but do you ever attempt to answer it with better (more parsimonious) answers than the one being suggested?

Like...."it was part of the tradition" or "because the author thought it was true".........you mean?

So a Gospel author is inconvenienced by a certain detail regarding the Messiah so he attempts to address it by coming up with an ad hoc explanation for it that would make it look more convincing to the readers. Why is he inconvenienced by it?

Wouldn't know, wouldn't know where to begin to determine that, and it doesn't matter anyway. 

And why try to fix it?

Wouldn't know, wouldn't know where to begin to determine that, and it doesn't matter anyway.

If the theologically embarrassing detail was not true, why bother to inconvenience himself by mentioning it at all?

see up at the very top.....but it doesn't matter anyway....

The trouble, and you're already running into it, is that your inferences are not valid, not that your propositions are unsound.  Toiling away trying to establish your propositions is avoiding the problem the argument -actually- has. Howsabout we handle that first and then see how sound the propositions are?

So imagine that you do know what embarrasses an author, and that you do know why he tries to fix it, and that you know why he mentions it.  What does -any- of that have to do with the historicity of the contents?

[robvalue]

Seems like an argument from incredulity.

How about they did all that deliberately, to try and make it seem true? This is propaganda, after all.

Or there was some other reason to "include" that detail, true or not, which is now lost. But it proved difficult to weave into the narrative.

Or they are just shit at storytelling.

Or we don't know why they appear to be embarrassed, if that is the case.

[GrandizerII]

Seems like an argument from incredulity.

How about they did all that deliberately, to try and make it seem true? This is propaganda, after all.

Or there was some other reason to "include" that detail, true or not, which is now lost. But it proved difficult to weave into the narrative.

Or they are just shit at storytelling.

Or we don't know why they appear to be embarrassed, if that is the case.

That is why I said more parsimonious. Yours are possible explanations (and if I'm honest, a bit silly for the last two), but not better explanations.

Rhythm gave two possible answers which are: "part of the tradition" and "authors accept it as true", neither of which negate the historicity of Jesus, so in other words, incomplete answers.