(February 2, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Cecelia Wrote:(February 2, 2016 at 11:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: This is the embarrassing details defense. It seems important, informative. The trouble is that it isn't. It makes several fallacious appeals while begging the question. Not only -do- people include embarrassing details, we don;t really know what those particular people would consider embarrassing, and none of this means anything unless we assume that some portions of this narrative are historical in the first place...precisely what we are trying to determine.
Proponents of mj and lj don't have a problem with an -anyman- around which detail was built. That's a historical anyman, though, John Doe...not Historical Jesus.
I think we're close to understanding one another.
As Irrational explained, the 'embarrassing details' defense is an indicator that the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn't have accepted certain details of the story, given that they changed so many other details as they saw fit. It's not a matter of "they included it, but didn't have to, therefore it's history" it's not even "they all included it, despite the fact they changed other details where they saw fit, therefore it's history". It's "They all included it, despite the fact they changed other details where they saw fit, therefore they probably had some historical details they felt they couldn't change." Now it's certainly possible that they didn't have any historical details at all. It's not something we'll likely ever know.
What I'm suggesting is the -anyman- Jesus would be historical Jesus. The Gospels are not historical. They all have contradicting accounts (which is why it's believed that they probably were working with -some- historical details. They contradicted each other, changed it as they saw fit.) Now that doesn't mean Jesus the -anyman- is a Historical Fact (or that I think he is) If there were an -anyman- Jesus then it's unlikely anyone would have wrote about him. As stated earlier, he'd have basically been Harold Camping and Benny Hinn rolled into one.
As for the slaves of Egypt bit... it's possible that they were in fact slaves of Egypt at one point. Or that some of them were, which is where the stories -- the myths -- came from.
Just like with Jesus -- them being slaves does not prove Exodus. Nor does Jesus being crucified prove him to have done any of the claimed miracles. Those would require much more proof, because they are things that would have certainly been written about. All the first born sons of Egypt dying? That would have been a significant event that someone would have recorded by other than whoever wrote down the stories of the Old Testament. And certainly at least from an Egyptian Perspective. There also would have been effects from it seen in History as well.
The story about slaves in Egypt is really about the Israelites living in "sin" and leaving it for the promised land of living under the law. IOW, it's just an elaborate parable.
