Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm, regardless of your personal skepticism, the truth is that it is more likely that the key events described in the gospels and in Acts actually happened than not.

Lets see the math.

Regarding the criterion of embarrassment, why is that a bad argument when used with other arguments? Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

It's a bad argument as you've been using it because it runs afoul of precisely how we define that criterion. I lies entirely within the weaknesses of that argument.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Limitations[edit]
The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria. One limitation to the criterion of embarrassment is that clear-cut cases of such embarrassment are few and far between. A full portrait of Jesus could never be based on so little data. Another limitation stems from the fact that what today one might consider an embarrassment to the early Church was not necessarily an embarrassment in its own eyes. Embarrassing details may be included as an alternative to an even more embarrassing account of the same event. As a hypothetical example, Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been a substitution for an even greater misdeed of Peter.[8]

A good example of the second point is found in the stories of the Infancy Gospels. In one account from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a very young Jesus is said to use his supernatural powers first to strike dead, and then revive, a playmate who had accidentally bumped into him.[9] If this tradition had been accepted as worthy of inclusion at some key juncture in the formation of the Christian Bible (and hence integrated in one way or another among the Canonical Gospels), arguably many modern Christians would find it quite embarrassing—especially strict believers in biblical inerrancy. But as is strongly suggested by the existence of this early non-canonical pericope, it must not have been embarrassing to some early Christians.[10][11][12][13]

A further limitation is the possibility that what could be classed as embarrassing could also be an intentionally created account designed to provoke a reaction. For instance, Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been written as an example of the consequences of denial. Matthew 10:32-33: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

---

But again, if all of that is too much for you.....are you ready to accept the stories of the greek gods based upon that criterion?

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).

Joseph Smith went to his grave, apparently, a mormon. And? Are you ready to accept his claims? Are you ready to accept the claims of any mormon families children..or their children's children...based on the brute force of their claiming? People can claim anything they want - and if you ask me whether or not my grandfather wrestled a 15ft alligator - I'm just gonna go ahead and say "yes, yes he did". People can even claim...gasp...that Joseph corroborated a story that he did not. I know, I know, perish the thought.

Maybe you don't get my MO. Arguing with you over whether or not some portion of the christ myth is true is, ultimately, pointless. You've checked out of reality, and I don;t have the patience to bring you back. I'm just hoping that I can help you to understand why your arguments wouldn't even convince -you-...in fact...that they haven't convinced you.