Did Jesus exist?

[Minimalist]

The essence of religion, there.

[ignoramus]

Could the world have been worse off without the control of religion?
I can think of reasons but I also believe that without that control religion imposed on societies, today we would be better off.

The control of a democratic law is infinitely fairer than the control of a few men in gowns who ultimately can do as they wish.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, you've already made up your mind that you can't determine what would be embarrassing to the authors.

Yes, I've made up my mind that I cant determine what would embarass the author, because I cant.    Yes I've made up my mind that you cannot determine what would embarrass the author, because you haven't.

So nothing will convince you that we can determine, for example, that the author(s) of Matthew found certain accepted things regarding Jesus as the Messiah to be embarrassing, and hence tried to rectify them.

You have failed to convince me, let's not pretend that another cannot be convinced just to avoid acknowledging our own failures.

Second, the argument is that certain embarrassments in the Gospel regarding Jesus are indicators that they probably wouldn't have been accepted by believers of the Messiah if they weren't historical facts. Again, there is no hard proof here, just parsimony and the most reasonable explanation given the current evidence.

If the "argument" is an appeal to the probability of a question begging non-sequitur...... I doubt we have much left to discuss.  There's nothing reasonable in any of this. "Hard proof" and parsimony are irrelevant to the situation at hand.

[GrandizerII]

Second, the argument is that certain embarrassments in the Gospel regarding Jesus are indicators that they probably wouldn't have been accepted by believers of the Messiah if they weren't historical facts.

The same argument is used in the OT:  "Why would anyone invent a story about being SLAVES in Egypt?"

No, it's not the same thing.

What's theologically embarrassing about the Israelites being slaves at one point?

[GrandizerII]

First, you've already made up your mind that you can't determine what would be embarrassing to the authors.

Yes, I've made up my mind that I cant determine what would embarass the author, because I cant.    Yes I've made up my mind that you cannot determine what would embarrass the author, because you haven't.

So nothing will convince you that we can determine, for example, that the author(s) of Matthew found certain accepted things regarding Jesus as the Messiah to be embarrassing, and hence tried to rectify them.

You have failed to convince me, let's not pretend that another cannot be convinced just to avoid acknowledging our own failures.

Second, the argument is that certain embarrassments in the Gospel regarding Jesus are indicators that they probably wouldn't have been accepted by believers of the Messiah if they weren't historical facts. Again, there is no hard proof here, just parsimony and the most reasonable explanation given the current evidence.

If the "argument" is an appeal to the probability of a question begging non-sequitur...... I doubt we have much left to discuss.  There's nothing reasonable in any of this.  "Hard proof" and parsimony are irrelevant to the situation at hand.

There you go. You're not going to be convinced no matter what.

[Minimalist]

The same argument is used in the OT:  "Why would anyone invent a story about being SLAVES in Egypt?"

No, it's not the same thing.

What's theologically embarrassing about the Israelites being slaves at one point?

Why don't you explain that to professor Kitchen?

As Egyptologist Kitchen asks: “…why on earth invent such a tale about such humiliating origins? Nobody else in Near Eastern antiquity descended to that kind of tale of community beginnings.” (K. A. Kitchen, ibid)

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I've made up my mind that I cant determine what would embarass the author, because I cant.    Yes I've made up my mind that you cannot determine what would embarrass the author, because you haven't.

You have failed to convince me, let's not pretend that another cannot be convinced just to avoid acknowledging our own failures.


If the "argument" is an appeal to the probability of a question begging non-sequitur...... I doubt we have much left to discuss.  There's nothing reasonable in any of this.  "Hard proof" and parsimony are irrelevant to the situation at hand.

There you go. You're not going to be convinced no matter what.

I'm trying to decide whether or not I should be surprised that this is all you take from that.  

You certainly aren't going to convince me in the manner that you've been attempting too thusfar, and I've explained why, it's irrational. You're appealling to the probability of a question begging non-sequitur....and I didn't even see any math.

What am I supposed to do with that?

[GrandizerII]

No, it's not the same thing.

What's theologically embarrassing about the Israelites being slaves at one point?

Why don't you explain that to professor Kitchen?

As Egyptologist Kitchen asks: “…why on earth invent such a tale about such humiliating origins? Nobody else in Near Eastern antiquity descended to that kind of tale of community beginnings.” (K. A. Kitchen, ibid)

From humble beginnings, God rose them up to become men of prominent status and the chosen people of God? That's one good answer. Still not sure what the original authors found embarrassing about that? Or if there is any indicator in the texts that they found this to be embarrassing?

Perhaps that's why most Egyptologists don't think the way this Kitchen does?

[GrandizerII]

There you go. You're not going to be convinced no matter what.

I'm trying to decide whether or not I should be surprised that this is all you take from that.  

You certainly aren't going to convince me in the manner that you've been attempting too thusfar, and I've explained why, it's irrational.  You're appealling to the probability of a question begging non-sequitur....and I didn't even see any math.  

What am I supposed to do with that?

You're not expected to do anything. You know the standard arguments and examples given, I'm sure. I'm sure you also know about how the authors of the Gospels try to rectify certain matters in their books.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

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.