aa5874

If one claims that the Baptism event in the Gospels was modified therefore it was embarrassing and must be an historical event then how does one determine which account is historically accurate.

1. In gMark when Jesus baptized a holy ghost bird descended upon Jesus and there was a voice from heaven identifying Jesus as "My Son".

2. In gMatthew when Jesus was baptized a holy ghost bird descended upon Jesus and there was a voice from heaven which identified Jesus as "My Son".

3. In gLuke when Jesus was baptized a holy Ghost bird descended upon Jesus and there was a voice from heaven which identified Jesus as "My Son".

4. In gJohn when Jesus met John the Baptist a Holy Ghost bird descended upon Jesus which was the sign that Jesus was the Son of God.

It is just total fiction that a Holy Ghost bird would descend upon a human being when he is baptized.

The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to fiction.

The criterion of embarrassment cannot be applied to known myth fables about Gods, Devils, Angels, Evil Spirits, Holy Ghosts and Holy Ghost Birds.

spin

That as you might be aware is an oversimplification. To be able to gain an understanding of reactions of people from a culture distant from yours you need to have a good understanding of that culture, something you don't have for the gospels which are anonymous, unprovenanced and undated. You don't even know if the gospel writers share a common cultural context, so claims of embarrassment regarding individual culturally-unplaced writers are rather absurd.

This leads us to the umpteenth appeal to your common sense as a means for you to maintain this argument from ignorance:

As you rely not on human nature but on retrojection of your expectations your evaluation here doesn't have any legs.

I know that's your opinion. But you are the one defending an argument from ignorance.

This misrepresentation is a mere smokescreen for your oversimplifications and lack of logic.

andrewcriddle

Matthew left out entirely some passages in Mark that he apparently found problematic. However he left in the baptism while clearly finding it problematic. This may indicate that Matthew had access to non-Markan sources/traditions confirming the baptism of Jesus by John.

(Some scholars think that Q contained an account of Jesus' baptism.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Your claims about the author of gMatthew is highly illogical.

It is the very author of gMatthew that did not find any problems with the fiction that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost and that Herod killed children of Judea after the Magi did not return to identify where Jesus was born.

The author of gMatthew did not find any problems with his elaborate fiction fables of the Temptation where Jesus and Satan were on the pinnacle of the Temple which is not found in gMark.

There is simple no evidence in the history of the Jesus cult that they were embarrassed by the Baptism fable.

In fact, it was argued that the Baptism of Jesus by John was extremely significant and that it signaled the END of the LAW and Prophets.

Examine Answer to the Jews attributed to Tertullian.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews There is NO corroborative evidence from antiquity that the story of the Baptism event was embarrassing to the Jesus cult.

These are some of the LAST WORDS of the Resurrected Jesus in gMatthew.

Matthew 28

Toto

I was going to split out some of this low grade bickering, but it is too hard to separate the insults from the substantive comments.

I do not know how to get through to outhouse that he is not defending modern scholarship. He is only worshiping at the feet of a lot of Christians who claim (falsely IMHO) that scholarship supports them.

outhouse

More unsubstatiated boloney.

What I quoted above about scholars and historians is verbatem from a encyclopedia, which the amatuers of this board such as YOURSELF, cannot overturn. It is in fact a fringe position.

This is a fact, Scholars who write about history are called historians, not up for debate.


Now as far as criterion of embarrassment.

Different professionals have different opinions about this, and I have not stated otherwise. I have also expressed the need for caution. This expresses the current state of scholarships use of the criterion.

Throwing out the criterion comepletely is that of fringe scholarships and you and spins amatuer opinion. I dont care if Spin was Carriers sock account, which I have seen them debate each other, Carrier still holds a fringe position.

spin

The irony of course is that we have been telling you for months that the stuff you've been trying to sell here is the opinions of christians cut by the lack of any pretense of evidence.

If you read this forum's guidelines (see the sticky thread posted by Sabine Grant), you'll note that encyclopedias are not recommended for usage in the forum. You are expected to cite from decent sources. No-one cares if you repeat things you read in some encyclopedia. Further irony comes when you try to talk about amateurs (note the spelling), for you have presented yourself as the posterboy for amateur hour, not being able to provide either sources or proper bibliography for anything you say.

This is par for the course: while slavishly rehearsing the views of christian scholars, you don't even see that they are mostly amateurs in the field of history. They have no degrees in history or historical methodology. They are meddling in history using biblical hermeneutics in lieu of the tools of the historian. The reason for this is obvious: the results otherwise are unpleasant.

What a load of malarky. You cannot find a historian in the real world who supports this nonsense criterion.

I don't know what the fuck you are doing, falsely trying to do link me to Richard Carrier. This is the second time you have done so. It is only the tactic of someone bankrupt in principles who has nothing better than to make false accusations.

(* Learn to spell the insults you try to use.)

Toto

I am having trouble locating your quote. Where did you cite an encyclopedia? and what makes that particular encyclopedia an authority?

Calling something "fringe" is just an insult. It doesn't show anything about the position at all.

Because you would lose the debate. And you have.

You have not said anything substantive here on the criterion of embarrassment. You do not have an example of the use of this criterion that has led to any insights on the historicity of Jesus.

Toto

outhouse: Richard Carrier is an American PhD in ancient history. He maintains his own website and blog, and is a frequent speaker at skeptical conferences, and a published author both on the web and in real books. He used to post on the Internet Infidels board, the predecessor to this one, but stopped when he realized that he had better ways to spend his time.

You would have to be completely oblivious to anything either has written to identify him with spin. For one thing, Carrier has identified himself as a mythicist. spin maintains an agnostic position on the issue.

Let this be the end of this silly charge.

Vorkosigan

No outhouse, you said:

After I pointed out, contrary to your claim, it is mainstream to find issue with this criterion, suddenly you're taking this new line.

No one takes you seriously because you waste our time with this crap.

Vorkosigan