Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 09-05-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transponder

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The Gospel story could well be complete fiction, sprinkled with a few names and places vaguely remembered. I don't think there's much controversy about claiming that Matthew and Luke are faith documents, but if they copied Mark's original we still need to explain what he was doing and why.

I don't think they could have copied Mark, because Mark gets completely confused about the trips from Capernaum to Bethsaida and the only way to sort it out is by checking it with the other three. The only way the other three could have it straight is if they got their material from a source which wasn't Mark.

Okay, but aren't you assuming that Mark WANTED to be accurate? If he was writing some kind of critique (obituary?) of pre-Revolt Christianity then maybe he didn't care if the details were off. According to the usual reconstruction, there were no other existing stories before Mark about the Christ walking around Palestine. Using Matthew and Luke to correct Mark's geography or chronology seems pointless to me, since there was no real 'traveller' anyway.

I don't know if we can assume that Mark was Palestinian, maybe he was writing in Syria or somewhere else outside of Galilee and Judea. I don't think we know who his intended audience was; maybe disillusioned ex-Christians?

aa5874 · 09-05-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transponder

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No matter how you present the principle of embarrassment it is a completely flawed principle that must produce erroneous or false results of historicity.

The principle of embarrassment in effect, denies that a fictious event can also be embarrassing. The principle of embarrassment can bring any myth to life if anything considered embarrassing is found by the reader.

In gMatthew 14.28-31, it is claimed Peter walked on water to go to Jesus who was also walking on the same watery surface, Peter began to sink and Jesus saved him. Now the principle of embarrassment would dictate that the event must be or is most likely true since Peter was embarrassed.

However, the story of the water-walkers is an obvious fictitious event, real humans cannot walk on the sea during a storm . Even if Peter , embarrassingly, nearly drowned or showed he did not have much faith in Jesus, the principle of embarrassment is of no use, it is a total bogus theory that blatantly produces false historicity.

Now, the crucifixion did or did not occur. If the crucifixion actually did not occur, it would still be embarrassing. The principle of embarrassment would produce a bogus result, a fasle historicity.

The principle of embarrassment is actually useless, totally irrelevant, circular, a bogus theory.

Now, I have to jump in here. You are assuming that the sinking of Simon was an embarrassment. Perhaps. It is also possible that embarrassing Simon was part of the agenda of Matthew. Do I recall that it is in Matthew that Jesus tell him that he speaks as men speak, not as God speaks, and none of the other synoptics report that? Similarly, the sinking Simon episode is not reported elsewhere. You cannot just apply methods selectively in order to get the result you want, you must look at the whole thing. I looked at the crucifixion applying all the parameters I can think of and it still holds up, so far as I can see.

This is exactly how it can be confirmed that the principle of embarrassment is a bogus theory. It can be PROVEN to be bogus.

It can be shown that people cannot walk on the sea during a sea-storm, Peter, the water-walker was an embarrassment. Based on your principle, Peter and Jesus did walk on the sea during the storm.

The principle of embarrassment is bogus, it produces fake results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transponder

You reject the principle of embarrassment because it does not suit your theory that Constantine invented the whole thing. How like Creationsts who reject the scientific method because it does not give the result they want. Evidence of christians before Constantine? Fake as fossils. There are no separate historical references, just as there are no transitional fossils. If there are, then they are faked, just as transitionals are not really ransitionals. Ii beg you, don't reason like this.

You are the one wrote this post. You are the one who is rambling. What are you really talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transponder

And before you say it, I do not WANT Jesus to be historic. I do not care. enough of the gospel is demonstrably fictitious that I can forget about Christianity as any sort of truth. The methods I used have shown not only that the story is false but how it was falsified. However, they leave some elements that may not be false. I'm sorry if you don't care for it.

Well, it would appear that you really do care, because you REFUSE to admit that the principle of embarrassment is a bogus theory.

Using your embarrassment theory, then, if there are rumors that are actually false, unknown to you, but appear embarrassing to you, then the rumors are likely to be true. Or all embarrassing events are likely to be true.

That principle is bogus or an embarrassment.

aa5874 · 09-05-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transponder

I'm even more disappointed as you now have to resort to illogic. Of course I don't assume that the Crucifixion is true. I start with no preconceptions other than a bias against the supernatural for which I make no apology. The principle of embarrassment is a recognized method of historical assessment, whether or not you agree or not. If you want to jettison such methods because they don't support your view that it is all fake, that is up to you.

Hi Transponder - aa5873 is tied up in a misunderstanding of his own making and seems to be deliberately confused (and confusing) about the principle of embarrassment, but I think you will find that the principle of embarrassment and the other criteria used by NT scholars to define the historical Jesus are in fact close to worthless. They are not used by historians in any other field, and have many problems in NT studies. This has been discussed here frequently; I will try to dig up some references later.

This is incredible.

I have come to the conclusion that the principle of embarrassment is worthless, as you claim it is, and then you say I am confused.

This is just mind-boggling. Logically, I would expect you to say that Transponder is confused.

Something strange is going on here.

Toto · 09-05-2008, 11:26 AM

Here's a summary thread on the criterion of embarrassment. Note in particular the quotes from Darrell Doughty's class notes. The criterion of embarrassment has some surface appeal until you examine it carefully. It was originally an attempt to separate out the legendary accretions from the historical core in the gospels, based on the assumptions that Jesus existed and was somewhat similar to the figure in the gospels.

aa5874 - you have reached the right result with invalid reasoning, based on an incorrect statement of the criterion of embarrassment. You are confused and confusing and your posts are not helpful.

aa5874 · 09-05-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874 - you have reached the right result with invalid reasoning, based on an incorrect statement of the criterion of embarrassment. You are confused and confusing and your posts are not helpful.

Something is still very wrong. You claim I am confused but that I have reached the right result.

I have reached the right result, but my post are not helpful.

I have reached the right result with invalid reasoning on my part.

You have reached the same result, and your post are helpful.

Please, tell me what exactly are you trying to say.

And you have not pointed out one single post that is invalid on my part.

Can you point out where my reasoning is invalid after having reached the right result?

Amaleq13 · 09-05-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Something is still very wrong. You claim I am confused but that I have reached the right result.

What is wrong is your conception of the criterion of embarrassment. It relates to the alleged embarrassment of an author and not the embarrassment of the characters in the story.

Quote:

Please, tell me what exactly are you trying to say.

Reaching what is considered the correct conclusion through flawed reasoning or misunderstanding details doesn't help anyone to understand why the conclusion is correct. It results only in confusion.

Only valid reasoning and accurate details can accomplish that goal.

2-J · 09-05-2008, 03:43 PM

aa5874 needs to take Logic 101. His heart's in the right place, though.

aa5874 · 09-05-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

aa5874 needs to take Logic 101. His heart's in the right place, though.

You think you know logics?

And it is my head that is in the right place. Only the brain dead, must rely on their heart.

aa5874 · 09-05-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Something is still very wrong. You claim I am confused but that I have reached the right result.

What is wrong is your conception of the criterion of embarrassment. It relates to the alleged embarrassment of an author and not the embarrassment of the characters in the story.

Quote:

Please, tell me what exactly are you trying to say.

Reaching what is considered the correct conclusion through flawed reasoning or misunderstanding details doesn't help anyone to understand why the conclusion is correct. It results only in confusion.

Only valid reasoning and accurate details can accomplish that goal.

I do not accept anything you post about me. I regard them as irrelevant.

mountainman · 09-05-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874 - you have reached the right result with invalid reasoning, based on an incorrect statement of the criterion of embarrassment.

Dear Toto and others concerned with the principles of logic I would suggest you all review the field. Much has changed since Godel.

Quote:

You are confused and confusing

On the contrary any common sense modern belief in the historical jesus is both confused and confusing, and lacks any material support in the modern fields of science, archaeology and the formal field of ancient history (as distinct from that corrupt branch known as Biblical History). aa5874 IMO is neither confused or confusing.

Quote:

and your posts are not helpful.

Not helpful to whom, Toto?

Best wishes,

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-05-2008, 11:26 AM	#1204
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's a summary thread on the criterion of embarrassment. Note in particular the quotes from Darrell Doughty's class notes. The criterion of embarrassment has some surface appeal until you examine it carefully. It was originally an attempt to separate out the legendary accretions from the historical core in the gospels, based on the assumptions that Jesus existed and was somewhat similar to the figure in the gospels. aa5874 - you have reached the right result with invalid reasoning, based on an incorrect statement of the criterion of embarrassment. You are confused and confusing and your posts are not helpful.

09-05-2008, 03:43 PM	#1207
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	aa5874 needs to take Logic 101. His heart's in the right place, though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.