Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-11-2010, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...... There is nothing there than cannot be applied to any claim of embarrassment - in fact, every claim of embarrassment should be evaluated as to whether the fact was embarrassing to the author...

And there are fiction stories with embarrassing scenes. One good example is the embarrassing scene where Peter nearly drowned when he attempted to walk on the sea like Jesus.

ApostateAbe · 07-11-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
I would love it if we could all agree on what "ad hoc" means and we could iron out the methodology about it. Do you think I should start a new thread on that?

No, I don't think that would be helpful.

There is an established definition here: "It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and which cannot be adapted to other purposes."

There is nothing ad hoc about Price's observation (which has been made by other scholars) that Mark does not appear to be embarrassed by John's baptism of Jesus. There is nothing there than cannot be applied to any claim of embarrassment - in fact, every claim of embarrassment should be evaluated as to whether the fact was embarrassing to the author.

That's why your usage appears to indicate that you don't actually know what the phrase means and that you are shooting from the hip yet again (and shooting blanks, not to carry that metaphor too far.)

I wrote my response to you here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....79#post6444679

GakuseiDon · 07-11-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

But that's just it. I'll repeat. SO WHAT?

So, what? It's the difference between living in fantasy land, living a delusion, and living in the real world. Big deal I would say. Sure, some people are quite happy in la-la land - other prefer the often uncomfortable real world - and seek to make the best of what there is.

There are always going to be people living in la-la land. But why bring it up here? What is it relevant to? Couldn't the same point be brought up at every post, regardless of topic (like Cicero with his "Carthage must be destroyed" comment)?

spamandham · 07-11-2010, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I do have confidence in the consensus regarding the point that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. I have found two scholars who affirm that consensus, including Robert Price.

Huh? I thought Price argues that the baptism of Jesus is *not* historical, but is instead a way of explaining why Christians get baptized - the same thing, IIRC, I've argued with you in regard to the eucharist. I may be wrong, since I'm going from memory on this, but regardless, you are welcome to accept the opinions of any scholars you like in regard to scholarly consensus, and I do the same, which is why I conclude that to the extent there is a consensus at all, it's a fairly trivial one with no explanatory power.

Isn't Price a mythicist these days?

aa5874 · 07-11-2010, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... As far as I am aware, I have not recently made an argument for a historical fact using scholarly consensus.

But, that is ALL you can use to support your flawed HJ theory.

Look at post #306 made within 12 hours of your posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.....Almost all of the scholars agree, for example, that Jesus was a traveling Jewish preacher who was raised in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem. He had a mother named Mary, a father named Joseph, a brother named James, and few disciples named Peter, John and Judas....

Without any external corroborative evidence for your HJ you MUST RELY on Jesus worshipers' FAITH based beliefs that their Lord and Saviour Jesus the resurrected Messiah did live.

Your flawed argument has been exposed..."almost all scholars agree".

Toto · 07-11-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I do have confidence in the consensus regarding the point that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. I have found two scholars who affirm that consensus, including Robert Price.

Huh? I thought Price argues that the baptism of Jesus is *not* historical, but is instead a way of explaining why Christians get baptized - the same thing, IIRC, I've argued with you in regard to the eucharist. I may be wrong, since I'm going from memory on this, but regardless, you are welcome to accept the opinions of any scholars you like in regard to scholarly consensus, and I do the same, which is why I conclude that to the extent there is a consensus at all, it's a fairly trivial one with no explanatory power.

Isn't Price a mythicist these days?

Price wrote that a survey of NT scholars would show that most thought that the baptism of Jesus was historical, and Abe translated that into a consensus. But Price went on to say that the arguments for the historicity of the baptism were easily refutable.

If that is a consensus, it is meaningless.

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 12:03 AM

It is pointed out that Christians put spin on the story of John the Baptist baptising Jesus.

But Mark's Gospel was written at least 30 years after the events.

So what happened to those 30 years of spin before Mark wrote?

Clearly, the story first appeared when Mark dreamed it up, which is why there is none of the spin that Christians almost immediately started putting on the story.

This is the argument from embarrassment. If something is embarrassing, and you have 30 years to try to think of a way to make it less embarrasing, you should really have managed to come up with something by then to make it less embarrassing.

show_no_mercy · 07-12-2010, 07:36 AM

Not to mention that heretical Christians had no problem with the baptism. The criterion of embarrassment is such a sham; it assumes that what eventually became orthodox Christianity was the only Christianity that existed.

ApostateAbe · 07-12-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

But, I do have confidence in the consensus regarding the point that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. I have found two scholars who affirm that consensus, including Robert Price.

Huh? I thought Price argues that the baptism of Jesus is *not* historical, but is instead a way of explaining why Christians get baptized - the same thing, IIRC, I've argued with you in regard to the eucharist. I may be wrong, since I'm going from memory on this, but regardless, you are welcome to accept the opinions of any scholars you like in regard to scholarly consensus, and I do the same, which is why I conclude that to the extent there is a consensus at all, it's a fairly trivial one with no explanatory power.

Isn't Price a mythicist these days?

Last I knew, Price was a normalskeptic, which is hard to distinguish from a mythicist since they use most of the same arguments and fight from the same camp. He most certainly argues that the baptism of Jesus is maybe not historical, but, to set up those arguments, he says that there is near-unanimous agreement among the scholarship that they believe that the baptism of Jesus is historical. Toto thinks that the statement is meaningless if Price also thinks that the position is "easily refuted." People like Price have no shame in taking positions that are in the slim minority, and I find nothing wrong with that. The super-majority of scholarly agreement is not the final point. The point, as you may recall, is that there are some details of Jesus's life that we do know (or pretend to know); they are explanations that do fit the evidence the best (or so we think). You are welcome to think that the evidence isn't good enough or that the historicist explanations are not the best. But, I think at this point it is wrong to say, "we know nothing about Jesus." What you mean to say is, "I know nothing about Jesus."

Toto · 07-12-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
Last I knew, Price was a normalskeptic, which is hard to distinguish from a mythicist since they use most of the same arguments and fight from the same camp.

There's no point in inventing your own language. Price has 2 PhD's. He has stated that he thinks that Jesus was based on Osiris, but that not enough evidence has survived for him to be able to prove that.

Quote:

He most certainly argues that the baptism of Jesus is maybe not historical, but, to set up those arguments, he says that there is near-unanimous agreement among the scholarship that they believe that the baptism of Jesus is historical. Toto thinks that the statement is meaningless if Price also thinks that the position is "easily refuted."

Price thinks that the baptism is not historical. He thinks that most scholars believe that it is, but that they are wrong. What is so complicated about this? Unless you are convinced that a majority vote among scholars is somehow evidence.

Quote:

... The super-majority of scholarly agreement is not the final point. The point, as you may recall, is that there are some details of Jesus's life that we do know (or pretend to know); they are explanations that do fit the evidence the best (or so we think). You are welcome to think that the evidence isn't good enough or that the historicist explanations are not the best. But, I think at this point it is wrong to say, "we know nothing about Jesus." What you mean to say is, "I know nothing about Jesus."

No - you know nothing about Jesus. You can only pretend to know something about Jesus by elevating the gospels to the status of evidence.

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

07-12-2010, 12:03 AM	#317
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	It is pointed out that Christians put spin on the story of John the Baptist baptising Jesus. But Mark's Gospel was written at least 30 years after the events. So what happened to those 30 years of spin before Mark wrote? Clearly, the story first appeared when Mark dreamed it up, which is why there is none of the spin that Christians almost immediately started putting on the story. This is the argument from embarrassment. If something is embarrassing, and you have 30 years to try to think of a way to make it less embarrasing, you should really have managed to come up with something by then to make it less embarrassing.

07-12-2010, 07:36 AM	#318
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Not to mention that heretical Christians had no problem with the baptism. The criterion of embarrassment is such a sham; it assumes that what eventually became orthodox Christianity was the only Christianity that existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.