aa5874

But, if you are assuming that HJ was an ordinary man who John the Baptist never even met then WHAT in the world could have been embarrassing for John to baptized Jesus?

It would have been the reverse.

It would have been embarrassing and perhaps out of order and disrespectful for the UNKNOWN obscure ordinary HJ to have wanted to baptize John who was already known as a Baptizer.

In the Synoptics, the supposed Jesus does virtually NOTHING in Nazareth for 30 years, so if we assume he was an ordinary man and was ordinarily baptized without all the hocus-pocus then there was nothing embarrassing about the ordinary baptism of an ordinary man.

Steven Carr

This contradicts Ehrman's own definition of independent source.

spin

People who invent fake probabilities in lieu of evidence aren't saying anything meaningful. It's similar to saying "I find [X] comforting" except that it's couched in a modern veneer of acceptability.

Temporal proximity must be shown to be relevant and not assumed.

Bow out now: good idea.

Steven Carr

So you are claiming that denying that the Republicans are anti-black is evidence *in itself* that the Republicans are anti-black? They wouldn't deny it had happened, unless it had happened, therefore, denials increase the probability of it being true?

To increase the analogy with the Gospels, Glenn Beck would also have had about 30 years experience of how to put a correct spin on the fact that at this meeting all the republicans shouted 'down with the niggers', but still repeated it, despite the fact that he himself found it embarrassing.

Even Glenn Beck could work out how to avoid repeating something embarrassing , if he had been allegedly hammered for 30 years for saying it.

2-J

About the Baptism; if Mark was Adoptionist, then I don't really see it as an embarrassing thing. We apparently see Christologies getting higher and higher until you get to the Trinity. On the Adoptionist view, if Mark held it, then the original man might not have been that big a deal at all, originally. Nothing wrong with John baptising him at that point.

TedM

The denials help to validate our belief that it was embarrassing for Beck. If it was embarrassing for Beck and there is other evidence to support it (the existence of anti-black sentiment) then that makes it more likely that it happened.

The problem with analogies is that they almost never compare apples to apples and mine falls into the same category so I'm going to avoid taking it too far but will say what I think is in common with the Mark - other gospels issue with baptism:

The poor/rather unbelievable reasons added to Marks account by the other writers helps to validate our belief that it was embarrassing for Christians of the day. This helps validate our belief that it was embarrassing to Mark. If it was embarrassing to Mark and there is other evidence to support it (ie John the Baptist was real, lived during the same time period, baptized many people, and was not aware that Jesus was anyone special, Jesus began a ministry of baptism also), then that makes it more likely that it happened. I can't prove it or put numbers to it, but I'll bet a study of this kind of thing would bear out the truth of it because it frankly 'rings true' with common sense.

dog-on

That ringing is not common sense, it's the irrationality buzzer going off. As these are confused quite often, perhaps a change of ring tone would be advisable...

Steven Carr

No,it simply verifies that they all got the story from Mark,and didn't like what they read, so changed it.

That validates our belief that Mark had no idea that it was embarrassing or else he would have written something different.

Steven Carr

So it is basic historical method that if somebody denies something happened,then it is more likely to have happened?

Why do 'Luke' and 'Matthew' never deny that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist?


Is it also basic historical method that if somebody never denies something happened,then it is more likely to have happened?

TedM

Not by itself. I may have mis-stated my position on this:

If someone says something happened and other people say it happened but give unlikely reasons for it happening because THEY are embarrassed about it, then that shows that they believe that it really happened. Otherwise they would have denied that it happened.

IF they are closer in time and location to the original claim than you or I then they likely have MORE EVIDENCE (in this case WAY MORE) that the original claim was true than you or I. Therefore, the reality is that it is more likely that it really did happen than if they had not been embarrassed by it.

Because they believe it happened. Probably because it really did.