skepticdude

And your qualification "without a doubt" is exactly the sort if willfully stupid thinking for which Abe called you an asshole, since no professional historian has ever said that any critieria of historicity would generate conclusions that left no doubt.

skepticdude

Can you cite any professional historians who say that any criterion that doesn't remove doubt is useless?

or is this just you and your amateur willfully stupid way of talking in provocative language to get attention?

skepticdude

Gee, you finally used "likely", was that sheer coincidence, or did somebody successfully drill into your head at long last that historical criteria were never claimed to yield certain conclusions?

More to the point, yes, that's exactly right: even fundamentalist Christian scholars agree that the gospel authors were highly selective in what they chose to say about Jesus. As such, we are perfectly rational to conclude therefore that nearly everything they say supports their agenda. And an ancient author writing about miracles to support a theological agenda (make unbelievers believe or keep believers believing), is especially prone to corruption due to the interests of the author.

The near drowning of Peter is presented as something giving Jesus a reason to teach a moral lesson. That advances the author's agenda, and so qualifies as an embarrassing story for Peter that isn't the same kind of embarrassment historians are talking about when they mention the criteria of embarrassment.

skepticdude

The crucifixion is central to Mark's resurrection narrative, which proclaims a risen Jesus. If Paul qualifies as representing ancient thought here, the early Christians for whom the gospels were originally intended, did not view the death of Jesus as a defeat or embarrassment but as a victory, since their authors often said this or that embarrassing thing that happened to Jesus, happened to fulfill some Old Testament verse. As such, those bits of embarrassing story material help advance the author's agenda, and so that sort of "embarrassment" doesn't qualify as the kind historians are talking about when they mention the criteria of embarrassment.

skepticdude

Would resurrection and transfiguration sound silly to the audiences originally intended to read the gospels? I don't think so, especially since being a Christian meant acceptance of the OT (since Paul made extensive use of it) and so anybody who believes in OT miracles will not object to Christianity on the basis of miracles.

Apparantly not.

The crucifixion of a God is silly and unconvincing[/quote]

Not when that god takes up residence in a body that is subject to death, as admitted by all gospel authors.

Also, you are assuming without evidence that the gospels as they read today are what was originally written. We don't know how much of today's gospel text was the result of later theological embellishment. However, if one accepts Markan priority, his lack of a virgin birth or resurrection appearance-narrative suggest the earlier gospel was much simpler, and today's gospel is the result of legendary embellishment.

yeah, so?

skepticdude

First, there has already been plenty of complaints that Price's absolutist wording violates the intention of historians who came up with the rule.

Second, your choice to repeat "final nail" betrays your desire to make this subjective issue into a "black-or-white" issue.

aa5874

I think you have it completely wrong, it was ApostateAbe who claimed he, himself may be an asshole, it was very embarrassing, and I did not want to apply the criterion of embarrassment.

Look at post #30 ApostateAbe thinks the criterion of embarrassment is useful, but if he had applied it to his own embarrassing statement, the result would have been quite embarrassing.

I refused to apply the criterion of embarrassment to his statement and told him he was brilliant.

Please read all the posts carefully.

Analyst

Obviously, because it was written to 'expand' on Paul's rather limited comments, rather like a 'biblical' Hollywood epic.

skepticdude

The criterion of embarrassment is implied when historians express reserve for self-serving statements, as do most of us in real life. If you have a buddy that is always talking about how he gets laid by hot women conveniently when nobody is around to verify the story, and never talks about his limitations, we take his failure to mention embarrassing things as a sign that he isn't being wholly truthful, don't we?

aa5874

So, why do you assume Markan priority, when as you claim "we don't know how much of today's gospel text was the result of later theological embellishments?"

And in Mark 16.6, the author wrote that an angel or some creature said that Jesus was resurrected.

Mark16.6 You just contradict yourself repeatedly and give erroneous information.

Now, if you don't know what you are talking about why do you think everyone else does not?

I know the criterion of embarrassment is useless ,without doubt.