Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-19-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

Embarrassment isn't exactly the right criteria to apply to the idea of a crucified Messiah. I would say it is more along the lines of an 'unexpected, against the grain, concept that the Jews would be highly resistant to accept'.

As has been noted, the problem with this criterion is that it assumes that the unusual never happens. But we know that the unusual does happen, and that people develop new ideas. Some Jews were resistant to this new idea, but others weren't.

Quote:

Furthermore there is no indication in the NT writings that anyone thought Jesus was going to come back and fight the Romans, so you appear to be making things up to remove the 'embarrassment'.

There wasn't? Have you heard of the parousia? What was all that talk about the Son of Man returning with power on the clouds?

But the Resurrection by itself shows that the whole scenario was not embarrassing. There was death (a common but tragic occurrence) and then Jesus defeated death.

Grog · 08-19-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think this is true, especially give your second point:

This nails it. It might be embarrassing to have your Messiah crucified, but not if he defeats the crucifixion by rising from the dead, as the Jews thought their nation could rise from the defeat by the Roman army.

Embarrassment isn't exactly the right criteria to apply to the idea of a crucified Messiah. I would say it is more along the lines of an 'unexpected, against the grain, concept that the Jews would be highly resistant to accept'. Furthermore there is no indication in the NT writings that anyone thought Jesus was going to come back and fight the Romans, so you appear to be making things up to remove the 'embarrassment'.

How do you keep taking it as an assumption that it was "unexpected?"

Wisdom of Solomon 2:14-22

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisofSolomon

[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

[21] Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,
[22] and they did not know the secret purposes of God...

TedM · 08-19-2013, 11:41 AM

Thank you Jay. I agree with both of your points -- it can be difficult to know if someone really is embarrassed or not, and that a feeling of embarrassment can be applied to fictional events. In the case of Matt, Luke, and John one must ask:

1. Were they embarrassed?
2. If they were embarrassed why didn't they simply remove baptism -- ie erase the embarrassment?

re #1: The fact that all 3 of them softened the baptism strongly suggests that all 3 were embarrassed enough to do so. The accumulative effect is significant and - I think - worthy of consideration.

re #2: They may have wanted to keep a relationship with JTB as the 'messenger' of Isaiah, announcing the Messiah's coming. But why did 2 of them keep the baptism while still softening it, while the other doesn't explicitly even mention the baptism? Clearly they had a problem with the concept of the Messiah being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. A thoughtful answer should look into whether those authors believed they were writing fiction. Surely there are tell-tale signs as to when an author believes he is writing history and when he doesn't.

Re gMark I would agree that he may have been writing fiction and not had a problem with the baptism, but why even have a baptizer as the messenger of the Messiah? There is no prophecy indicating that the Messiah would be announced by a baptizer. What is the purpose of the baptism? gMark tells us it is for the forgiveness of sins but he doesn't comment other than to say that Jesus will do a greater baptism with the Holy Spirit. The silence regarding such a significant concept of adoptionism is rather odd and argues against it IMO, but then the idea of baptism of a sinless man makes no sense for a fiction writer to have included it.

So while nothing is going to be definitive I do not think we can always make valid comparisons between Superman, accused rapists, and the baptism. The comparisons serve a useful generic purpose but usually are too different to allow us to ignore the unique circumstances for each specific case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

The Criterion of Embarrassment is meant to help distinguish a true or historical event from a false or fictional event.

There are two main arguments against the criterion of embarrassment, as I understand it.

1. It is difficult to know what a people or group might consider embarrassing at any particular place and time. This is especially difficult if people do not expressly tell us what they find embarrassing.

2. One may be as embarrassed by false things as by true things, so establishing embarrassment does not establish the true or historical nature of an event.

One may answer the first argument by declaring that a more complex understanding of a particular society, using whatever information we have available from that society will solve the problem. This is true and we are left to argue particulars. What evidence is there that this society or group found this embarrassing or not.

This same argument that better psychology and sociology will solve the problem cannot be applied to the second argument. The second argument cuts to the heart of the problem. Embarrassment cannot be summarily attached to truth because false things may equally well embarrass people.

This cannot be fixed by a more thoughtful application of the method. This criterion for delivering the truth simply does not deliver the truth. Let us say you give me a metal detector. You may say that it only works under certain conditions - there must be a certain amount of metal (at least 2 ounces), it must be between 3 and 10 feet from the surface of the ground, and the metal detector must be pointed in the correct direction. This I can accept. However, let us say that when all these conditions are met, the metal detector beeps when there is metal, but also when there is wood under the ground and plastic under the ground and even horse manure under the ground. In other words it beeps no matter what is under the ground. Now we can say that the metal detector is useless because it does not fulfill its basic function of detecting metal.

In the same way, even when we find and prove that some person or some group is embarrassed by data "A," we cannot say that data "A" is more likely to be true because people are embarrassed by it. The reason is that people are embarrassed by false things as well as by true ones.

I have already given examples such as the writers of Superman being embarrassed by Superman's not super enough leaping ability and Jim Carrey being embarrassed by the extreme violence portrayed in "Kick Ass 2". Here is another one.

In 1921, one of the leading comedians in Hollywood, movie star Roscoe Arbuckle, was arrested for the rape and murder of a young actress named Virginia Rappe. He went through three trials, the first two with hung juries, and was finally fully acquitted. The last jury deliberated for only five minutes before returning with a 12-0 not-guilty verdict. They also issued an apology saying that he should never have been arrested on such filmsy evidence. Apparently the woman had drunk too much at Arbuckle's party and passed out. The only things Arbuckle actually did to the woman was carry her from the floor to a bed and call a doctor to make sure she was okay. The overwhelming evidence in the case suggests that Virginia Rappe was not raped and/or murdered, but died of natural causes exacerbated by drinking.

The whole trial was an embarrassment for Arbuckle and for all of the Hollywood community. A section of the public, believing only malicious tales about Arbuckle's depraved Hollywood lifestyle, were never convinced of his innocence. He was banned from appearing in movies for the next ten years. Despite being totally innocent of the rape-murder charges, he felt that he had let his friends, family, community, and fans down. He was embarrassed by the events for the rest of his life. He died at age 44, a tragic, broken man.

This is another example of how something that did not happen can be an embarrassment to a person and group.

The "Criterion of Embarrassment" is like a metal detector that simply doesn't detect metal. it is a truth detector that doesn't detect truth.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Why else would Jim Carrey be embarrassed by being in it, unless it was a true story?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Come on Jay. You're smarter than that. Why are all the folks here who don't like the criteria of 'embarrassment' so eager to simplify how it is is applied?

TedM · 08-19-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

Embarrassment isn't exactly the right criteria to apply to the idea of a crucified Messiah. I would say it is more along the lines of an 'unexpected, against the grain, concept that the Jews would be highly resistant to accept'.

As has been noted, the problem with this criterion is that it assumes that the unusual never happens. But we know that the unusual does happen, and that people develop new ideas. Some Jews were resistant to this new idea, but others weren't.

agree

Quote:

Furthermore there is no indication in the NT writings that anyone thought Jesus was going to come back and fight the Romans, so you appear to be making things up to remove the 'embarrassment'.

Quote:

There wasn't? Have you heard of the parousia? What was all that talk about the Son of Man returning with power on the clouds?

There is no mention of returning for war.

Quote:

But the Resurrection by itself shows that the whole scenario was not embarrassing. There was death (a common but tragic occurrence) and then Jesus defeated death.

agree for Christians.

TedM · 08-19-2013, 12:25 PM

Your passage in the Wisdom of Solomon is about those who don't have wisdom cursing those that do and are righteous. There is nothing to my knowledge that indicates that anyone prior to Jesus considered the passage to be talking about the Messiah.

Having said that, it would not surprise me to learn that there was 'in the air' some talk of a "Suffering Servant" Messiah who might not be an earthly king, but I have yet to see solid evidence for it. According to the NT the idea of a crucified and resurrected Savior Messiah required lots of analysis and re-interpretation of OT prophecy. That could have taken place without a historical Jesus as just a really novel idea that some Jews were ready for. It just seems to almost border on blasphemy and it would clearly raise MAJOR objections it if was not based on a real human being: Where did this take place? When?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think this is true, especially give your second point:

This nails it. It might be embarrassing to have your Messiah crucified, but not if he defeats the crucifixion by rising from the dead, as the Jews thought their nation could rise from the defeat by the Roman army.

Embarrassment isn't exactly the right criteria to apply to the idea of a crucified Messiah. I would say it is more along the lines of an 'unexpected, against the grain, concept that the Jews would be highly resistant to accept'. Furthermore there is no indication in the NT writings that anyone thought Jesus was going to come back and fight the Romans, so you appear to be making things up to remove the 'embarrassment'.

How do you keep taking it as an assumption that it was "unexpected?"

Wisdom of Solomon 2:14-22

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisofSolomon

[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

[21] Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,
[22] and they did not know the secret purposes of God...

aa5874 · 08-19-2013, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Jews who invented the myth of the resurrected Christ and the other Jews who were attracted to it.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jews invented the myth of the resurrected Jesus. Even Jesus cult writers argued that the Jews claimed the Messiah had not come up to at least the 4th century.

Grog · 08-19-2013, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Your passage in the Wisdom of Solomon is about those who don't have wisdom cursing those that do and are righteous. There is nothing to my knowledge that indicates that anyone prior to Jesus considered the passage to be talking about the Messiah.

My point, though, was that the idea of the righteous suffering a shameful death at the hands of the wicked was not considered to be embarrassing, at least to some Jews. Given this evidence, I think it is gratuitous for you to claim as a point of fact that all "Jews" would have been embarrassed by a crucified messiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Having said that, it would not surprise me to learn that there was 'in the air' some talk of a "Suffering Servant" Messiah who might not be an earthly king, but I have yet to see solid evidence for it.

I think you are too tied to the canon. If you lift your gaze from the holy corpus, you might be surprised by the richness of thought that existed. Also, you give no room for the possibility that the "suffering servant messiah" was an innovation of those who would become known as Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

According to the NT the idea of a crucified and resurrected Savior Messiah required lots of analysis and re-interpretation of OT prophecy. That could have taken place without a historical Jesus as just a really novel idea that some Jews were ready for. It just seems to almost border on blasphemy and it would clearly raise MAJOR objections it if was not based on a real human being: Where did this take place? When?

Why would it not be equally blasphemous for it to be based on a real human being? A real failed messiah? I think that would actually be more blasphemous and hard to swallow than a secret messiah, derived from ideas like the Logos and the Illuminator, both of whom were said to come to earth. As to your question of "When and where did this take place?" I believe the Gospel of Mark was exactly an answer to that question.

Overall, I think you fail to look at the broader context in which Christianity took root.

TedM · 08-19-2013, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

My point, though, was that the idea of the righteous suffering a shameful death at the hands of the wicked was not considered to be embarrassing, at least to some Jews. Given this evidence, I think it is gratuitous for you to claim as a point of fact that all "Jews" would have been embarrassed by a crucified messiah.

First, I didn't say that. Where did you even get that idea, especially after I specifically responded earlier to you:

Quote:

My position is not that converts were embarrassed by the cross.

The 'righteous' isn't the Messiah. It's not even a close comparison IMO. The Messiah had specific attributes and expectations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Having said that, it would not surprise me to learn that there was 'in the air' some talk of a "Suffering Servant" Messiah who might not be an earthly king, but I have yet to see solid evidence for it.

I think you are too tied to the canon. If you lift your gaze from the holy corpus, you might be surprised by the richness of thought that existed. Also, you give no room for the possibility that the "suffering servant messiah" was an innovation of those who would become known as Christians.

? Isn't that what I just allowed for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

According to the NT the idea of a crucified and resurrected Savior Messiah required lots of analysis and re-interpretation of OT prophecy. That could have taken place without a historical Jesus as just a really novel idea that some Jews were ready for. It just seems to almost border on blasphemy and it would clearly raise MAJOR objections it if was not based on a real human being: Where did this take place? When?

Why would it not be equally blasphemous for it to be based on a real human being? A real failed messiah? I think that would actually be more blasphemous and hard to swallow than a secret messiah, derived from ideas like the Logos and the Illuminator, both of whom were said to come to earth.

Yes, but with a real person you have more chance of it being accepted if people claimed to have seen him resurrected, especially if he was already thought to have perhaps been the Messiah prior to his death, as the gospels state. With a made-up person the claims would have much less authority because everyone would know that the person was a speculation based on scriptural interpretation.

For me the argument is simple: What's more real: a real person or an idea?

Quote:

As to your question of "When and where did this take place?" I believe the Gospel of Mark was exactly an answer to that question.

Sure, 30 years later, but it would have been an immediate question, and with no answers it would have taken a lot to overcome the ambiguity of it all.

spin · 08-19-2013, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

paranoia taking over now?

No, the TedM I remember wouldn't have been such a putz as to fuck around with someone's name.

A little sensitive I see...yet with seemingly little reason to be since you are the one who chose a name that is ideally suited for comments like mine on a board in which you are providing your own interpretations of things. Unless you are telling me that is your real name, I don't see any reason for either one of us to see it as anything but a minor acceptable dig to illustrate my point.

This attempt to justify breaking forum rules is further suggestion that you are not the same TedM I've had dealings with over the years, as is talk of paranoia, problems with quote tags, and a lack of an attempt to understand what you are criticizing.

TedM · 08-19-2013, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

paranoia taking over now?

No, the TedM I remember wouldn't have been such a putz as to fuck around with someone's name.

A little sensitive I see...yet with seemingly little reason to be since you are the one who chose a name that is ideally suited for comments like mine on a board in which you are providing your own interpretations of things. Unless you are telling me that is your real name, I don't see any reason for either one of us to see it as anything but a minor acceptable dig to illustrate my point.

This attempt to justify breaking forum rules is further suggestion that you are not the same TedM I've had dealings with over the years, as is talk of paranoia, problems with quote tags, and a lack of an attempt to understand what you are criticizing.

I think my argumentation must have struck you as valid. Otherwise you wouldn't be bothered with such a silly issue, and would deal with the topics.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.