Grog

if aa, or anyone else, fails to come up with an adequate alternative motive, does that mean that by default you win?

TedM

It would favor that conclusion.

aa5874

You cry out for Faith.

You were asked to provide apologetic sources of antiquity that corroborate your imagination that the Baptism event was embarrassing.

As usual, you present no evidence from antiquity.

The Synoptic Gospels all claim the Baptism event was WELL PLEASING to the "heavens" and was IDENTIFIED as the Son of God and the author of gJohn also claimed that the descending of the Holy Ghost on Jesus was the SIGN that Jesus was the Son of God.

You have nothing but your imagination and faith.

By the way, you confuse 'rational thought' and 'faith'.

You argue by Faith.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV

TedM

I win.

Do you concede that I win since you haven't provided any kind of semblance of a reasonable explanation (ie rational thought) for why they modified the account, if not out of embarrassment?

aa5874

You have exposed your irrational thoughts. You must know that people "modify" [change] their stories when there are HOLES in them.

Virtually all accounts of the Jesus character were modified. The Gospels are "MODIFIED" accounts of the Jesus character from conception to ascension.

Based on your irrational thoughts the resurrection of Jesus must have happened because the accounts were modified.

The authors of the Gospels claimed the Resurrection of Jesus was embarrassingly doubtful to the disciples.
It was the Resurrection story that was embarrassing--Not the Baptism.

1. In the short gMark 16.8, the visitors to the tomb did NOT tell any one Jesus was resurrected.

2. In the long gMark 16.14, the story was modified and it is claimed the disciples did NOT believe Jesus resurrected.

3. In gMatthew 28.17, the story was again modified and it is claimed SOME doubted the resurrection.

4. In gLuke 24, the story was modified further and it is claimed that the resurrected Jesus ATE Fish and Honey to prove he resurrected.

5. In gJohn 20-21, the story was modified, an entire additional chapter was added. Only Thomas doubted and the resurrected Jesus was a COOK when he had a "beach party" AFTER the resurrection.

TedM

Nope. I win. You can't meet my challenge, but try to shift the focus on the resurrection. Try again.

aa5874

You are exposing your obsession with "winning" without ever presenting any supporting evidence that the Baptism event was embarrassing in or out the NT in antiquity.

I have shown that the Baptism event is one of ONLY Two events that were WELL PLEASING in the Gospels [the Baptism and the Transfiguration]

I have shown that Jesus cult writers were NOT embarrassed by the Baptism event in the Gospels.

The claim that the Jesus cult of antiquity was embarrassed by the Baptism event is a blatant fallacy and is a recent invention.

You are exposing your lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Resurrected Jesus according to Jesus cult writers.

Matthew 28:19 KJV Jesus cult writers of antiquity claimed people should be Baptised in imitation of Jesus. Books were written on the Baptism of Jesus.

Gregory of Nyssa "On the Baptism of Christ"The Baptism event was a most pleasing significant event for the Jesus cult that it was expected that Believers must be baptized in the name of Jesus to obtain full salvation.

spin

I'm impressed, TedM, how well you seem to be able to conjure up the Witch of Endor. And I understand why you might cry out for rational thought. I would want some of that if I relied so much, as you do, on divination. You somehow feel the Witch can tell you the motivation of these long-dead writers, as you are in no position to know what was embarrassing to the writers. Necromancy is as good as any justification for your projected desires onto the past. Do cry out for rational thought. You seem to need it as much as your interlocutor, as you haven't got a clue to support your conjecture.

Solo

The argument is fallacious for two reasons: 1) it imagines naively that the earliest Jesus / Christ cult did not know whether Jesus was refering to his resurrected self as son-of-man, 2) it is clueless about why the believers should have been "ashamed" (epaischynthē) of Jesus.

ad 1) I am surprised that Ehrman even raises the issue since the frame of reference in "the one ashamed of me/ the SoM shall be ashamed of" in 8:38 has just been resolved in Peter confessing Jesus as the messiah and understanding that Jesus speaks of himself when he says the SoM will be rejected, tortured and killed. So since such 'question' does not even arise, it cannot be said to be a proof Jesus uttered these words himself. Such logic has a whiff of Baker Street Irregulars about it.

ad 2) since I believe that Mark wrote unabashedly a Paulinist apology of the cross as a mystery tale, then the issue why anyone should have been ashamed of his or her personal acquantance with Jesus needs to be explained on those terms. Was Paul ashamed of his acquaintace with the risen Jesus ? No, he says he is not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who has faith (Rom 1:16). But the more interesting question here is why he should be - of all things - 'ashamed' of the revelations, since evidently God himself was pleased to bestow them on Paul. It's rather obvious, isn't it ? Paul was mentally ill and pointing to the external view of his illness (as well of the same illness seen among his co-workers) as 'proof' of his gospel:

1 Cr 2:3-5 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Gal 4:14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

1 Cr 4:9-10 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.

2 Cr 5:13 For if we are insane (exestēmen) , it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.

So when Jesus is seen similarly as insane (exestē) by his kinfolk in Mk 3:21, it is not embarrassing to the community because those similarly 'elected' by God as witnesses of the glory of his son, are similarly struck also by appearing as agitated psychotics. They are not ashamed of Jesus and his 'words' (this I read as an ironic allusion to glossolalia again). On the contrary, they draw a great deal of encouragement from the depiction of Jesus as one of them. Of course this kind of Jesus would be embarrassing to later communities where the 'witnessing Christ' and 'imitation of Paul as he was of Christ' gave way to the imperatives of building a large, organized and disciplined church that was to stay here for a while.

Best,
Jiri

outhouse

Why is it only those following fringe positions find issue with this criterion?