Post Reply
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Switch to Forum Live View apollonius of tyana
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 1:02PM #51
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:52AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

[Post #41]


Another huge red herring.


None of this changes the fact (in fact it only emphasizes EVEN MORE) that you are utterly clueless with respect to this criterion.


Go read a book.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:22PM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

[Post #41]


btw, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and lose the focus on the word "embarrassment", replacing it everywhere you see it AND are tempted to use it with "dissimilarity" or "divergent pattern" or "contradiction."


Anything but "embarrassment."


Once again, the lady has lost all composure ...

MdS




Sorry, but you can't fix stupid.


This requires your own outside homework.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 1:05PM #52
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:33PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:17PM, Adelphe wrote:


The Criterion of Dissimilarity never, ever "solely in and of itself" vindicates the historicity of anything.




Of course, I completely agree with this. I was trying to isolate one critical source of validation from other things that could be introduced into the conversation. Again, your point here is well-taken.

 

As for the evolution, I understand the critical argument regarding this, but what you are positing is usually construed as implying chronological development (i.e. evolution). Thus, if the baptism is NOT embarrassing the Mark and we accept Mark is prior to the iterations wherein the stories emphasis has been changed, the criteria is of limited use. That is because what is not embarrassing to an earlier author and is subsequently re-worked because of changing perceptions leaves us with the initial account, the 'non-dissimilar' one.



In this case, it's the "toning down" of it (supposedly) that's "compelling."

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 7:10PM #53
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

tfvespasianus


Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:52AM, tfvespasianus wrote:

[a] Although I personally enjoy your posting style, is the following succinct summary accurate?:


[b] The Criterion of Dissimilarity (aka 'embarrassment') does not, solely in and of itself, vindicate the historicity of:


1. The humble origin of Jesus


2. The miraculous virgin birth


[BTW, I would agree with both of your positions on these matters]


[c] Moreover, though it is somewhat more complex, Jesus' baptism by John is by no means embarrassing to the authors of Mark and Luke (if so, I agree), but I am having trouble with your exact opinion with respect to Matt and John. In any case, if something is embarrassing for one source and not to another, the criteria under discussion and its supposed utility (i.e. bolstering the probability of historicity) becomes diminished in any case, does it not?


[a] Rather than a "summary", yours is the mention of three key issues to which the "criterion of embarrassment" ... oops ... "criterion of dissimilarity" has been applied. Others can be found in the very words of the inventor of the criterion:


"Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them." -- Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 3, Caesar and Christ (as quoted at Wikipedia > Criterion of dissimilarity > History)


Interestingly, Will Durant (probably due to some kind of prejudice) does not mention "[t]he miraculous virgin birth".


[b] At MdS' post #8, I have already argued against the dubious applicability of the CoD to both issues. Let me add some other comment here, from a different angle.


1. Fiction is replete with heroes from humble origins who become kings or somehow manifest their royal status.


2. Mythology, especially Greek mythology at the time of Jesus, was replete with stories of Zeus (and other lesser gods) impregnating (human) virgins.


In both cases the CoD, as a "scholarly test of authenticity", would be at its weakest.


[c] I can only confirm the evidence that neither Mark nor Luke are embarrassed ... oops! ... encumbered in the least by the thought that "the sinless Jesus allows Himself to be baptized by John who is baptizing for the remission of sins", so much so that, id direct, plain words they both speak of "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).


I have already explained their lack of embarrassment ... oops! ... reluctance with the theological explanation, which I believe is perfectly evident to both, that ...


Jesus recognized that John had the authority of preparing people, with his baptism of repentance, for the forgiveness that [ONLY] the Messiah would bestow upon them / earn for them. [thread "John the Baptist and the forgiveness of sins", MdS' post #36]


As for Matthew, I believe that I have explained clearly his approach when I wrote ...


The Gospel of Matthew pre-empts and voids the presumed "embarrassment" with Jesus' own motivation for his Baptism by John, in spite of John's reluctance (“Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to him. - Matt 3:14-15)


As for the Evangelist John, he is the ONLY evangelist who actually does not explicitly mention the Baptism of Jesus by John. Perhaps, in his case, and in his case ONLY, the "criterion of dissimilarity" can be applied with some propriety.


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 7:22PM #54
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Apr 30, 2012 -- 1:02PM, Adelphe wrote:

Sorry, but you can't fix stupid.


How true ...


... and the principle applies with a vengeance to stupidity accompanied by conceit ... EmbarassedSurprisedYellCool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:40AM #55
howiedds
Posts: 2,687

Interestingly, Will Durant (probably due to some kind of prejudice) does not mention "[t]he miraculous virgin birth".



Perhaps because the virgin birth is not an example of dissimilarity, but rather an explanation for the dissimilarity/embarrassment of Mary being pregnant without a husband.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 2:19AM #56
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

howiedds


Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Adelphe wrote:

Do virgins typically get pregnant by "spirits"?


Do husbands typically believe their wives when they tell them they were impregnated by "spirits"?


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:10PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Interestingly, Will Durant (probably due to some kind of prejudice) does not mention "[t]he miraculous virgin birth".


May 1, 2012 -- 10:40AM, howiedds wrote:

Perhaps because the virgin birth is not an example of dissimilarity, but rather an explanation for the dissimilarity/embarrassment of Mary being pregnant without a husband.


Thank you for confirming my point ...


... that [2] "'embarrassment' as a scholarly test of authenticity" is rooted precisely in [1] "'embarrassment' as emotion" ... [MdS, post #10] Cool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 7:59PM #57
howiedds
Posts: 2,687

Miguel:


Thank you for confirming my point ...


... that [2] "'embarrassment' as a scholarly test of authenticity" is rooted precisely in [1] "'embarrassment' as emotion" ... [MdS, post #10] Cool



Please note that I said dissimilarity/embarrassment. Adelphe was right to suggest just using dissimilarity to avoid this senseless argument that you insist on perpetuating. You are simply making more of this  than is necessary.


Regardless of how this label came to be applied and its commonality with the emotion, not every dissimilar narrative is truly embarrassing as much as an unnecessary entry if it were not true. No writer would make up a story that then required an explanation or more narrative to undo the contradiction. There are examples that are called embarrassing moments that are not truly embarrassing but contradict the theme of the writer.


There are certainly more important issues to debate than these semantic disagreements; just move on already.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 8:19PM #58
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

May 7, 2012 -- 7:59PM, howiedds wrote:


Miguel:


Thank you for confirming my point ...


... that [2] "'embarrassment' as a scholarly test of authenticity" is rooted precisely in [1] "'embarrassment' as emotion" ... [MdS, post #10]



Please note that I said dissimilarity/embarrassment. Adelphe was right to suggest just using dissimilarity to avoid this senseless argument that you insist on perpetuating. You are simply making more of this  than is necessary.


Regardless of how this label came to be applied and its commonality with the emotion, not every dissimilar narrative is truly embarrassing as much as an unnecessary entry if it were not true. No writer would make up a story that then required an explanation or more narrative to undo the contradiction. There are examples that are called embarrassing moments that are not truly embarrassing but contradict the theme of the writer.


There are certainly more important issues to debate than these semantic disagreements; just move on already.





He simply can't, Howie.  Not only does he have to (have the and) be "Last Word...Larry", but:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 8:49AM, Adelphe wrote:


Unbelievable.


You'd die before admitting a blunder.


I'm sure there's a (multisyllabic) name for that...




Double (triple Cool) whammy.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 4:02AM #59
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

howiedds


May 7, 2012 -- 7:59PM, howiedds wrote:

May 7, 2012 -- 2:19AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Thank you for confirming my point ...


... that [2] "'embarrassment' as a scholarly test of authenticity" is rooted precisely in [1] "'embarrassment' as emotion" ... [MdS, post #10]


Please note that I said dissimilarity/embarrassment. [Wow!] Adelphe was right [LOL!] to suggest just using dissimilarity to avoid this senseless argument that you insist on perpetuating. You are simply making more of this  than is necessary.


[a] Regardless of how this label came to be applied and its commonality with the emotion, not every dissimilar narrative is truly embarrassing as much as an unnecessary entry if it were not true. No writer would make up a story that then required an explanation or more narrative to undo the contradiction. [b] There are examples that are called embarrassing moments that are not truly embarrassing but contradict the theme of the writer.


[a] Regardless of the clumsy laboriousness of your paragraph, please explain how you would intend to apply your principle that "[n]o writer would make up a story that then required an explanation or more narrative to undo the contradiction" to the ... er ... "dissimilarity/embarrassment" of the "miraculous virgin birth" ... Wink


... where is the "contradiction", BTW?


[b] Care to substantiate your vague claim with (at least one of) the purported examples?


[howiedds] There are certainly more important issues to debate than these semantic disagreements; just move on already.

How about you taking your own advice already? Cool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook