Criterion of Embarrassment Outside of the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มิ.ย. 2020
- Most of these examples were not hard to find. In fact, two were found with a quick google search. The second example in the video took less than an hour to find after remembering a notable example from history. This should answer the charge by atheists the criterion of embarrassment is not used outside of new testament studies, and again, this was not hard to debunk.
Videos I am responding to:
• Pile of Resurrection E...
• Video
• Video
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 2 Day 1 // RRQ vs TLN | DRX vs PRX](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_OWt_-Lu3AE/mqdefault.jpg)
When atheists say the criterion of embarrassment is never used outside of Biblical studies, just say:
"This is a claim. And claims are not evidence"
Oh my God, this is perfect.
InspiringPhilosophy do not take the LORD’s name in vain please, but nonetheless good work.
@@chapter404th God is not Our Father's name brother. Not even close. Pagan deiteis are called God...
Owch. Savaged.
Gabriel Starke God is a title, just like “Almighty” or “Omega” and “Alpha” is. Canaanite also called their god “Yahweh”, but we obviously know that he isn’t the same as the God of Israel.
We hosted Richard Carrier last night and he said during the debate that it's not true that the criterion of embarrassment is only used in NT studies.
Super interesting video, Mike! :)
Even if the criterion of embarrassment was not used anywhere else, that doesn’t make it any less valid.
gfycat.com/enchantingexemplaryhoverfly-michael-scott-steve-carell-the-office
If anything, saying it isn’t used anywhere else just makes the case that Christian apologists are more insightful than their counterparts.
@@InspiringPhilosophy 😂🤣🤣🤣
The thing is that not much is known about Historical Jesus, and there is no good criterion to solve this; the criterion of embarrassment is no exception.
When it comes to doctrines surrounded with conflicting unreliable reports, what "embarrasment" means is extremely variable; what you would find embarrassing (even if it is according to your orthodox belief) can be very acceptable to people back then. For instance, a sect can accept the story of a child Jesus killing and cursing other children, without finding this embarrasing. Peter could be seen as a secondary hero who is brought down in order to elevate the main hero Jesus, or to convey a transfer of authority and establishment of hierarchy.
Furthermore, the authors were not eyewitnesses and they based their writing on various circulating accounts adopted by different sects; so 1st century authors could do the job with an uncritical accumulative mentality. Stories can also be purposely made to be embarassing to cover up a bigger embrassment, and stories can be made to provoke the reader.
@@shadowwhowalk "what you would find embarrassing (even if it is according to your orthodox belief) can be very acceptable to people back then"
You need to show this you can't merely state it.
"Stories can also be purposely made to be embarassing to cover up a bigger embrassment, and stories can be made to provoke the reader."
If this is what you think then clearly nothing will convince you.
If an account is convinient for early christians you will doubt its validity because it would benefit them. If an account is embarrassing for early christians then you doubt its validity because they could be covering something else(which you have no evidence of) or are interested in provoking the reader(which you have no evidence people in that day would be interested in doing).
You're just willfully closing your mind.
♫ _"For the The Histories of Polybius tell me so"_ ♫
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s annoyed at people like Paulogia using the reduxium pro canticorum approach. (Please forgive my fudged Latin). I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s annoyed it’s kept excusing jingles to dismiss the Bible.
@@blindvision4703 what does "reduxium pro canticorum" mean in english?
@@spectre8533 Well, if my Chrome search is to be trusted-and I would personally take it with a grain of salt-then it means "redux for songs," but I've heard it being used to describe (I think) something like an argument from song lyrics.
i'm a history major gettingm my ba -Criterion of Embarrassment was like the first few months of what i was taught
I’m not surprised. Let me know if you have any more examples we can use.
@@InspiringPhilosophy can't tell if you're 4 Christian faith or not by this video
@@mistylover2082 what? Did you even watch the video? He's literally defending the Christian faith in the video.
@@ea-tr1jh i see now 🙂 how can anyone still believe this stuff?
@@mistylover2082 He very much is.
I had never heard of the criterion of embarrassment no being used by the New Testament, I learned about it in basic philosophy while in college 🤷🏼♂️
Are they joking??? It's obviously used in historical studies.
Their responses are gonna be such a strawman
LOL, Tjump said on twitter just now he already wants to do one... I thought skeptics were supposed to wait to evauluate the evidence first? 🤔
Well we have too but they are way head of our lead
@roasted pancakes No
@@gavinhurlimann2910 He is lampooning TJump lol
@@WhatsTheTakeaway The response is interesting. They argue that the criterion of embarrassment is used only for the biblical text. When it is used outside the biblical text, then it is unreliable. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.
Thanks for this quick video! I know it probably took a long time to put together, but it answers an important objection that is thrown up to stymie real conversations--and does so quickly and thoroughly so that the opponent has no more excuses (aside, of course, from intentional ignorance and double standards, which the last few minutes work to try and overcome). I love all your videos, whether they're long or short--thanks so much for all this.
These critics ought to use the criterion of embarrassment on themselves
They do, every time they speak
💀💀💀💀💀
The 3 last minutes was GOLD!
Agreed. I'd love to be able to get just that clip
I can't wait. Really praying that I get out of my current situation and start supporting this ministry.
I will pray you get through whatever you are dealing with.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks and may God continue to use you mightily.
Support it by prayer first of all, brother
Praying for you!
I was a Catholic until age 24. Christianity brings misery, not joy.
0:24 You killed me IP.
I was not expecting a meme in this video.
When I saw that part I was just dieing saying this is beutiful
@@LordPepeKroak dieing lol
Dear IP, can you have a Q&A session anytime soon? I am attracted to the CS Lewis way of thinking about Christianity and my favourite video on YT is your video on Hell where you borrowed some ideas from him. But I have so many questions mainly because CS Lewis is not so easy to understand.
Would love some clarity on some of the issues, there may be many like me and you may be one of the best people to help with these.
Thank you again and much love for your efforts. You channel has helped me a lot!
It would be better for you to message me through the website and then we can talk directly.
Check out a channel on YT called CSLewisdoodle. If you have not already looked at that, it might provide some help.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.
So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
th-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/w-d-xo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
K
Highly recommend C.S Lewis doodle, He’s my favorite writer to be honest and doodle does an amazing service to his works.
Like you said, if people weren't so antichristian when assessing the material, it would be a very different discourse.
Exactly
Even thought I am not Christian I find it tiresome how many rip into new testament writings trying to disprove even the periods, and exclamation marks youtube is littered with second rate videos like that
Are u a Christian now, and what do you think makes someone a Christian?
I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet but I’m going to quickly theorize how this is going to go down.
Atheists: The criterion of embarrassment is never used outside of Biblical studies, thus making it a kind of special pleading!
IP: Scholars use this criterion and other historical methods when evaluating all forms of written history: Plutarch, Quran, Hadith, Josephus, Tacitus, American History, European History, etc. It is a Historical Method for all forms of history, not just Biblical studies.
Atheists: It still didn’t happen!
IP: I have a video about bias that you really should check out.
Pretty good guess on the route I will take, but the examples are from different areas.
InspiringPhilosophy I figured you were going to pull from other sources, but I made my best educated guess. I can’t wait to see where you pull from.
Finally watched it. Well done IP. Honestly, going after the Criterion of Embarrassment has only proven to be an embarrassment for the skeptics and they should take their ever weakening criticisms elsewhere.
But I am not Biased, iI am an Atheist. As Atheism is a lack of belief, this means I am objective and have no Biases.
@@skwills1629 There is only 3 options... There is a God or There is no God or I don't know... clarify which one you fall in and argue from it... this hogwash lack of belief is primarily to get you out of the burden of proof.
Other Uses:
"Perhaps a final reason to accept the credibility of Jefferson's version of the story, then, is that he was not boasting about his political influence, but confessing his profound regret. Why fabricate a tale in which one comes off as a self-confessed dunce?"
- Joseph Ellis, “Founding Brothers” p. 51.
"By applying the same principles to analysis of the Qurʾān, one finds that Muhammad and his earliest followers seem to have similarly believed that their generation would live to see the end of the world. Although the Qurʾān reflects some diversity of opinion regarding the timing of the Hour’s arrival, as with the Jesus traditions, one eschatological position clearly predominates, namely, the Hour’s pressing imminence. Likewise, the response of the unbelievers as depicted by the Qurʾān suggests that Muhammad’s preaching had led them to believe that they would soon behold the Hour’s arrival for themselves (e.g., 19:75, 37:170- 79, 102:3- 5). More importantly, however, it seems highly unlikely that this prevailing voice, warning of the Hour’s immediate approach, is the invention of the later Islamic community, inasmuch as such promises were soon falsified by the passing of Muhammad and his early followers. The criteria of embarrassment and dissimilarity (i.e., dissimilarity with the experience of the early community)- two fundamental methodological principles in the study of the historical Jesus- leave little doubt that the Qurʾān’s eschatological urgency must have originated with Muhammad and the formative community. To be sure, a strong eschatological perspective would persist in later Islam (as it did in Christianity), but it seems highly improbable that later Muslims would insert traditions into the Qurʾān wrongly predicting the Hour’s appearance in the immediate future."
- Stephen Shoemaker, "The Apocalypse of Empire," p. 129.
Someone referred me to another use of the criterion of embarrassment or dissimilarly used by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh. It is not as explicit as the ones I used in the video but you can still see the implicit use of the basic principles:
"Perhaps Mr. Schulz is not aware that it was not just “Some Greeks” who praised Cyrus. This is true despite the fact that Classical Greece and the Achaemenid Empire fought many bitter and bloody wars, notably at Marathon (490 BC), Thermopylae and Salamis (480 BC). It is also a fact that the mainland (European) Greeks fought hard against the Achaemenid Empire to retain their independence. Why would a nation that had fought so hard against the Achaemenid Empire, have any reason to selectively“flatter” Cyrus the Great? This is because the Greeks, who excelled in the disciplines of balanced thought and logical thinking realized that just because they were at war with the Achaemenid Empire did not mean that all members and rulers of that Empire were “evil”. Simply put, they did not allow their political passions to bias their views of “the other”, even if that other was a military opponent. Nobody forced the ancient Greeks to describe Cyrus the Great in a favorable manner. The Greeks in fact had written a virtual compendium of Cyrus entitled the Cyropedia of Xenophon."
Source: kavehfarrokh.com/revisionism/nordicism/response-to-spiegel-magazine-2/
I know this is off topic but I just watched your debate with Alex O'connor and it seemed like you didn't know the biblical doctrine concerning pain, suffering death and evil. I' wondering if you and Alex had some sort of agreement to keep the biblical origin of suffering out of the debate. You correctly pointed out that there was war in heaven but you totally ignored Genesis 2 and 3. Even if you don't believe Adam and Eve actually existed you cannot ignore the teaching that before humanity rejected God there was no evil/suffering, neither moral nor from nature. God looked at his creation and declared it very good. Humanity knew only good until they chose to know evil and brought the curse of death on creation.
@@TheMeefive What are you talking about that? I explicitly went over that in my opening statements. As for death before the fall I addressed that in my genesis series, also mentioned in the debate: th-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi.html
InspiringPhilosophy Then I guess I misunderstood the intent of the debate. Your subsequent arguments came across as if you agreed that God made evil a necessity rather than a choice.
The story of Hercules has him tricked into killing his own wife Megara and his own kids. Beowulf ends with Beowulf being killed by the dragon. Hercules and Beowulf are actual history. The 2nd Eragon book has Eragon acting drunk due to magical influence and humiliating himself in front of Arya, whom he is in love with. Eragon is actual history.
IP what Do i do to defend My faith against a Anti-thiest they always Say am dishonest
Mind blowing video. The fact that the scholars use way more skepticism towards the Bible, this always pisses me off.
Its because they assume materialism.
And never apply the same standards to secular historical texts
The Bible does make some pretty bold claims re. miracles, to be fair. The extra scrutiny just makes the discipline exceedingly well researched. The real pain point for me is that ppl don’t know how serious Biblical scholarship is-“The Bible has ZERO historical evidence/scientific evidence/logic, etc!” Not true by a mile.
I've not heard this argument, but how is it even an argument? Even if we suppose it's true, it doesn't discount the criterion of embarrassment's possible use in the future lol, last time I checked the criterion is not asterisked with "you can only use this in biblical studies."
It can speak to the weakness of the method. If a (any) criteria is rarely used, there's usually a reason for that. It could be an unreliable method. And when a bad method is heavily relied on in some certain circumstance, we should be suspect.
Most history is done by reasonably objective people who, at the outset, have minimal personal stake in any purported fact. Most religious study - in any religion - is done by people with a very heavy personal stake. Finding facts contrary to pre-existing belief would come at a significant personal cost, and we're all predisposed to interpret evidence so that it conforms to our existing beliefs. And in many cases, their employer is a religious institution that demands adherence to specified outcomes as a condition of employment. If non-objective people are using different methods than objective people, then clearly the method should come under heavy scrutiny.
Biblical history is absolutely not done by only or even mostly religious people its been a highly critical and secular field since the 1800 German critical-historical movement
So luckily this isn't a problem
i6s1 You’ve made a lot of claims where you generalize so many things and are extremely misrepresentative of the actual reality. Also a lot of things that you say are completely irrelevant to the topic. Did you actually watch the video? The criterion of embarrassment can only be applied when embarrassing things happen, so it applies to the events in the bible, so as to other historical events that uses it. It says nothing about its reliability and strength of the methodology. The criterion of embarrassment doesn’t contradict any other methodologies out there so it doesn’t weaken it as you say. Yes, there are methodologies out there that are considered weak BECAUSE, it contradicts other methodologies out there especially reliable ones but the criterion of embarrassment DOES NOT! Give me one good reason why the criterion of embarrassment is a weak methodology/argument? Would you not agree that it does provide evidence? You’re basically saying that if someone claimed something that would really exalt themselves you wouldn’t use the criterion of embarrassment to distinguish whether what they’re saying is true or not. Do you not think that this a good and reliable way of knowing the truth? You’re also relying your position on opinions of other people rather than the evidence presented. I believe that’s a fallacy if I’m not mistaken. Also, you use a lot of words that are unnecessary and it seems like you trying to be superficial and just pretentious.
@@i6s1 I haven't watched the video yet, but I can tell you that the criterion of embarrassment already requires a special mix of other factors, but that doesn't make it bad or not useful. It just makes it uncommon.
This is not embarrassment. There is a Sacred Secret that has been kept from you to KNOW. This is why the cult religions want only for you to BELIEVE. Belief gives power to ignorance and deception. Deception can't even exist without belief. We are not the animal body we have been kept to be trapped in. What did Christ say? He said, "I AM the SON of MAN". Who is MAN then? Hm??? The knowledge of this is the Sacred Secret. "The Gnostic Truth, The Sacred Secret". th-cam.com/video/CO9v3OIFnxM/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=AWikkedMoon
Criticizing the criterion of embarrassment feels like such a cop-out. The criticism attempts to remove a significant aspect of Scripture that speaks to authorial intent. If the disciples were simply fabricating a story to gain followers and establish a cult with them at the center, why would they paint themselves in such a negative light? That is a major question that needs to be answered, and it cannot simply be written off as "Well, that's not sufficient evidence." Of course it's not sufficient on its own, but when combined with the sum total of evidence at hand, it becomes compelling and demands review.
That is how Militant Atheism works. (And note, Militant Atheism is not "Atheism" in general.) They don't consider differing evidence working together to make a stronger case. They prefer acting a s if each piece of Evidence given stands completely alone and measure its viability based only on how it stands on its own.
A perfect example of this is Thomas Aquinas's Five Arguments for God's Existence/ He actually only made One Argument, and The Five Arguments are Really The Five Ways, not The Five Arguments, and were never meant to stand alone.
The Mythology of the Current Atheist Religion, and it is a Religion, that Google Definition is not The Definition, has made "Not sufficient Evidence" a Mantra. But the Fact of the Matter is, as much as they claim to not be Biased in any way and to only Look at the Facts Objectively, its very Clear that They simply seek to Undermine Christianity, and they are very Biased indeed. They want to Find a way to preserve their Critisisms and Justify their claims of how Irrational it is to beleive in Christianity, and take this to an extreme that most Atheists wouldn't. They can't just believe God doesn't exist and the Biblical Narrative is not entirely True, they have to make it so The Bible is wholly Unreliable 100% of the Time and that everything in it is suspect. Which is really absurd.
Their skepticism demands that they treat everything in the New Testament as a ploy. The fact that Christianity was successful indicates that those details that meet the criterion of embarrassment were not actually so embarrassing as to affect their movement (circular reasoning). "On the contrary, I bet those New Testament liars wrote those things to convince gullible ancient peoples about how humble they were! It was an underhanded strategy the whole time," they would argue. Because they cannot accept the historical reality of the New Testament, they are forced to conclude that it was written, not as an account in which witnesses are practicing the humility they preach, but as a deceitful albeit clever ruse in which meekness is feigned for credibility in the future.
Yeah, I went and found the other guy's video that he's referencing and found it a bit bewildering that he kept talking about literary conventions - as if an event having elements that can be found in literary devices means the narrative is wrong. It was a bit ridiculous.
I mean, I went halfway around the world to try to get my now-husband back, and at the time, I told this to a girl I met and she was like, "Awww! It's like a romance movieee!" And I hadn't thought about it but when she said that, I was like, yeah, I guess it is lol. According to animated beardo guy, that means I never really did it cos it's obviously a literary device. It's actually pretty poor reasoning.
@@SylvEdu What always getse is that they act like it was a ploy to get money, followers, and power, and somehow forget that early Christians had their lives on the line the entire time they were preaching.... So much money and power in being hounded, repeatedly imprisoned, kicked out of your communities, and executed in horrific ways, right?
The story of Hercules has him tricked into killing his own wife Megara and his own kids. Beowulf ends with Beowulf being killed by the dragon. Hercules and Beowulf are actual history. The 2nd Eragon book has Eragon acting drunk due to magical influence and humiliating himself in front of Arya, whom he is in love with. Eragon is actual history.
This a similar to a well recognize legal exception to the hear say rule. It is called "the declaration against interest." It is understood that we may grant great credulity to a statement from a witness who has made an out of court statement which is against his own interest.
My dear friend, before you uploaded the video, I was reading the Wheel of Time, the book series I cannot lay down for days...but when you uploaded, I finaly left it and clicked the video, that's how good and informative your videos are, God bless you:)!
Wow, thank you for the honor
@@InspiringPhilosophy I just saidthe truth, my friend:)
Honestly saying it is not used by other historians is not an argument. (Appeal to Authority). They should make an argument on why its not usefull
Which is why those atheists don't just say it's unused but also that it is unreliable and difficult to apply without knowing the author and his goals.
The story of Hercules has him tricked into killing his own wife Megara and his own kids. Beowulf ends with Beowulf being killed by the dragon. Hercules and Beowulf are actual history. The 2nd Eragon book has Eragon acting drunk due to magical influence and humiliating himself in front of Arya, whom he is in love with. Eragon is actual history.
@@michaelflores9220
Hercules and Beowulf may have been historical figures that were later mythologized.
Eragon is completely fictional story, and everyone knows it is fictional.
Your argument fails.
@@user-yj9qq2zd9i The same can be applied to Jesus.
@@user-yj9qq2zd9i IN fact it's a relatively recent thing for books to have a "This is a work of fiction" label in them.
Objecting to the use of common sense is so common among to Atheist apologists, that it has become necessary to apply labels to aspects of common sense in an attempt to get them to understand. But such labels seem vain--people that defy reason in their own mind are certainly well able to defy reasoning introduced from the words of another. They don't believe in God because they simply don't want to.
Ain't that the truth! It's almost as if they know they can't argue against Christianity and are simply trying to push the truth under the rug!
It's not an intellectual issue, it's a heart issue.
Yes and even though of course we want everyone to be saved and we have a heart for them, do not cast your pearls before swine. there are certain tests I use to see if it would be pointless to talk to somebody further. Certain questions I might ask that if they can’t even entertain or admit I understand that I am talking to a wall, or somebody purposefully not using their brain, and not somebody actually engaged in conversation.
Amen
I don't know if I understood your comment right, but as I see it, theists are the ones to appeal to common sense or intuition. I'm sure it goes both ways, but theists will definitely use it more.
The only reason why the criterion of embarrassment is used more often when dealing with biblical claims than with any other ancient sources is because of the hypocrisy that is presuming other ancient sources reliable until proven unreliable while simultaneously presuming the Bible unreliable until proven reliable. That hypocrisy, for the record, is commonplace.
Excellent work Mike.
Here is an example for you. Let's say you were researching Mormonism and you found two sources on Joseph Smith both from the 1880s.
1.) A biography written by a Mormon who basically argues Joseph Smith was the greatest man to ever live.
2.) A historian who was writing about the history of Illinois from say 1800-to when he wrote his book and he had several chapters discussing Mormonism and Joseph Smith within Illinois. He is seems pretty even handed and notes the good and the bad.
Both have biases, which one though would you be far more skeptical of.
You are researching David Koresh
1.) a biography of David Koresh written by a surviving Branch Davidian which argues he is the Messiah and will come again.
2.) An FBI biography of David Koresh , accounts from people who knew him and historians specializing in late 20th century Texas history which devout some chapters to him
All of these sources have biases, but which ones would you use?
You are researching Ayn Rand.
1.) A biography of her written by her lover, who argues she was an American hero and the greatest American philosopher to ever live
2.) A historian of 20th century America who specializes in analyzing numerous 20th century American Philosophers who has a biography about her.
Which source do you think is more objective and reliable.
If you answer these questions honestly now you can see why the Gospels have greater criticisms directed at them then ancient historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus and Tacitus certainly are biased and use methodologies modern historians would not use but within the standards of the first century they were attempting to write accurate factual accounts. The writers of the Gospels on the other hands were by Early Christians arguing that Jesus was an apocalyptic Messiah who was going to usher in the Kingdom of God. They crafted the various narratives they had of him within the light of the OT trying making numerous allusions to OT figures. You can learn more about this process here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology
The Gospels are theology driven biographies and cannot be read in a straight forward manner. They simply have layers to them that other ancient historians lack. They are also written by far less objective authors. You simply cannot treat them the same way.
I am not a myther. I have no problem with using the Criterion of Embarrassment to analyze the Gospel accounts. But it is beyond absurd to put them on the same level as ancient historians. They are not.
@@kristoferkey3161 - That isn't a very good Argument. After all, Historians already Acknowledge Biases. And even in Bibical Studies this is admitted. However, You don't see the accounts of Plato about Soctratese attacked Like You do The Bible. You don't see Josephus, or Seneca, or Aristotle attacked. No one is attacked like The Bible.
This isn't about Biases, its about how The Bible is summarily dismissed simply because it is The Bible as if Nothing in it is True unless confirmed by another Source.
Michael, you are just a blessing for Christian Apologetics!
God bless you!
Btw, i really love this part: 13:35
@@twitherspoon8954 Romans describe him as a preacher, and his followers were labeled as the believers of a atrocious superstition (His Resurrection).
@@twitherspoon8954 Look up. Even the question is quite elementary...
@@twitherspoon8954 Well. First, you are throwing a lot of stuff without attack my first point. Second, I never mention the bible (I'm a believer). But stick to the point.
@@twitherspoon8954 I did it. I can't give the exact reference because it's almost midnight.... lol
Excellent. These internet skeptics are a major embarrassment for actual scholarship- skeptical or otherwise. They should STOP.
You must be a believer 🤔
@@mistylover2082 I’m not a believer and agree with The Carpenter’s Desk
Great job! Very valuable to know.
Some people just don’t have a moral framework that prevents them from lying 🤥
I LOVED the "are you challenging me" at the beginning.
This seems really well thought out and convincing on what it’s arguing. Lol. Can’t wait to see the responses from the people in the video. I didn’t notice any in the chats. Should be interesting.
Spoiler: Not very hard.
Just like the rest of the atheist propagandas.
@DUED DUED procces of elimination, the bible mentions, Nimrod made himself to seem like a "god", semiramis his wife, and tamus a child, semiramis had a intimate relationship with another man and got pregnant but before that nimbrod died so the people were like how? If nimrod is dead? Semiramis made up a story that said Nimrod came back as the child tamus, see where this is going? Father god, mother god and child god, go throughout mythology and cheack how many religions had this concept, especially the egyptians, ok that takes out most of the ancient pagen religions, how about the modern ones? Well some like jainism are a way of peaceful life, and most also are just denominations of a main religion like mormonism (a cult), shaia and sunni (islam), buddhism it just ignoring the evil in world, Hinduism has obviously many gods which just worship the earth, Judaism isn't entirely false, the Torah is part of the old testament, they just are ignorant that jesus is their messiah, Islam says their book is perfectly preserved yet in their own book it says a sheep ate some pages, they say isa was the brother of mariam and arron yet those two were actually the siblings of moses which wss about 1000 years before christ, muslims say jesus didn't actually get crucified yet historians and scholars like bart erman say its a fact be was crucified,( if you'd like to know more about Islam look up "Daivd wood" he exposes Islam and its teachings and the hypocrisy of muslims like saying the gospel is corrupted yet their allah says they got no authority or judgment base unless they use the gospel or torah) one major factor it that every other religion says you can work yourself into heaven and you aren't a sinful person that need some kind of atonement or substitute, only Christianity makes that point which is very true that eveyone is sinful and cant work their way into heaven, look up Ravi zacharias "why Christianity is true", also why do people blaspheme jesus and not hitler or someone else like muhammad or allah, why is it always the bibe and God that is Blasphemed?
Well crafted. I was aware of Ludemann example and other non-Christian but Bible-studying historians. Will have to look at the others, modify phrasing in the future, and consider your takes.
The "too skeptical" charge is where you lost me, but that's ok. 😊
Historians I speak to say the criterion of embarrassment isn't tenable because we can't really know what would have been embarrassing in that place or context. You mentioned this briefly, but seems most pertinent for me. It's engaging in psychology.
Well, good luck with that. IP showed a little the weaknesses of the criterion, but I think the point of the Bible (NT in specific); it would be that if the apostles were creating fiction, they wouldn’t be putting themselves in situations as shameful as the Apostle Paul's discussions with Peter (Galatians 2:11-13).
Or as you have said in one of your videos concerning the account of the women in the tomb, for the patriarchal culture of that time; the names of the apostles get dirty. After all, they fled like cowards after their teacher died and women witnessed the miracle of the resurrection.
But you just take it as a fiction, and nothing else. Which; seems to show us that you didn't even take the criterion into account. But I think your denial of "skepticism" will appear, even if you try to reduce or deny it.
I’m honestly not surprised you got lost at the over skepticism of scholars directed only at the New Testament simply because you hold that same skeptical attitude for the New Testament because you don’t want it to be true. IP is completely correct that hyper skepticism in history is specifically directed at the New Testament and no other historical works. It’s seems the more I watch your videos the more your reaching to find anything you can make up or mock to make your illogical evidence less points, and as I watch your videos with Shannon Q I can see the activities you wish not to give up in accordance with biblical teachings. My hope is your eyes open to see the fault in your arguments. When it comes to the criterion of embarrassment IP explain everything including your last point very clearly, that is, if you choose to hear it.
Don't we always have to engage in psychology by evaluating the motives and biases of a writer? I agree it's tricky though, e.g. I don't think Peter's threefold denial is a good example of something embarrassing, nor is the narrative of women discovering the empty tomb (not mentioned in this video but a common example) but obviously some people disagree.
@@forgiven1683 I'm on record... I'd prefer Christianity be true. I could be restored to my family. Try again.
@Gabe Norman Do you believe because you want to, or is there something else?
Another great vid IP, awesome as always. Also, did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the wise?
Excellent work, IP!
It is rather annoying when Paulogia does that silly jingle and when confronted about it he just plays dumb and says “what? I’m just saying you’re getting that information from the Bible...” as if there’s no condescension implied with how he presents it.
Paulogia is actually one of the more clueless atheists. Many of his videos are actually embarrassing to himself.
At least he’s civilised, that’s more than most atheists channels can say.
There's a deeper meaning. If there were 500 eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, that's pretty good evidence. If the Bible (whose books are mostly anonymously written) says that there were 500 eye witnesses, then that's not good evidence. If you're making a story and wanted people to believe it, of course you'd write that. Same goes with the claim that the opposing side wrote about the resurrection. That's only good evidence, if it comes from the opposing side, not if it comes from the ones making the story.
@@dragan176 - The problem with hat You just said is, You didn't Think it Through. For one Thing, the 500 Witnesses were mentioned in an Epistle from Saint Paul. They were not Anonymous, and Academics do accept that Paul wrote both 1 and 2 Corinthians. Of course it has become a Mantra that The New Testament Books were Anonymous and named added to them later in the Atheist Community, but there is no Real Claim that Paul did not write his Core Epistles.
Also, Paul did not write an account of Jesus's Life. He wasn't saying The 500 Witnesses were there a Long Time Ago. He told the People of Corinth that They could speak to Witnesses as most of them were still Alive.
Paul also wrote within a Decade of Jesus, so spare me the 30 or 40 Years routine.
The Claim that this is an Anonymous work, and that it simply says there are 500 Witnesses because of course it would, you need to make the Story sound convincing is absurd. Pal told no Narrative and as telling the Reader to ask others to confirm what he had said to them.
@@milkshakeplease4696 So I guess that by applying the criterion of embarrassment, we can conclude that Paulogia really means what he says.
IP...........Your literally the best
You know what we must do than. We must clone IP we will be unstoppable
@@LordPepeKroak Imagine the smartest person in the world believed God and did a debate vs some people, yikes that would very ugly
I think they miss the point *even if* they’re correct. Even if this criterion isn’t used outside of NT studies, so what? It would still be a good argument.
My brother, you are killing it! 👍🏻
See also "declaration against interest" used in law. The idea is the same.
I don't know of any other channel that puts out apologetic content as useful and unique as this. Thank you, as always, IP.
The criterion of embarrassment is a useful tool for the defense of an account. It doesn't really come into play, nor would it really make sense, unless the account is facing the charge of being fiction. The charge of fiction is implied in the defense against it.
This means that the only accounts that would rely heavily on this criterion are those which:
A) Are charged by sceptics as being fiction
And
B) Are actually authentic enough to contain many embarrassing admissions.
Therefore, the prevalence of the accurate usage of this criterion in defense of a text, especially relative to other comparable texts, implies that it is one that is facing a large degree of *unfounded* scepticism.
“We will criticize you but we don’t like it when you use unique methods to support the reliability of the thing we are criticizing, even if it makes logical sense and it’s not your ONLY method”
This HAS to be a strawman... but it feels so real
One thing I find interesting is that we seem to assume that all the reports are lying all the time. It's as if it were impossible to know anything about history if we assume it is all a lie. Of course, interestingly, we also are lacking all the context. For example, would there be a reason to lie about something that the people at the time knew, or strongly believed, happened?
Hey IP will you do any stuff on the hole new age movement stuff?
Love it, IP good stuff! love that you quoted Dr. Hoffmaier. He is pretty cool
Hi IP, I see you used Hoffmeier's book on Akhenaten, but I don't recall it coming up in your video on monotheism. Do you plan to make a video on it in the future?
Hi Michael what do you think about E. Michael Jones and his books if you read one and concept of Logos. I would hope that you would have some conversation or debate with him in future. Keep up good work your channel is great.
I never knew that about senechrieb. Crazy important piece of evidence considering that’s my favorite story in the Bible.
I’m glad that Paulogia has since changed his stance on this
Hi IP any good sources for archeology and textual evidence for 1&2 Kings pls reply
Appreciate these videos so much! Thank you for the enjoyable and educational content. You're helping make my walk with God much more fruitful. God bless!
I wonder, since the ancient Egyptians dont like reporting negative stories, will we ever find reports of the Exodus in their annals? Maybe something like a sudden drop in productivity or economic crash in a certain region, but no explanation how and what lead to it happening?
Hello! I really didn't understood this statement that is written on the screen at 11:29. Can someone explain to me what it means that "he would report things that he would contradicts his explination". How this statement apply to the his reporting of the destruction of Jerusalem?
For sake of argument let’s say Josephus bashes Jews in The Jewish War. Depicts them as greedy, causing riots and rebelling against the magnanimous Roman overlords. If it weren’t for the Jews stubbornness and always plotting against the authorities there would be no war.
Then in one part of the narrative he describes a Jew who was a peacemaker, was prone to help injured Roman soldiers, sought to live harmoniously within the Roman government, and was beaten for no reason by Roman soldiers.
This latter story would have greater likelihood of being true, as it runs counter to his overarching view of the Jews.
IP when will part 2 of souls be up ?
two weeks
“Silly jingles”
LOVE IT 😂
I'm wondering what response they can have, because all you did was show that they are wrong on the idea that only New Testament scholars use the criterion. All you need to prove them wrong is what you presented.
The atheist apologists will ignore the arguments, change the subject, and/or resort to insults.
They will throw straw man arguments and insults.
Lmao shaggy “are you challenging me?”
Tbh, I’ve never heard of this argument until now.
Last 3 minutes are inspirational
Paulogia making the claim that the Criterion of Embarrassment is only used by Christians is ironic. I've seen him before attack Josephus' Jewish Wars book 4:5:317 passage by claiming that Josephus was trying to paint both the Jews and the Romans in good light. This is a means of denouncing one of our greatest evidences that Jesus was likely given a proper burial. In this passage, Josephus verbatim says that the Jews took down even crucified victims by night of their crucifixion to be buried in a tomb.
Paulogia's argument (which, like all his other arguments, he gets directly from his lord and savior, Devine authority on all credences: Dr. Bart Erhmon) is that Josephus is a Jew wanting to paint the Jews in good light, and not having them abandon the scripture that commands dead bodies to be buried by nightfall. But that Josephus, being a writer for the Romans, would also not want to put Romans in bad light by them failing to maintain their rule over the Jews in hanging crucified victims for days or weeks at a time. Thus, Josephus makes both sides look good by falsely claiming the Jews buried crucified victims with Rome's gracious permission.
I would argue that this argument (if it was assumed to be reasonable) fits along the category of the Criterion of Embarrassment. Where as the Gospel writers were willing to admit their Messiah was captured and crucified by the enemies of the Jews, Josephus was unwilling to admit a moral failure of the Jewish people as pertains to the Law of Moses. Thus, the Gospel writers succeeded to value truth even more than Josephus did (according to Paulogia's reasoning). But if this reasoning can be used to dismiss Josephus' claim of the Jews burying crucified victims, then by means of the same method of reasoning, we can also conclude that the Criterion of Embarrassment is a valid form of inquiry.
P.S. Paulogia (and his highness Bart Erhmon) do have a number of other "reasons" to reject this passage from Josephus, but they are all really bad reasons (in my opinion).
Even if that was true, how does that change anything? "Other people don't do this" is not a valid response to a method of deducing evidence.
Well it's hard to accept evidence for a person that was said to performed supernatural mumbo-jumbo all based on anonymous religious tracts written several decades after the supposed events...
This was amazing!
b-but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (whatever that means in the first place) cause you know Jesus saying some parables are extraordinary, but Hannibal crossing the Alps with an army and beating Rome in battle after battle in their homeland for years, not extraordinary.
Or how the Spartans 300 deep defeated an army of 1,000,000 Persians. Oh wait, we don’t take that story at face value and Leonidus never claimed to be God. But yeah, why they so critical?
@@Actuary1776 the Caesars and Pharaohs claimed to be gods, does that mean you don't believe in anything about them?
Notice how you had to make another example too rather than respond to the one used. That account is not even true to the historical record only Hollywood. Is that where you get all your history from?
Adam Case Who said I don’t believe anything about Jesus? IP sets up the Jesus Seminar straw man and thinks that means all secular scholars don’t except certain things about the NT narrative. Ehrman states the crucifixion is one of the most attested to and reliable events in ancient history.
And no, the spartan story is not something made up in Hollywood lol.
This is not embarrassment. There is a Sacred Secret that has been kept from you to KNOW. This is why the cult religions want only for you to BELIEVE. Belief gives power to ignorance and deception. Deception can't even exist without belief. We are not the animal body we have been kept to be trapped in. What did Christ say? He said, "I AM the SON of MAN". Who is MAN then? Hm??? The knowledge of this is the Sacred Secret. "The Gnostic Truth, The Sacred Secret". th-cam.com/video/CO9v3OIFnxM/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=AWikkedMoon
@@AWikkedMoon foolish gnostic your heretical beliefs are refuted again and again every generation. still I doubt you'll respond this just looks like a mindless copypasta.
3:52 - Bart Ehrman doesn't actually use this principle with regard to Mark 8:38. He is not describing an embarassment; he's describing how the passage doesn't make sense with the bulk of the theology. This is not embarassment, it's dissimilarity. In fact, the title of that section is called, "Dissimilarity and the Message of Jesus".
The criterion of embarrassment is subset of dissimilarity though, as Meier pointed out. And ehrman does imply it could have been perceived that way when he talks about how no one would have made it up. Nonetheless, it was just a side point I made.
Sir, can you discuss molinism, I personally was amazed and informed on your videos about the ontological argument. Little by little I am going to accept this view(molinism) and please explain why it is the best view aside from Calvinism,Arminianism and Thomism. Thanks IP and may God bless you more in this ministry of yours. 😁😁
Wow this was amazing !👍😎
I enjoyed this video and founded insightful. It makes me think a peer review and the power bestowed upon it from atheist. I was wondering if you know of or have done any work that would show how peer review contradicts or refutes itself and that it is not as infallible a source as many atheists seem to lift it up to be.
Interesting how modern political parties and figures will still be incredibly reluctant to admit error and instead attempt to either deny or spin any given event in their favour.
I can immediately tell that these guys have absolutely Zero formal training as historians
The sad thing is, they all claim to be virtual experts who have "Done their own Research". None of them simply repeat the Arguments they hear from Popular Atheist VLoggers or TH-camrs. None of them simply recite Bible Contradiction Lists from SAB or Evil Bible. No, they've all Read The Bible for themselves and came to their conclusions before they had ever seen their First Atheist website. They also love to study and have done their own Research into Sociology, Anthropology, and History, as well as being far more learned than Christian Dunces in Philosophy.
I Think we've all heard the Routine.
I'm excited to watch this video
That's the worst looking TH-cam avatar I have ever seen
That’s just because you don’t watch my videos
@@thejollyviking8083 You're right ;p
Yet, even Dr. Craig has responded to him! Very odd.
@@sageseraph5035 shit I've seen better drawn and with straighter lines deviant art profile pictures made by 13 year olds than this
I think paulogia draws himself more buff then he actually is.
How do you even do the research for most of your videos?
Good work, IP!
Shaggy at the intro was lit 🔥
Thank you - excellent and careful treatment of the topic.
I have to say that I don’t recall ever relying upon this argument - partly because I don’t bother arguing with people of bad faith. Furthermore, I have never heard someone try to turn this reasonable argument on its head.
These days I live in the Sinosphere where there is less Biblical cynicism anyway. Many people do not simply reject teachings from scripture just because it is the Bible.
Now I think where the issue is, in general that criteria, as that guy says, should be used with caution (something really hard when talking about potential fantasy narrative), in general the format is as follows:
"Event A should be true as person X declared it even though it would affect person X"
But apologetics use it like this:
"Event B should be true as person X declared events A and B even though event A would affect person X"
The second format is kinda used with Confucius, but here is the issue, this format is not that convincing, and even less when I tell you "I was abducted by aliens because of the hair style of Paul".
Is my compliance correct?
Do a video on the inflation theory.
In legal circles, an admission against interest is considered to increase reliability.
Great video. In the segment on Rwanda/Burundi at 9:45, Vansina says “the purpose of the [historical] tradition…is the enhancement of national prestige.” Embarrassing details in the NT are fine because the purpose of that tradition wasn’t the enhancement of individual apostles’ prestige or even the prestige of the growing Christian movement, but that of the Son of God.
i guess nobody has admitted to losing a battle ever in history
IP refuted Atheists once again.
Great video!
The criteria of embarrassment is also used for the Quran. A good example being the satanic verses where Muhammad, tricked by Satan, declared that Allah had daughters who can also be worshipped.
The main historian we have for Alexander the Great says « I prefer using Ptoleme as a source over the others because kings would be more ashamed of lying than other people. » - Arian.
So the criterion is meant to convey the authenticity of the New Testament, but it's not mean to be a self sufficient argument
When OTHER apologists respond to atheist criticism, all I see is cringe fest. Dismissal of the concerns, fallacies, and downright lies. But when IP responds, he does his homework. I keep saying that IP is the only good apologist. It's true. The others need to pack up and go home, since they only make things worse.
IP, I think youtube hates you. On the sidebar, I have 'Atlas Shrugged Part 3' recommended alongside your videos.
MJ That video was so intellectually stimulating. I am a bit of a history aficionado. So, I really enjoyed the comparison of Hannibal with NT studies. I've heard comparisons with Alexander the Great with Plutarch's writing some 400 yrs later & the day of his death is contradictory. And, yet history considers his case as reliable.
I would like to ask irrelevant question, but interesting to me. During 4 minute someone is holding a book. Is it written in Serbian?
I have no clue, it is just stock footage I found.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Thank you anyway!
Okay, this was impressive.
How am I a patron and still wait till it’s released to the general masses 😔
So you can join the live chat.
From what it sounds like, it's an illusive argument. Not necessarily deceptive but from the way I hear it an atheist will claim 'the criterion of embarrassment is not used outside of biblical critique' when the argumentation has been used regularly, however the phrase 'criterion of embarrassment' itself wasn't used nor was there special attention called to it. We can find plenty of example I'm sure of historical figures doing embarrassing acts, for instance Benjamin Franklin's autobiography is quite embarrassing for him. I imagine there have to be _some_ historical scholars that would use this argument at least supplementary
1:00
What??? Where did he get this idea????
I recommend the book: The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre. It addresses similar source criticism and directly responds to Bart Ehrmans book “How Jesus Became God”
As a fan of Paulogia, I appreciate this video. My only disagreement is that I think the skepticism applied to the gospels and Acts is not undue or unique. But then maybe *I* should just make a video on examples of other historical sources being treated with similar skepticism.
Neither the video claims that to be the case for the Gospels and Acts, just the Bible as a whole is in proportion way more questioned than any other source, for fair and unfair reasons. That produces some polarization in the use of some methods for it's evaluation in comparison to other sources, because the volume of scrutiny is much higher and much more present in culture creating the ilusion that some special and unique methods get applied to biblical studies that are neglected in other areas.
So, would the criterion of embarassment be enough to prove a miracle?
The reason we don't have "the same level of skepticism employed for other ancient works" is because no ancient work popular in America has adherents claiming it's the "inerrant, infallible word of god." Also, you have radicals in our government, like Marjorie Taylor Green, who want to usher in "Christian nationalism," which we all are 95% certain is code for Christian theocracy, where our laws will be based on this particular ancient work known as the Christian Bible. Nonetheless, even though I'm an atheist, this was a pretty good video overall, so I will give it a thumbs up. 👍
This video is way outside my intellectual pay-grade. I’m a 2 speed anchor, not a Bible scholar...
Paulogia’s response is contained in th-cam.com/video/xT3hdI5Peo4/w-d-xo.html .
He does make a point of genuinely concede some points, but hits back characteristically hard.
Me too: inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2020/08/13/yes-jesus-was-buried-in-a-tomb-a-response-to-paulogia/
@@InspiringPhilosophy paulogia made a vid responding to that recently he made some pretty good points wonder if you'll respond to it