Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not an argument at all. Just a dismissive tactic, which border on attacking the messenger instead of the message. If my points lack, point them out. If you can't, then don't mention it.

But you have mentioned that my points lack, even though you have not yet pointed out any actual lack. Why do you do to others what you don’t want done to yourself?

Maybe your evidence for Jesus being a god-man, which you have claimed quite a few times...

It’s hard for me to believe that you sincerely dispute such a claim. It’s standard scholarship -- so standard and accepted that it seem to me that the burden would be on you to disprove that fact, rather than asking me to prove it. Would you mind doing some basic research and then getting back to me? You could start with a google search on ‘man god myths’ and read about Dionysus, Mithra, Osiris, maybe even Horus... and all the similarities between them and the Jesus Story.

Come to think of it, didn’t you even acknowledge earlier that Alexander was presented as a man-god? So you must be somewhat familiar with the phenomenon?

... or your evidence for claiming that the Gospels were written as fiction.

You want me to prove that I really hold the opinion that the gospels were probably fictional? But how could I do that? I can’t show you the inside of my mind.

I’ve already provided you with very good evidence that the gospels were written as fiction, of course. Are you asking for even more such evidence as that?

OK. How about the sheer number and variety of gospels. Why would there be so many writings about Jesus unless guys were simply trying to out-do each other in concocting the best Jesus Story? They were still writing gospels many years after the alleged events. That looks more like fictional writing than non-fictional to me. Everybody wanted to write his own gospel, so it seems.

No. There were already a handful of historical figures that could have fit just that. Such as Augustus, who was called the savior.

Well, but Augustus didn’t catch on. So people still needed their Great Hero.

There were various religious leaders, and so called messiahs running around that time. John the Baptist could have fit the bill. The "Egyptian" as mentioned by Josephus could have fit the bill. There were many others that could have fit the bill. There was no logical reason to create another failed messiah.

You’ve lost me. I can't understand your argument here.

No one created another failed messiah. They created a successful one. Are you arguing that because earlier messiahs/godmen had failed, that those failures somehow wiped away the human need for a Great Hero? Have I misunderstood your argument?

From a modern Jewish perspective, all messiahs have failed. So can you explain why many Jews are still trying to create new messiahs even today?

The rest of your message seems truncated, so I won’t try to answer it until you’ve rewritten.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

do you think challenging their faith is a way of nurturing it?

Yeah, but not so much so that the "challenge" is intended to be destructive.

The teachers have to be aware of their spiritual journey and realize that they did not suddenly change from ignorance to wisdom, and not expect their students to do what they didn't do.

I've attended two seminaries and taught a few courses to seminarians. Most of them didn't get an undergrad degree in religion - they know math, business, science, or whatever... and they may not have ever read the Bible or thought about their faith. Yet they grew up believing *whatever* about the Bible and Christianity and almost always their faith is based on inaccurate information.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey, fallingblood. I was just scanning over the thread to freshen my memory of it and came across the bit I'm quoting below.

Yet, you have not supported your claim. If it is simply your opinion, fine. Don't argue it. If you think it is fact, then provide some evidence.

I would say that if you believe in the existence of 'facts', most especially in the matter of ancient history and the Bible, that may be the reason we're having so much trouble communicating.

In my view, a 'fact' is merely an assertion by an over-confident mind that his internal concept of a thing precisely matches the external nature of that thing, and I consider such certainty as leading not only to confusion in one's worldview, but also a serious roadblock to communication with other minds.

To the question, "Could I be wrong?"... the answer should always be, "Yes, obviously I could be wrong."

So the only thing we can ever argue for is our personal opinion of things.

By the way, can anyone help me learn the best method for composing messages? Also, is it possible to pull down a thread to review offline?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to drawing the line as to who's a Christian and who's not, but I'd say a belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah is pretty much a must. Why do you disagree?

I would say that rather more Christians see Jesus as the Son of God than they see him as Fulfilling the prophercy of the coming of the Messiah. Though neither are perhaps, defining beliefs, for all Christians.

 

[Koldo]

then i would argue some parts of the bible are fiction and historically inaccurate.

Okay...

would this not prove your first statement wrong???

What do you mean by this?

Maybe you forget not one author in any one of the book's of the NT ever met jesus.

I didn't forget.

 

[sojourner]

well that is impossible to say...
but yes i do agree it would be (or not be) today...

in a way i think the enlightenment may have resurfaced the original intent of Xy...

In some way, you're right. It did give birth to the Quakers, the Amish, the Shakers, etc.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah, but not so much so that the "challenge" is intended to be destructive.

The teachers have to be aware of their spiritual journey and realize that they did not suddenly change from ignorance to wisdom, and not expect their students to do what they didn't do.

I've attended two seminaries and taught a few courses to seminarians. Most of them didn't get an undergrad degree in religion - they know math, business, science, or whatever... and they may not have ever read the Bible or thought about their faith. Yet they grew up believing *whatever* about the Bible and Christianity and almost always their faith is based on inaccurate information.

thats interesting. i never thought that a challenge could be considered as destructive. i was under impression that challenging faith was more like
"A demand for explanation or justification" in this case, of some ones faith...

i remember a long long time ago when i attended bible college i took a class about the canonization of the bible and this very class challenged my faith and ended up becoming the beginning of the end of how i viewed and understood faith...not that my faith diminished...but that faith in general morphed into a different perspective...a real mind twist.

 

[waitasec]

In some way, you're right. It did give birth to the Quakers, the Amish, the Shakers, etc.

and i respect the fact that these religious groups are true to their convictions...
they do what they say...

 

[sojourner]

And every time it's told, it grows. Yes. Until after a few years, the original events are so contorted that it's really little use trying to sort them out.

That's simply not as problematic in an oral culture as it is for us. The information passed along was surprisingly (to us) accurate.

So you believe that first-century Jews in Judea were illiterate? If so, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about that.

Most were. the culture was considered to be an oral culture.

Unless you are very, very old, I knew all of that before you were born.

Can't you say something substantial to me? I can walk down to any street corner and be insulted by strangers.

So anyway, what mistake, specifically, do you believe that I've made in regards to the concept of 'myth'? Please quote the text which you believe contains it and explain why it is a mistake.

Or are you -- as we streetcorner insulters like to put it... just blowing smoke?

You certainly seem to think highly of yourself and your biblical opinions, but you present nothing to back any of it up. You come off as intelligent with regard to literary criticism, and yet you misuse terms such as "mythic," showing yourself to be nothing but a fraud.

Opinions are fine, but opinions are not fact when discussing biblical exegesis, unless those opinions can be supported by exegetical evidence. So far, you haven't done any of that. So far, all you've done is spout some strongly-stated opinion in such a manner as to present them as "fact," when it's nothing more than a poor attempt at hubris.

So far, Blood's winning this debate hands down.

In my view, 'scholarship' can't realize anything.

More hubris. Your "view" is meaningless until you provide supportive evidence for that viewpoint.
Scholarship is comprised of people, whose aggregate knowledge is compiled, subjected to peer review, and refined by subsequent scholarship.

I'd like to see examples of published books, purportedly by different authors, in which many matching strings of words appear.

Since you're such an expert, and supposedly older than God's hemorrhoids, you should be well aware that modern copyright practices do not apply to ancient texts, as you seem to want them to do here.

Well, you certainly haven't shown that any of this is non-fiction.

In your view, which, as we've all discovered, is pretty myopic when it comes to Biblical exegesis.

Of course theology is fiction.

And now, turn to the cameras, and say, "I am not smarter than an fifth-grader!"

I just opined that Paul created Christianity. Not that it matters, but very many Biblical scholars agree with me on that.

Obviously, not ones that count...

If you'll forgive me, I'm not yet convinced of that. You are seeming to me like a person whom I would personally label as Christian. Certainly in the Christian corner. I've never met a self-labelled agnostic who speaks of Biblical things with your certainty.

...and, of course, since you're unconvinced, it must not be true...

 

[fallingblood]

But you have mentioned that my points lack, even though you have not yet pointed out any actual lack. Why do you do to others what you don’t want done to yourself?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2473862-post154.html That is where I pointed out the lack in your argument. I have pointed it out several other times, but the link I provided shows my post in which I broke it down for you.

It’s hard for me to believe that you sincerely dispute such a claim. It’s standard scholarship -- so standard and accepted that it seem to me that the burden would be on you to disprove that fact, rather than asking me to prove it. Would you mind doing some basic research and then getting back to me? You could start with a google search on ‘man god myths’ and read about Dionysus, Mithra, Osiris, maybe even Horus... and all the similarities between them and the Jesus Story.

It is not standard scholarship. Mainstream scholarship rejects the notion that Jesus is a god-man. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/110449-jesus-mythical-god-men.html This is my personal argument against the idea that Jesus is a god-man. Here is another set of posts that I did, on the Zeitgeist movie, that take your position as well: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/107567-zeitgeist-thoughts-4.html#post2257313

The reason I'm linking to other posts is because there simply is too much information to copy and paste here. However, if you take anytime to read the posts that I have given you, you will see that I have thoroughly debunked the idea of Jesus being a god-man. Until you actually read the information, and offer a logical rebuttal, I will not respond to anymore of your comments about the god-man idea. As it stands, it has been successfully refuted.

Come to think of it, didn’t you even acknowledge earlier that Alexander was presented as a man-god? So you must be somewhat familiar with the phenomenon?

Alexander the Great was not presented as a mythical god-man such as Horus, Dionysius, or the other ones that you have mentioned. He was presented as the son of a god. There is a difference between god-man, such as you references in equating it with Horus or Dionysius, and a historical figure who has exaggerated stories told about them.

You want me to prove that I really hold the opinion that the gospels were probably fictional? But how could I do that? I can’t show you the inside of my mind.

I’ve already provided you with very good evidence that the gospels were written as fiction, of course. Are you asking for even more such evidence as that?

OK. How about the sheer number and variety of gospels. Why would there be so many writings about Jesus unless guys were simply trying to out-do each other in concocting the best Jesus Story? They were still writing gospels many years after the alleged events. That looks more like fictional writing than non-fictional to me. Everybody wanted to write his own gospel, so it seems.

I thought what I said was simple enough. I know you hold the opinion that you hold. That is fine. However, if you want to continue to argue it, you need to support it. You need to provide some evidence in order to back up your claim. As you first mentioned it, you have the burden of proof. If you don't provide such, there is no reason to take you seriously. As for the evidence you have provided, I have refuted it. So it doesn't leave you with much.

As for why there are so many gospels. Why are their so many books about Harry Houdini? Why are there so many books about Ghandi? Figures you are deemed important by people have a lot written about them. And most of these accounts are written long after the event, by people who never knew the person.

And since different people are writing the books, different ideas come in. All you described here is what we see with many important figures. There are still many different books coming out about Abraham Lincoln. That doesn't mean he didn't exist. Just that people thought he was important.

Well, but Augustus didn’t catch on. So people still needed their Great Hero.

Augustus actually did catch on. And then after Augustus, there were the subsequent emperors. Now if they didn't want to pick an emperor, there were a dozen or so other religious leaders running around. There were various so called prophets running around. There were various so called messiah's running around. The Greeks had various heros themselves they could turn to.

Your argument simply doesn't hold water here.

You’ve lost me. I can't understand your argument here.

No one created another failed messiah. They created a successful one. Are you arguing that because earlier messiahs/godmen had failed, that those failures somehow wiped away the human need for a Great Hero? Have I misunderstood your argument?

From a modern Jewish perspective, all messiahs have failed. So can you explain why many Jews are still trying to create new messiahs even today?

The rest of your message seems truncated, so I won’t try to answer it until you’ve rewritten.

Jesus was not a successful hero. He was just one more failed Messiah, and the Jews had an abundance of them.

If the stories of Jesus are fiction, then it would seem as if you are arguing that Jesus is fiction. However, there is no reason to create a figure like Jesus if you understand the background.

Jesus was born a Jew. The earliest followers of his movement were Jews. Even after his death, his followers were Jews. Now, why would Jews create a failed Messiah? It doesn't make sense when there were already various so called Messiahs they could be following (in the first century, there were various claimants to being the Messiah).

Now, being that the earliest followers of this movement were Jews, why would they create a fictional character called Jesus, who fails so much at being the Messiah? Why would they create a story that simply is not needed for them, as it does not show that their supposed Great Hero was a great hero? Why would they create a Messiah that simply is not the Messiah? It does not make sense. Especially when they could have picked actual historical figures who were claiming to be the Messiah anyway, and were closer to it than Jesus was?

Jesus was not a successful Messiah. He failed as soon as he died. And Jews in the first century were aware of this. And it must be remembered, we are talking about the first century, not what modern Jews believe. We can't retroject today's ideas and beliefs unto the first century.

As for the various god-men, they didn't factor into Jewish idea. The Jews didn't need them. They were not looking for such a character. Some were looking for a Messiah, but not even all Jews were looking for a Great Hero. For many people, a Great Hero was not needed (which really weakens your point as well. If people don't need a Great Hero, there is no reason to create one. And the Jews, where this all started with, were not looking for a Great Hero). One can be sure though that if the Jews were going to create a Great Hero, it would not be similar to the various god-men. It would be more similar to someone like Moses, or King David.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Augustus actually did catch on. And then after Augustus, there were the subsequent emperors.

:clap

 

[sojourner]

Are you perhaps excluding all conservative scholarship in order to protect your position?

"Conservative" and "scholarship" are largely mutually-exclusive in the realm of Biblical exegesis.

Paul didn’t believe in any of the stuff in the gospels then

Paul's writings were either earlier than, or concurrent with, the gospels. It's unlikely Paul believed the gospels, because he likely hadn't read them.

I’m sorry, but that is not how oral culture works. Stories are told around campfires and embellished with each telling.

God, your knowledge of Biblical criticism is abysmal! why don't you bow out of this argument, take some worthwhile classes, and then come back to debate when you actually know what you're talking about.

Do you write fiction? If not, perhaps you might try it.

You've certainly written enough of it here to be an expert!

But no one has argued that the majority of Jews in Judea were literate

...except for your own implications...

Thanks for the advice. In return, I’ll observe that you need to understand how oral cultures work. That’s all I can think to say.

well, you certainly haven't made a habit of thinking in here!

I would guess that some of the gospels probably may have been written on spec for some gang of believers, but most were probably written by bored, hyper-religious types who wanted to present their own recounting and theology.

Operative terms here: I would guess.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood something which you can clear up for me. Is it or isn’t it true that the synoptic gospels contain strings of words which are precisely the same from one gospel to the other? Or have I misunderstood that?

If it’s not true that the gospels contain such ‘plaigiarisms’, then I need to rethink my position.

But if it is true, then why are you talking about a writer ‘reproducing different ideas’? What does that have to do with one text containing a 20-word string which is apparently lifted from another text?

First off, O Wizened and Venerable One, It's "plagiarism," not "plaigiarisms."
The motives for writing and the messages the gospelers intended to convey are completely different from each other. That constitutes "reproducing different ideas," even when large chunks of text are "reproduced." It's how the text is used, not particularly that the text is used. (Y' know, seminary professors get paid to teach this stuff to beginners...)

 

[sojourner]

OK, guy. I can't force you to address my issue.

For any interested lurkers: My position is that since the synoptic gospels track the precise language -- whole word-strings -- of the other gospels, I find this to be one big piece of compelling evidence that they were revisions of fictional stories.

I'm not sure why fallingblood keep talking about the writers using the 'same sources' or 'reproducing different ideas', but it has nothing to do with my issue here.

If anyone would like to address this issue, I'll be glad to engage it.

Your position is mistaken. "Tracking the precise language" does not indicate that the source is "fiction." It does indicate a practice of ancient transmission, much of which is not fictional.

 

[sojourner]

Should you ever find the courage to address me directly -- rather than snickering about me with your buds -- please don't hesitate to do so.

I never give up on anyone.

Have you ever seen the movie, "Single, White Female?"...

 

[sojourner]

I'm dismissing you because you will not address the issue I've raised. But I'll read the last message you sent and see if you've done so now. (Too busy right now swatting at some little buzzing blowfly which has has apparently judged me to be of a rancid nature <g>.)

Buzz, buzz, sweetie!:flirt:

 

[sojourner]

And it is my opinion that at least some of the gospel writers knew that they were writing fiction and did so intentionally.

Substantiate that with some solid scholarship and we'll have more respect for you, even if we disagree with you...

 

[outhouse]

Substantiate that with some solid scholarship and we'll have more respect for you, even if we disagree with you...

its obvious and he has a good point there, but you like to argue it???

I dont think theres a mainstream scholar that would argue his statement

And it is my opinion that at least some of the gospel writers knew that they were writing fiction and did so intentionally.

we have gospel writers, editors, and forgers in the book. No one will argue its all nonfiction, except maybe sojo

 

[fallingblood]

its obvious and he has a good point there, but you like to argue it???

I dont think theres a mainstream scholar that would argue his statement


we have gospel writers, editors, and forgers in the book. No one will argue its all nonfiction, except maybe sojo

I don't know of any mainstream scholar who would call the Gospels a work of fiction. The evidence simply does not support that position.

The Gospels were written as nonfiction. Yes, they include exaggeration and myth (don't let the modern common definition deceive you here). However, that does not make them fictional, and that certainly does not make the authors purposely writing fiction.

Also, nonfiction does not mean it is accurate. It doesn't mean it is even true. We can look at pseudoscience for examples. Zecharia Stichen has a series of books that are pseudoscience. That doesn't make them fictional though. It just means that the research was not the best.

 

[outhouse]

I don't know of any mainstream scholar who would call the Gospels a work of fiction. The evidence simply does not support that position.

I agree its not %100 fiction and thats not where I was going nor did I imply

do you agree its not all %100 nonfiction???

that is my point.

its not one or the other, it is a mixture.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree its not %100 fiction and thats not where I was going nor did I imply

do you agree its not all %100 nonfiction???

that is my point.

its not one or the other, it is a mixture.

I believe that they were written as 100% nonfiction. That doesn't make them accurate. There are theological components in the Gospels. There are exaggerations, and there are some mythical aspects. However, I believe that the Gospel writers truly believed what they were writing. And that they intended their work to be nonfiction.