Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[sojourner]

Before I answer your message in detail, I have to make a complaint.

I asked you a very direct question about Luke's claim that he was narrating true events. You have ignored my question. I need to know whether you'll be answering direct questions as we try to work our way through this issue and whether you'll answer that one.

If my fictional narrator claims that his story is true... is that evidence that his story is true?

If so, I think you misunderstand the writing process.

If not, then why do you consider Luke's similar claim to be evidence of the non-fictional nature of the gospels?

From a literary standpoint, Luke reads more like ancient history of its time than it does like fiction of its time.

 

[waitasec]

It took off as an imperialized, standardized religion. As a spiritual movement, it was doing just fine before then.

can you verify that it would have survived had it not been for the fact it became an imperialized, standardized religion?

 

[doppelganger]

But in the end, all we have to rely on is what the Body of Christ -- the Church -- says.

No. We have a variety of tools available to us, including literary criticism, historical method, anthropology, psychology, etc. The last thing I'd rely on is a social institution whose very existence and profitability depends on stuff like this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you read any reputable scholars, you will find that he's correct and you're incorrect here. It's apparent that you're unfamiliar with the Biblical scholarship community.

I'm pretty sure you've lost your place in our disagreement. There can be no evidence that 'most Biblical scholars have a vested interest in the Bible' vs. 'most Biblical scholars do not have a vested interest in the Bible.'

Unless I'm wrong. Can you present such evidence?

 

[doppelganger]

From a literary standpoint, Luke reads more like ancient history of its time than it does like fiction of its time.

I disagree. It reads like hero mythology set in an historical framework. Like a James Michener novel, only shorter.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I disagree. It reads like hero mythology set in an historical framework. Like a James Michener novel, only shorter.

Yeah, I have to disagree as well. I know that Acts is in the genre of epic, which is pretty much an "ancient novel." If that's the case, I'm sure that Luke is the same.

 

[sojourner]

Now consider a different case, in which four eyewitnesses are recounting the same event

there is no reason to believe that the synoptic writers were "eyewitnesses," and plenty of evidence to conclude that they were not. The "earlier manuscript" you mention sounds a lot like the Q argument (which I happen to buy into). Q is partially responsible for Matt. and Lk. So is Mark. Q is likely an oral source, though, (as is earliest Mark). So we're talking about "stories that were told about Jesus." In that culture, that doesn't present a problem for historical accounts, because most historical accounts in those days were oral accounts (at least at first).

 

[sojourner]

Hi, Soujourner. I feel slightly different about labeling the Jesus Story as myth vs. labeling the Garden of Eden Story as myth -- mostly because I think there could have been a preacher named Jesus some 50-100 years before the gospels were written, whereas Adam and Eve were more probably created from whole cloth, as with the Creation Stories of other cultures.

You obviously don't understand the literary use of the word "myth."

 

[sojourner]

can you verify that it would have survived had it not been for the fact it became an imperialized, standardized religion?

Ethiopia was never imperialized. Britain was imperialized later -- and there are small caches that never were. I think Xy would have survived in a different form, but would have remained closer to what it was intended to be.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You obviously don't understand the literary use of the word "myth."

Sometimes I find myself wishing I were as dumb and oblivious as you judge me to be.

Other times... not so much.

 

[sojourner]

No. We have a variety of tools available to us, including literary criticism, historical method, anthropology, psychology, etc. The last thing I'd rely on is a social institution whose very existence and profitability depends on stuff like this.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm speaking strictly from a standpoint of authority in terms of theological validity.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

there is no reason to believe that the synoptic writers were "eyewitnesses," and plenty of evidence to conclude that they were not. The "earlier manuscript" you mention sounds a lot like the Q argument (which I happen to buy into). Q is partially responsible for Matt. and Lk. So is Mark. Q is likely an oral source, though, (as is earliest Mark). So we're talking about "stories that were told about Jesus." In that culture, that doesn't present a problem for historical accounts, because most historical accounts in those days were oral accounts (at least at first).

OK. No eyewitness accounts. That works for me.

Let me ask this: If the novel "Dracula" had purported to be a recounting of actual events, you would believe that a real Dracula existed in the same way as a real Jesus existed?

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, I have to disagree as well. I know that Acts is in the genre of epic, which is pretty much an "ancient novel." If that's the case, I'm sure that Luke is the same.

Except that Luke/Acts is a historic treatment, organized in terms of large movements within humanity. Luke is concerned specifically with three such movements:
1) The time before Jesus
2) The time of Jesus
3) The time after Jesus

I think it's a mistake to separate Luke/Acts for purposes of historical criticism, since they were originally the same document.

 

[sojourner]

Sometimes I find myself wishing I were as dumb and oblivious as you judge me to be.

Other times... not so much.

As you wish...

 

[sojourner]

OK. No eyewitness accounts. That works for me.

Let me ask this: If the novel "Dracula" had purported to be a recounting of actual events, you would believe that a real Dracula existed in the same way as a real Jesus existed?

The novel Dracula is different than the gospels, though. They can't be compared. The novel doesn't purport to be a recounting of actual events. The oral tradition of the gospels does.

 

[doppelganger]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm speaking strictly from a standpoint of authority in terms of theological validity.

Why would I rely on the authority of a political group on a question of theological validity? I get that they claim to have the authority. But that has nothing to do with anyone actually needing to rely on them.

 

[doppelganger]

The novel Dracula is different than the gospels, though. They can't be compared. The novel doesn't purport to be a recounting of actual events. The oral tradition of the gospels does.

Dracula claims to be a recounting of actual events . . . within the context of the story. So do the gospels.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Except that Luke/Acts is a historic treatment, organized in terms of large movements within humanity. Luke is concerned specifically with three such movements:
1) The time before Jesus
2) The time of Jesus
3) The time after Jesus

I think it's a mistake to separate Luke/Acts for purposes of historical criticism, since they were originally the same document.

There are historical elements in Luke / Acts, as with all the Gospels and all novels (except possibly for complete fantacies).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Dracula claims to be a recounting of actual events . . . within the context of the story. So do the gospels.

There ya go

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The novel Dracula is different than the gospels, though. They can't be compared. The novel doesn't purport to be a recounting of actual events. The oral tradition of the gospels does.

It is obvious that you are unable to follow rational argumentation.

(Just kidding. I'm not really a nasty guy. But I do enjoy mirroring folks sometimes.)

I asked you a what-if question -- also called a hypothetical. May I ask it again?

If the novel "Dracula" had purported to be a recounting of actual events, you would believe that a real Dracula existed in the same way as you believe that a real Jesus existed?

If you don't like to extend your imagination so far as that, try Robin Hood. Do you believe in Robin Hood in the same way as you believe in Jesus?