Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[Kathryn]

Sure. You did add direct insult to your third-party nastiness. Not exactly a sign of gracious debate, I would say. Is there anything in particular bugging you other than my tone? I certainly don't care for your tone, but what's the point in going on and on about it? Insult is easy. And boring. I'd really rather address our issue.

Well, I didn't insult you. I called you out for incessant sarcasm. I was trying to read through this thread, and noticed your sarcasm increasing with each post. Frankly, it was very irritating, and it so diluted whatever points you were trying to make that I finally decided to say something about it.

In other words, I'm not interested in trading insults. I'm just giving you some feedback.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What I said was an insult? If you want it to be an insult, fine. However, I see this as nothing more than you simply dodging the issues, and dismissing me.

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>.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As for copying various sources, like Matthew and Luke did, that is not uncommon in ancient sources, as I have already explained. We call it plagiarism. However, that isn't quite the case with ancient sources. And that definitely doesn't mean something is fiction. There are nonfiction writers who also plagiarize other work.

Thank you for focusing with me on the first bit of evidence upon which I have built my theory of gospels-as-fiction.

Of course non-fiction writers also sometimes plagiarize. But in my experience, it is most often a phenomenon found in fiction-writing. It's a work of art, not a bit of documentary, which most often finds itself retooled, reworded, and presented anew to the world.

That's my experience.

So, to really sum up. Your argument appears to be that since Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark, they must be fiction as only fiction writers would do such. If I'm wrong, please inform me.

You are mistaken. What I've said is that the plagiarism is my first bit of evidence. In my personal opinion, it points to fiction moreso than to non-fiction.

You don't have to believe or accept my position on it. I'm not pressing you to do that. I'm just trying to honor your request to explain my hypothesis.

Would you like to continue?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, I didn't insult you. I called you out for incessant sarcasm.

OK, Kathryn. And I posted no sarcasm. So maybe we can move on now?

 

[fallingblood]

Thank you for focusing with me on the first bit of evidence upon which I have built my theory of gospels-as-fiction.

Of course non-fiction writers also sometimes plagiarize. But in my experience, it is most often a phenomenon found in fiction-writing. It's a work of art, not a bit of documentary, which most often finds itself retooled, reworded, and presented anew to the world.

That's my experience.



You are mistaken. What I've said is that the plagiarism is my first bit of evidence. In my personal opinion, it points to fiction moreso than to non-fiction.

You don't have to believe or accept my position on it. I'm not pressing you to do that. I'm just trying to honor your request to explain my hypothesis.

Would you like to continue?

As long as we can agree that your first point lacks. As it stands, alone right now, it does not really support your hypothesis. It may give a little credence to it; however, much of that is also based on retrojecting current norms.

 

[Kathryn]

OK, Kathryn. And I posted no sarcasm. So maybe we can move on now?

Sure. Fine by me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As long as we can agree that your first point lacks. As it stands, alone right now, it does not really support your hypothesis. It may give a little credence to it; however, much of that is also based on retrojecting current norms.

Sure. My point lacks (if I'm understanding you right), just as all of your points lack. I'm afraid I still believe that your points lack worse than my points lack, but that's the way opinions go.

So what else do you want to know?

How about the fundamental need of most all human beings for a Great Hero, especially one who will save them and deliver justice to their enemies in the afterlife? Pretty persuasive reason to doubt the Jesus Story, yes?

How about the primitive nature of the society in which the Jesus Story arose? Anyone could create any story they wanted about a guy who lived 50 years prior, yes?

 

[fallingblood]

Sure. My point lacks (if I'm understanding you right), just as all of your points lack. I'm afraid I still believe that your points lack worse than my points lack, but that's the way opinions go.

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.

So what else do you want to know?

Maybe your evidence for Jesus being a god-man, which you have claimed quite a few times, or your evidence for claiming that the Gospels were written as fiction. That seems quite obvious.

How about the fundamental need of most all human beings for a Great Hero, especially one who will save them and deliver justice to their enemies in the afterlife? Pretty persuasive reason to doubt the Jesus Story, yes?

No. There were already a handful of historical figures that could have fit just that. Such as Augustus, who was called the savior. 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.
[/quote]
How about the primitive nature of the society in which the Jesus Story arose? Anyone could create any story they wanted about a guy who lived 50 years prior, yes?[/QUOTE]We aren't talking about 50 years before though. Paul was writing about 20 years after the fact. He also had contact with the brother of Jesus, James (who Josephus also claims to have been the brother of Jesus). So we are getting extremely close to Jesus, the brother of.

 

[outhouse]

did anyone say there is no fiction?

did anyone say its historically accurate?


we already know by the text at hand little can be said with certainty about historical jesus.

if you want to get into detail feel free, generalizations dont get far around here.

 

[outhouse]

There was no logical reason to create another failed messiah.

that may not be alltogether true

Constantine a roman emporer had a good reason to advance the movement, I believe his reason to be not only religious but political as well.

where Marcion falied Constantine picked up the ball and ran it to the goal post.

jesus wasnt really a failed messiah and his story had enough meat on it over the fly by night messiahs that Constantine didnt drop the ball.

You cannot deny jesus story and going to death for his beliefs in what amounts to be suicide was better then some of the other fly by night deitys the pagans worshipped

 

[Koldo]

I would just like to point out that historical inaccuracy does not equal to fiction.

 

[outhouse]

I would just like to point out that historical inaccuracy does not equal to fiction.

could you explain that a little better?


again some parts of the bible that may be accurate, while others its not

 

[Koldo]

could you explain that a little better?


again some parts of the bible that may be accurate, while others its not

I guess i can not explain it any better...

That sentence is so simple that i can't think of another way to say it without being redundant.

I will use wikipedia words then:

[ Non-fiction or nonfiction is an account, narrative, or representation of a subject which is understood as fact. This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question. However, it is generally assumed that the authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition.]

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

[ Non-fiction or nonfiction is an account, narrative, or representation of a subject which is understood as fact. This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question. However, it is generally assumed that the authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition.]

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

But later Christians took their work as non-fiction.

It seems an unpopular position to take, but I am strong of heart, so don't worry about me.

 

[outhouse]

I guess i can not explain it any better...

That sentence is so simple that i can't think of another way to say it without being redundant.

I will use wikipedia words then:

[ Non-fiction or nonfiction is an account, narrative, or representation of a subject which is understood as fact. This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question. However, it is generally assumed that the authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition.]

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

would this not prove your first statement wrong???



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

 

[Kathryn]

Of course some of the bible is fiction. Some of it is presented as fiction. The bible is a collection of a wide variety of literary styles.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is some truth in that, as seminary does have a tendency to destroy what one thinks about the Bible, and replace that with modern scholarship.

Seminary should, IMHO, strive to teach seminarians how to think while encouraging them to nurture their faith.

It is certainly possible to have one without neglecting the other.:yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Of course some of the bible is fiction. Some of it is presented as fiction. The bible is a collection of a wide variety of literary styles.

:foryou:

 

[ninerbuff]

Well I kind of believe it's true. Lol, politicians claim to be christians when many act more like heathens and ********.

 

[waitasec]

Seminary should, IMHO, strive to teach seminarians how to think while encouraging them to nurture their faith.

It is certainly possible to have one without neglecting the other.:yes:

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