|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.6
|
GDR writes: Frankly I wasn't going to dignify that by responding, but I'll just show you this link. Fiction was invented until the 12th century. Oh bloody hell GDR, telling stories of imagination is as old as people.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: These were folk tales handed down by the oral tradition. You do realize Homer's Odyssey was written well before the 1100s.That gives Poseidon, Zeus, Athena, and the cyclops Polyphemus the same reality as your god and your Jesus. This quote is from this site. The Origin of Fictionquote: The Gospel accounts were clearly written as an account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Sure, you can hold the view that they lied, or were just plain wrong about the main points, but the accounts are clearly meant to be take as historicalHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Sure, you can hold the view that they lied, or were just plain wrong about the main points, but the accounts are clearly meant to be take as historical. As were Homer's accounts of Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector and Hera. The great heroes of ancient Greece and Troy. The Iliad, Genesis, Odyssey and the gospels all written decades to millennia after the events, written from the oral traditions of the times and the popular tales of the people, written by those who heard but never saw the events. And each embellished most self-servingly. As with Genesis, Homer was writing in the Iliad an historical tale of his people's ancient lineage as best he could recount it. As with the various accounts of the Odyssey the various anonymous writers of the gospels were recording the popular stories of the time. Each can be said to be just as history and just as fiction as the others. There is no difference. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: My point that was that the Gospel accounts aren't written as fiction. As were Homer's accounts of Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector and Hera. The great heroes of ancient Greece and Troy. The Iliad, Genesis, Odyssey and the gospels all written decades to millennia after the events, written from the oral traditions of the times and the popular tales of the people, written by those who heard but never saw the events. And each embellished most self-servingly. As with Genesis, Homer was writing in the Iliad an historical tale of his people's ancient lineage as best he could recount it. As with the various accounts of the Odyssey the various anonymous writers of the gospels were recording the popular stories of the time. Each can be said to be just as history and just as fiction as the others. There is no difference. However there is similarity in style but there is far less reason to compare the two for historical accuracy. Homer wrote it is generally conceded to be about 400 years after the event. The Gospels in one case was written by an eye witness, (John), and the others would have compiled their material from eye witnesses. Paul had considerable contact with the disciples and was convinced enough that he completely reversed his views. Luke and Acts were written by someone who traveled with Paul. Papius and Polycarp had direct contact with one or more of the Apostles. The Didache was what is generally agreed to be a first century writing and called "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations". There is considerable additional support for the NT writing that doesn't exist for what Homer wrote. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: To be honest you should have said: fiction in a precise, technical sense. A sense which apparently excludes obvious examples like Lucian of Samosata’s A True Story from the second century - a thousand years older.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Funny how the scope narrows from the entire Bible to just the Gospels. However, we can be certain that the Gospels are unreliable accounts written by biased and credulous people.
quote: The authorship of John is in question, and the synoptic Gospels show clear evidence of literary dependencies (I.e. two of them use another synoptic Gospel as a source). We cannot know that any of them made a serious investigation, and we can be certain that writing history in the modern sense was not a concern.
quote: There is very little. We can be sure that Herod the Great existed, and that Quirinius conducted a census of Judaea. However Herod died about ten years before that census. Which is rather a problem when Matthew has Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great and Luke has Jesus born during the census. They also disagree on Jesus’ ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2312 Joined: |
Polycarp was the biggest quoter of what would make up the New Testament , and he did not quote or allude to the Gospel of John.
You mentioned Polycarp as an associate of the Apostle John in an earlier post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
PaulK writes: Critics and skeptics, especially those of the scholarly variety, are good at demolishing arguments. They are unbiased, though some would charge them with being biased *against* Jesus Christ. Perhaps many are against organized religion itself, which is at least more of a rational approach than being against the very idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen becoming human and offering humanity a Communion. I have examined the arguments and have also read the stories. No other assemblage of writing has inspired the lives of or changed the destiny of so many people throughout human history. The Greek myths cant even come close. How many people do you know who attribute an epiphany, clarification of soul, or familiarity with the written characters to the point of believing them to be real and living do you find there? Though not in and of itself evidence, the argument suggests that there is something about the character of Jesus Christ that lives. However, we can be certain that the Gospels are unreliable accounts written by biased and credulous people. jar always said that even if a story was simply a tale told around a campfire, the tale had value. I would argue that the tale has value because the character is more than a human invention compiled in a book. I can never win these arguments with evidence, apart from talking about my own changed life and growing awareness. What gets me about you, PaulK is that you can use scripture to enunciate a point regarding human behavior yet you spend as much time calling Christian belief and certainty into question. No one suggests that humanity stops growing or seeking new understandings and insights. Engaging in arguments that call into question the reliability of the lessons being taught as any better than any other human wisdom is, in my opinion, a ripe target. To start with, let's define what reliable teachings are? Different philosophies lead to different behaviors from those utilizing them for understanding. Atheism is not exempt from this critique. It is my personal belief that human wisdom is *not* all we have, but I cannot prove this to be true. What I have noticed is that the scholars and critics of Jesus Christ as an actual Spirit, Relationship, and personal philosophy is accepted by most believers and rejected by the most ardent critics. I can only guess at reasons why anyone would seek to disprove such a character. Do you have any insights?The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith - You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The Gospel accounts were clearly written as an account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Sure, you can hold the view that they lied, or were just plain wrong about the main points, but the accounts are clearly meant to be taken as historical. This is my point also. Critics suggest that the motives of the writers were to influence public opinion. I fail to see any evidence that the writers were simply making up stories in order to placate a poor and needy audience. I will agree, however, that many modern evangelists and teachers do exactly that. The motive speaks for itself. GDR and I would likely argue that so does the Truth. Why is it that not everyone senses this truth? Perhaps too many are indoctrinated with the message from The Scientific Method which asserts that it is normal and expected to try and disprove a claim (or an experiment) as a normal part of the method. Everyone is looking for truth. Believers differ in that they think they have found it. (Him) Scientific thinking never settles on an answer in a personal sense. They keep looking.The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith - You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I occasionally do the former typically when addressing a Christian, or the behaviour of a Christian. Scripture is a useful means of making a point. And, of course, Scripture can contain worthwhile insights. For the other, Galatians 4:16 seems an apt answer.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? quote: Do you agree that historical reliability is a different question? A fiction can convey a lesson - that after all is where parables and allegory come in. And the value of the lesson - so far as it has any - is not diminished by being conveyed through fiction.
quote: Alright. Go ahead.
quote: Perhaps, but I think you will find that other factors are also relevant, to a large degree.
quote: Atheism in itself is not a philosophy. It may be a component of a philosophy - in some an axiom, in others more of a conclusion - but it’s not a philosophy in itself. Atheists may be Marxists or Objectivists or Buddhists - among others.
quote: In the first place, if you bring something up as an argument those who disagree will reject it. That is the nature of debate. In the second place anyone seeking to understand the world will come to their own conclusions. It is only natural for those of us who were raised as Christians to include Christian beliefs in our evaluations. Do you really expect me to believe both that Jesus is dead and gone and that you have a personal relationship with him? Or expect me to change my mind just because you claim to have a personal relationship with him? As an aside since Matthew 7 recently came up, let me quote a relevant section:
22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’ I never knew you is hardly compatible with a personal relationship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.6 |
Phat writes: Critics suggest that the motives of the writers were to influence public opinion. I fail to see any evidence that the writers were simply making up stories in order to placate a poor and needy audience. It's more likely that followers couldn't believe that it was over and wanted it not to be. Then just imagined up all sorts of self-reinforcing myths and rumours. You see it even today when wacky evangelicals predict the second coming - they find excuses why it didn't happen and their beliefs either strengthen or disappear.
Why is it that not everyone senses this truth?
Because it's obvious bullshit.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
LamarkNewAge writes: Polycarp was the biggest quoter of what would make up the New Testament , and he did not quote or allude to the Gospel of John.You mentioned Polycarp as an associate of the Apostle John in an earlier post. Here is an excerpt from a letter written by Irenaeus to his friend Florinus. quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And yet you refuse to even discuss what the apologists claim. It's your position that's laughable.
... you claim that apologists or some other rebel faction wrote the book as a propaganda tool for their own agendas... which I find laughable. Phat writes:
I see the same emptiness in your beliefs. You have nothing but the word salad that the apologists have fed you. You reject the only Book that even mentions your "saviour" (which I have never done).
But I'm puzzled why you found your belief so empty. Phat writes:
That's the point. You don't need to replace it. It's nothing. You don't even have to " throw it away". There's nothing there to throw away. ... even if I were able to somehow throw it away I would never find anything to replace it."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: In the case of Homer he wrote, if I remember correctly, about 400 years after the events. He then wove in stories involving their deities but it wasn't written as fiction. Also it was based on actual events such as the Trojan war. Here is a wiki quote. As were Homer's accounts of Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector and Hera. The great heroes of ancient Greece and Troy. The Iliad, Genesis, Odyssey and the gospels all written decades to millennia after the events, written from the oral traditions of the times and the popular tales of the people, written by those who heard but never saw the events. And each embellished most self-servingly. As with Genesis, Homer was writing in the Iliad an historical tale of his people's ancient lineage as best he could recount it. As with the various accounts of the Odyssey the various anonymous writers of the gospels were recording the popular stories of the time. Each can be said to be just as history and just as fiction as the others. There is no difference.quote:It isn't a work of fiction. It is based on an actual event and then embellished and then with their mythologies thrown in for good measure. It isn't 100% certain when the Gospels were written but it would be within the lifetime of some of the disciples. The Gospel of John and also the letters of John were almost certainly written by a disciple who walked with Jesus. Traditionally it has been John son of Zebedee but more likely by John the Elder as talked about by Papius and Polycarp. We can't be sure but it is probable that Mark was written in consultation with Peter. Also of course we know that Paul had considerable contact with the disciples. Comparing the NT with Homer is apples and oranges.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
As others have pointed out, that's clearly false. Maybe you could say that the Bible authors didn't make a clear distinction between "truth" and fiction but you can not deny that the Bible contains fiction. The parables, by definition, are fiction. Metaphors are the stuff of fiction. "The Lord is my shepherd" is fiction, not news. Fiction wasn't invented until the 12th century."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024