Amaleq13

This is not surprising given your apparent preference for simplistic reasoning. In fact, it is virtually axiomatic.

No, I'm claiming that your stated estimation of the similarity between Greek mythology and the Bible is simplistic.

You didn't have to prove your confusion. I accepted it when you asserted it at the opening of your post.

That you would think yourself capable of applying my "thinking" despite that you've already acknowledged that it confuses you is funny and sad. That your effort to do so even misses the most fundamental point (ie that you overstressed the similarity between the two) is just sad.

J-D

Among much else, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible suggests that Leviticus 19:33, Zechariah 8:16, and Proverbs 22:22 are 'good stuff'.

J-D

Is that supposed to answer the question I asked you, in some way that I don't understand, or is it supposed to be a total evasion?

J-D

There is no logically valid argument from the premise that some of the statements in the Scriptures are false to the conclusion that all of the statements in the Scriptures are false.

J-D

You have given no reason to suppose that any of these statements are true.

aa5874

It is far easier to tell which parts are fictitious, just look for a miracle, my favorite fictitious event. The one with the 2000 pigs is by far the most humorous, pigs and ghosts died by drowning, but what is even more hilarious, is the thought that 2 persons had enough ghosts to fill 2000 pigs. That's an average of 1000 ghosts per person.

aa5874

I like to keep it simple. Have a look at my simple list of fictitious mythological events claimed to have been witnessed by real people in the NT. Did I miss anything?

1.The virgin birth
2.The baptism
3.The temptation
4.The miraculous acts
5.The transfiguration
6.The resurrection
7.The ascension

mountainman

Hi Steve,

The task of reclassifying the bible as fiction needs to entail
a detailed history of the invention of the new testament which
in the regime of Constantine was first bound to the old testament
(nb: The OT had been "avaliable in Greek" since the 3rd C BCE).

If indeed the bible is a fiction, as many suspect, then we need
to be able to put forward at least some minimal theory concerning
who wrote the NT, for whom was it written, when and where was
it written, and for what purpose could it conceivably have been
written.

Things gets very complicated and messy with "Biblical History" IMO
because everyone is running around trying to make sense out of the
Eusebian chronology. Essentially, one unknown monk called Eusebius
sat down for some reason to write a history of the christian church
in the years 312-324 CE according to the guesses of our best scholars.

The Eusebian "Ecclesiasical History" and other works serve as the
backbone of BC&H especially in regard to the NEW testament, which
was incidentally tendered by Eusebius with "Canon Tables" or, of you
like, quick look-up references to who said what in the new religion.

Philosopher Jay and perhaps one or two others in this forum have
commented to the effect that the future of BC&H will revolve around
the central role played by the information (propaganda is a good word
BTW --- your response to spin stands) tendered by Eusebius. Note,
please all readers, that the information was tendered to the state of
Constantine --- a self confessed malevolent despot.

Consequently IMO, this "classification the bible as fiction" involves
in the minimum requirements, a theory of the invention of the fiction
and other necessary details as outlined.

aa5874

Now, if Eusebius and Constantine did manage to burn or destroy the Arian doctrine, I guess we won't find any doctrine of Arius in any century.

mountainman

My position is the following ---- it is not impossible
that Constantine invented "christianity" with effect
from 312 CE, and that, by implication, any earlier
references to "christianity" are pseudo-references.

My position is that the Emperor Julian in 362 CE was
making an historical comment on Constantine's invention
by the following words:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

--- Against the Galilaeans