aa5874

No way, I never claimed any special knowlegde, I pointed out to you that "Paul's" conversion was fiction, as described in Acts, and that "Paul's" revelation as described in the Epistles was fiction. You are the one who imagined that you know what is implausible and most likely to be true.

Well, look at "Church History"1.13 by Eusebius
And this is the epistle of Jesus to the King, Church History 1.13: This looks like fiction to me.

My conclusion after my investigation is that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction as described by the NT and the Church fathers. I cannot ascertain who started the fiction and when it actually started, all I have been able to detect is blatant fiction.

I only detect fiction, I do not spend a lot of time speculating as to why a fraudster would lie about anything.

Are you suggesting that there were no fraudsters and con-men in antiquity? I thought Tertullian considered Marcion a deceiver and a liar.

I consider your arguments in a similar fashion.

But, what about your syncretization argument, where did you get that from? The epistles, too. Where does the Epistles say Paul was a docetist?

I back up my arguments with 1 Corinthians 1.17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." and Mark 16.15, "Go ye into all the world and preach the the gospel to every creature."

Paul is part of the gospel story, as depicted by the NT, but he is fiction.

DevilsAdvocate

I would not contradict that. A mutual understanding and general agreement was the eventual outcome in Acts, except that James inserted some Jewish customs into the instructions to the gentile Christians. Do we agree on that?


Let's see if we can un-muddy the waters...
Again, the original position taken by another here was that Paul in Acts is a "loyal footsoldier" to the "pillars" in Jerusalem contrary to the epistle representation of him as an antagonist. The "explicit" support of James and Peter from the beginning of the Jerusalem conference was one basis of that position.

Two issues
1) Was Paul's position supported from the beginning?
2) Were the "pillars" and Paul in complete agreement?

1) They did eventually reach a mutually agreeable position, but because it is not explicitly stated until there was significant discussion Acts does not demonstrate that Paul and the "pillars" were always in agreement. That is where the chronology is a factor.

Due to the chronology, it is unclear from the text whether the "pillars" agreed originally with Paul, or if they were convinced in the discussion process to modify their position, form one for the first time, or look for a compromise. Really a minor point, but it does not support the point that Paul is acting as a "loyal footsoldier" of Jerusalem and they are in complete agreement. It is ambiguous. Changing the order, "change of context," may have supported the agreement claimed.

2) Well said! THIS was my primary point. "James is clearly offering a compromise position."
The request delivered by Paul and Barnabas was not fully granted. The compromise offered by James and delivered to Antioch was not in complete agreement with the request. This alleviated the crisis by not requiring circumcision, but Jewish food customs were retained, and the tendancy of the Jerusalem church to favor retaining Jewish customs is demonstrated. So the source of conflict between Paul and the "pillars" is substantiated in the text of Acts 15.

That is a smooth transition into the discussion of the parallel account in Galations which was one place where the Acts account is said to be different from the epistles. The crisis is averted in Jerusalem, only to resurface in Antioch where the tendancey of the "pillars" to favor the judaizers becomes a problem and continued source for conflict.

DevilsAdvocate

What do you consider to be the Gospel story?

Doug Shaver

So, if you tell me something that I'm certain is untrue, it's OK for me to call you a liar, and you have no grounds for taking offense?

Amaleq13

Yes but, more relevant to your initial claim, there is no indication in Acts that Peter or James ever opposed Paul.

No, one issue:
1) Is there any indication in Acts that Peter and James opposed Paul?

The answer is "No".

That James offers a compromise position between Paul and those who opposed Paul does nothing to substantiate the notion that James previously opposed Paul.

There is nothing "smooth" about it. The depictions are clearly and significantly different.

patcleaver

Bullshit. So you claim to be able to read the mind of C.S. Lewis to discern his intent. The intent of the author has nothing to do with whether a work is in the genre of fiction or non-fiction. All that matters is whether the person who is classifying the literature believes its substantially fictional or not. We do not have to channel the mind of C.S. Lewis to determine if the Chronicles of Narnia are fiction.

If we found a letter from J.R.R. Tolken that he though Lord of the Rings was ancient biography, it would not be relevant at all in the classification of the genre of his book. Do you think all the book sellers would reclassify the book or libraries would move it to the biography section?

We know that fictional storytelling was very popular in the first century from all the fictional books from that period as well as descriptions of traveling storytellers described in non-fictional sources.

I would love to be able to take credit for such a keen insight into reality, but I admit that I read it somewhere.

There are thousands of stories about supernatural beings and they are all fiction.

Name one of these stories about a supernatural being that is not fiction.

There are thousands of stories about miracle workers actually doing miracles and they are all fiction.

Name one of these stories about a miracle workers actually doing miracles that is not fiction.

Just of the top of my head: wordplay, irony, paradox, surprise, mystery, prophesy, foreshadow, coincidences, humorous occurrences, magical events, fulfillment of prophesy, hyperbole, unrealistic situations, unrealistic dialog, unrealistic responses to situations, metaphor, unwitnessable events.

Just count the number of literary devices in Mark per word and compare that to the number of literary devices per word in the writings of any real historian of the time. It is obvious that the gospels are fiction.

The activities of Jesus are based on several prior fictional sources such as Kings, Daniel, psalms, Isaiah, the book of Enoch, and Homer's epics.

According to the Jesus Seminar, about 80% of the sayings of Jesus are earlier sayings from the OT or by other people such as Hillel the Elder, Shammai, Greek Philosophers, The teacher of righteousness.

[QUOTE=spin;5185741][QUOTE=patcleaver;5185429]
6. Midrash is always fiction

Rubbish. Midrash is explanation.

Narrative midrash is always fiction, for example, "Honi the circle maker". If you disagree cite an example of narrative midrash that is not-fiction.

You can not cite any history written in Chiasmus because there isn't any. Chiasmus are used in Greek poetry and in Genesis. Why would anybody want to write real history in poetical Chiasmus and why would anyone take it as serious history?

The midnight ride of Paul Revere was alleged history written as poetry, but it was really fiction wasn't it?

A lie is any statement that is false. It has nothing to do with the intent of the source. If you repeat a lie, then its still a lie even if you had no deceptive intent.

Does that mean that I can make up just any bullshit in the world and as long as I do not think its false then its not fiction?

It is not fiction that Boadica had a mother, because we can verify that all women have mothers. However, it is fiction that her name was spin because we can not verify that.

Let me try again:

Fiction is anything that is false or presented as truth that cannot be objectively verified to be true.

Any factual assertion that is presented as true that can not be verified is fiction. Whoever asserts that something if factually true has the burden of providing objective evidence that its true. If they can not provide evidence for their factual assertion then their assertion is false.

There are an infinite number of false assertions that could be made without evidence, but only a finite number of true assertions that can be made, therefore any assertion of fact that is not supported by reasonable evidence is almost certainly false.

Verification simply means that we have determined that something is more or likely than not. If you mean verification beyond reasonable doubt then you should say so. Verification does not require absolute certainty - nothing is absolutely certain.

Today, there is no standard definition for the genre of fiction. There certainly was no standard definition in the first few centuries. It certainly is a red herring to bring up the question of genre in response to the factual statement that "the gospels are fiction" because the apologist is just equivocating.

Nobody here is interested in literary genres, we only need to show that its fiction, false, a lie, not real, fantasy, delusion. How could it matter what the definition of various genres are or which one applies? - how does not answer any pertinent questions?

patcleaver

Your not a liar unless you intend to lie when you repeat a lie.

If you innocently repeat a lie, then its still a lie, but your not a liar.

DevilsAdvocate

I agree for the most part.

There was a problem between the church of Antioch and some of the church in Jerusalem whuch was headed in part by Peter and James. Paul and Barnabas are sent to work it out. So Peter, James and associates were put into the middle of the conflict as apostles/elders of the offending church group. Their personal positions are unknown before Peter's statement and James' compromise.

Peter's position is ambiguous he allows debate to continue for some time before he would take a position on the judaizing issue. Finally, Peter makes a statement supporting Paul's party in full.

James is silent and his view is unknown until he offers the compromise. The compromise position, as is the nature of a compromise, was in partial opposition to the position of Paul that Jewish observations not be required of the gentile Christians. It was the first explicit indication of direct conflict between the positions taken by James and Paul. It is also in conflict with Peter's statement that gentiles not be held to jewish customs. Paul apparently accepted the compromise at the time, but there is no statement regarding his aproval or disaproval in the text. Paul's opinion of the compromise is unknown. So Paul and Barnabas came in as antagonists to elements of the Jerusalem church, and left with a compromise.

Where is the explicit indication that Paul is a "loyal foot-soldier" of Jerusalem and will not confront them for misdeeds?

OK. Following is how I read it. Help me see how they are...
"clearly and significantly different."...


The supposed context of the writings are different.
- Paul austensibly is writing or dictating to the Galatians himself to people he knows.
- Acts is austensibly being written by a later historian compiling an orderly account from other "credible" writings and oral histories to a wealthy individual or an at large audience addressing them with the pseudonym Theophylus.
- So there are differences in purpose, message, perspective, audience, genre, author, style, setting in the Antioch portion of the account ... suffice to say there are significant differences in origin and context...

- The account of the Jerusalem conference has the same elements of initial acceptance, conflict with judaizers, and eventual resolution.
- The spys are mentioned and said to be overcome. The language is consistent with the message of Galatians.

- Peter and James seem to be in similar relative positions in Galations as the conflict in Jerusalem.
- Peter seems to support Paul's position, and in fact lives as a gentile.
- Everything seems great until the circumcision people show up, and Peter withdraws from the gentile Christians.
- Peter is hesitant to take a strong position against the judaizers, perhaps similar to Jerusalem when the debate was raging.
- Paul calls him out for his hypocracy.

- James sends judaizers, as one who would have included jewish customs in the compromise after Peter's clear position statement.

- There seems to be a conflict between Peter and James, as perhaps reflected in Peter's delayed Jerusalem statement and Jame's Jerusalem compromise.
- Paul is at odds with both in Antioch on his home turf.

patcleaver

Non-fictional works sometimes contain mistakes.

Fictional works often contain lots of information that are true.

If something important to a story is not true, then its a fictional story.

If I presented a play about George Washington and the only thing in the whole play that was not true was that the colonies lost the war at the end, then it would be fiction.

DevilsAdvocate

That sounds like a fuzzy, subjective definition. By that definition, my kids history books are fiction, because they misrepresent or omit important information to make it appropriate for the audiences perception. The same could be said about most of the news stories I see that I have first-hand information about. So is there and objective way to make the distinction?