Freethought & Rationalism Archive

I Love Jesus · 12-09-2005, 07:55 AM

If I may say:

Expecting Josephus to include Herod's massacre of the children of Bethlehem is like expecting a WWII historian to mention a time when the young Adolf Hitler killed a dog.

And it is an argument from silence.

And it really has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

TomboyMom · 12-09-2005, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

One must remember that there are no civil war era counterclaims denying that Brett Butler told Charlotte that he didn't give a damn either. So for those who mght argue that nobody denied the crucifixion or the existance of Jesus during the first century, would also have to accept the entire book of Gone With The Wind as complete truth on the same basis. After all there is mention of Atlanta Georgia and we know this to be a real place.

And I do not recall one a single instance of dispute of any of the information contained in the Lord of the Rings most especially during the First, Second and early Third Ages. In fact all those saying the events depicted in The Lord of the Rings are fiction have not done so until the late 20th century. :Cheeky:

I don't think this argument is persuasive, because GWTW and LOTR were presented as fiction, while the gospels were presented as fact. I think the stronger argument is that no one even noticed the christians enough to bother refuting their allegation.

Llyricist · 12-09-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

I don't think this argument is persuasive, because GWTW and LOTR were presented as fiction, while the gospels were presented as fact.

Emphasis mine

Do you have any support for this? As far as I know, we have no way of knowing how the originals of the gospels were presented.

TomboyMom · 12-09-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

Emphasis mine

Do you have any support for this? As far as I know, we have no way of knowing how the originals of the gospels were presented.

Well, not really but...I don't think it was the worlds first novel or anything. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but isn't it generally agreed that the gospels were written and put forth as an accurate record of what happened and attempt to both document and persuade people of what it contains?

Julian · 12-09-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Well, not really but...I don't think it was the worlds first novel or anything. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but isn't it generally agreed that the gospels were written and put forth as an accurate record of what happened and attempt to both document and persuade people of what it contains?

We don't know for sure but your assumption is a very reasonable one and generally accepted.

BTW, the were many other novels in existence before the gospels.

Julian

darstec · 12-09-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

One must remember that there are no civil war era counterclaims denying that Brett Butler told Charlotte that he didn't give a damn either. So for those who mght argue that nobody denied the crucifixion or the existance of Jesus during the first century, would also have to accept the entire book of Gone With The Wind as complete truth on the same basis. After all there is mention of Atlanta Georgia and we know this to be a real place.

And I do not recall one a single instance of dispute of any of the information contained in the Lord of the Rings most especially during the First, Second and early Third Ages. In fact all those saying the events depicted in The Lord of the Rings are fiction have not done so until the late 20th century.

I don't think this argument is persuasive, because GWTW and LOTR were presented as fiction, while the gospels were presented as fact. I think the stronger argument is that no one even noticed the christians enough to bother refuting their allegation.

The gospels were presented as fiction. GMark was overwhelmingly fiction, a second century CE story about a hero who lived 100 years in the past based upon ancient heroes of the Old Testament. It is obvious from the apparent freedom the authors of GMatthew and GLuke felt by freely enhancing the story that those authors were writting fiction too.

The closest to history those gospels came to was to possibly grant them the title of historic novel -- real characters with some real places and fictionalized accounts of a few possible events interspersed with a lot of great stories and miraculous events.

The Greek of GMark reads much like the format of Homer's works and even borrows some phrases wholesale from them.

Kosh · 12-09-2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Well, not really but...I don't think it was the worlds first novel or anything. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but isn't it generally agreed that the gospels were written and put forth as an accurate record of what happened and attempt to both document and persuade people of what it contains?

It has been discussed here that the Gospels may have been based on a play by Seneca.

Also, see this review of
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

I Love Jesus · 12-09-2005, 10:40 AM

No offense, but with beliefs about gospel histories like this, I hope you do not make fun of theists for believing in the supernatural.

Julian · 12-09-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Love Jesus

No offense, but with beliefs about gospel histories like this, I hope you do not make fun of theists for believing in the supernatural.

No one here has stated any beliefs, merely a variety of evidence, some more weighty than other. Not all of it is necessarily true but it should, at least, be looked at.

How about some evidence for the supernatural?

Julian

I Love Jesus · 12-09-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

How about some evidence for the supernatural?

I have learned over the years that most people who ask that question begin with an a priori assumption that the supernatural cannot exist, therefore no evidence is sufficient.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2005, 07:55 AM	#21
I Love Jesus Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: America Posts: 856	If I may say: Expecting Josephus to include Herod's massacre of the children of Bethlehem is like expecting a WWII historian to mention a time when the young Adolf Hitler killed a dog. And it is an argument from silence. And it really has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

12-09-2005, 10:40 AM	#28
I Love Jesus Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: America Posts: 856	No offense, but with beliefs about gospel histories like this, I hope you do not make fun of theists for believing in the supernatural.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.