Sheshbazzar

I do not "assume" such, these writers set the accounts that they had recieved -from the testimony of others- down in writing.
Any real forensic investigation of the stories in the modern sense, would have been virtually impossible by the time the stories were finally being committed to writing many years latter, and in a foreign lands. A violent war had ensued, and all of the alleged original participants and witnesses were either long dead, lost through sale into slavery, or scattered to the four winds.
And with the legend being so popular, a multitude of false witnesses were pressing their own versions of what happened. (what really happened to the notorious outlaw Jesse James?)

Not much of an assumption, as the stories are based upon Jewish religion and messianism and Jewish religious beliefs, customs, and practices in 1st century Jerusalem Israel, its surrounding environs and near neighboring countries.
These writers writing in a Greek milieu to a Greek audience would not have likely chosen to so fully embrace the Jews religious history as presented in the OT, and an unknown crucified leader of a recently defeated and despised nation as the chief protagonist of their story, unless the bones of that story had came to them as already popular and accepted legends ("which are most surely believed among us") among those cultures that supported the legends.
The whole thing would have had to fly in the face of Greek xenophobia, and not likely to have prospered, EXCEPT that it already had very strong circulation and support.
Yes, certainly there were many writers that employed the pseudonym of "Paul", and who likely wrote things that an actual Paul would not have, after all, for the epistles to exist in their present form, someone, sometime, would have to be the one responsible for putting words into "Paul's" mouth.
Of course that in no way would reflect on the original "Paul" (IF he even ever existed), that real Paul, as a devout Jew may have even denied and attempted to refute these pseudo-Pauline epistles. No, no proofs of such, but then not the one whit less possible.
Ummm, yes, that IS what I have been saying for quite some time now, this elaborate tale and its involved antinomian theology did not just "pop up" in a "vision", as claimed by "Paul's" writers, nor did it all get created post-hoc by christians to to explain the fictional Jesus story.
The theological development process had actually began hundreds of years before, and had been carefully thought through, and contrived long, long before the "Paul" writers turned him into their sock-puppet and began to write down their theology under his assumed name.
Actually, I was quite involved in that particular case, this friend being one that I had known for many years, had attended school with, and one who had even "stood up" at my wedding.
And in becoming somewhat of a "victim" simply through the repetition of a long standing and very popular Urban Legend rumor, was one that I as a close and trusted personal friend, had to give council to.
I have no doubts at all as to what the intents of my long-time friend were, and that those intentions were "good intentions" that were utterly innocent of any intent of malice.

bacht

Compared to the literature of the time? If you stack the OT up against Homer which is more 'true' historically?

How can mythology 'lie', it's not supposed to be about facts. At best, myth can illuminate human nature and life situations through inspired storytelling.

The Bible is HIS STORY, not disinterested journalism.

Anat

From 'The Collapse of Chaos (or via: amazon.co.uk)' by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart. Neelphunt is an alien who is trying to understand (in the above case) the meaning of Sherlock Holmes stories. His translator however had trouble with the word 'fictional'.

Or perhaps we can use Picasso's definition of 'model': A lie that helps one see the truth. Whether a piece of text has instructional value is not always based on the truth value of statements within it.

aa5874

But, did you "assume" that these authors did actually receive testimony from others.

I do not assume the authors of the NT are credible except there is external corroboration.

I hope you realise that it is posible that your scenario just did not happen at all, no matter how plausible it may appear.

I hope you understand that your scenario may be completely false and that you have no way of confirming anything that you have posted.

And other scenarios are also possible.
A real Paul was not necessary to write the epistles, just a writer or writers who claimed they had revelations from Jesus in heaven. So, any Tom, Dick and Harry could have written all the epistles and just used the name Paul.

Sheshbazzar

I cannot help but perceive that you must simply like to argue.
Did you not notice that my statement;
"the "Paul" writers turned him into their sock-puppet and began to write down their theology under his assumed name."

AGREES with what you are saying, and that your response here is reiterating nothing more than the very thing that I just finished stating, only phrased differently?

You > "A real Paul was not necessary to write the epistles"
AGREED!!!!
Me, previously >"THEY turned him into their sock-puppet"

You > " just a writer or writers who claimed they had revelations from Jesus in heaven. "
AGREED!!!!
Me previously>"as claimed by "Paul's" writers,"

You >"So, any Tom, Dick and Harry could have written all the epistles and just used the name Paul."
AGREED!!!!

Me previously>"and began to write down THEIR theology under his assumed name."

For several pages now you seem to be laboring under the seriously mistaken impression that I am in opposition to your position, when a careful examination will indicate that such is not at all the case. I am diligently following your posts in several threads, and I am in an overall agreement with those views that you have expressed.

Our actual differences of opinion might really entail no more than some details of about when and where these, what you call "LIES" and I call "LEGENDS" began to be fabricated, earlier (me) or latter. (you)

But in any case, in this instance, you are simply barking up the wrong tree, if you think that what I have been posting is in any opposition to your overall stance, when in all reality I am an ardent supporter your posts and your expressions of skepticism.

Doug Shaver

To be charitable, if for no other reason.
I believe it is those who accuse people of lying who are in need of evidence.

aa5874

I really only respond to what I read in your post or any other post.

I have very little interest in whether or not you agree with me.

I only try to make my position known. I will "bark" when I see what appears to be errors.

Sheshbazzar

Just so we can be "on the same page" for change, at the top of this page in post # 26
you wrote;

In the next post I AGREED that;
"You cannot assume that you know what happened,"

Because for the great majority of verses and statements made in Acts, (and the Gospels), NO "corroboration..by any..other contemporary external source" has ever been found.
As you composed it, your statement;
"If the written statements of the aurthor of Acts is not true, then I cannot assume I know what happened or who was living in the 1st century"
appears to to be both an admission, and complaint about what you "cannot assume"
Am I correctly understanding what you were saying? Yes? No?

Kapyong

Gday,

No it doesn't.

Constantine and the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with selecting the books of the bible. (The CoN did not discuss this at all, and Constantine's bible from a few years later is different to the modern ones.)

It's just an old urban legend.


Kapyong

diana

I get what you're saying, judge, and I think I agree. I'm not convinced the writers of the OT or the NT intended their writings to be taken literally--and we shouldn't condemn them now because our culture claims they should be taken that way.

d