Kapyong

Gday,

What nonsense.

The Gospels were NOT presented as "historical truth" by their authors at all !


K.

Johnny Skeptic

Possibly, but let's not rule out the possibility that the Gospels started primarily as innocent but inaccurate revelations, and were such a mess that they were altered extensively by later Christians.

There are sufficient unresolved issues regarding authorship, dating, errors, interpolations, and innocent but inaccurate revelations for people to reject the Bible, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of unresolved scientific and philosophical issues.

If a God did not inspire the Bible, that explains why it is such a mess. A man need go no further than the miracles of Jesus and the Ten Plagues in Egypt to reject the Bible. Both claims were unprecedented news stories in human history, but corroborative non-biblical sources are expectedly not available.

mountainman

Books have authors, editors and publishers. We have absolutely no idea who the authors of the new testament were, but we do know the names and identity of certain figures who acted -- at least at one stage - as the editor (Eusebius) and the publisher (Constantine) of the books of the new testament. Both these figures asserted the gospels were historical. What do you make of that fact?

mountainman

On the other hand one should not dismiss this possibility that the HJ was an invented lie out of hand but instead retain an open mind on the matter.

aa5874

These excerpts were presented by authors of the Gospel.

Mr 15:39 -
Mt 14:33 - Joh 14:6 - John 19.35 The Gospels were presented as the truth about a son of God, offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, the Creator of heaven and earth.

The Gospels was used as the "HISTORICAL truth" against Marcion who claimed Jesus was not a GOD/MAN but a Phantom.

The Gospels were presented as "historical truth" with respect to Jesus and the disciples.

mountainman

I think it depends upon how you interpret the statement "For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist". Specifically what was actually implied by the phrase "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh". I am inclined to think that this could have simply meant an antiquated version of "Jesus Christ appeared in history".

Clearly the heaviest anathema was reserved for those saying Jesus did not come to this planet in the flesh (I think this means in history). We may conjecture that there were people who may have said something like "Jesus Christ is bullshit". For these people, the church authorities reserved the greatest anathemas.


We may try and guess what the argument was about.
Whether Jesus was mythical or historical is an option here IMO.

The argument was not settled and is ongoing.
Arius's contribution was "Before Jesus was born he was not" and other sophisms.

Eusebius admits he is the first "historian of the nation of christians".
And Eusebius in total dishonesty digs out the "original TF" in Josephus.
Eusebius identifies all other eyewitnesses and sources of "traditions" etc.
Eusebius obviously is working very very hard to substantiate Jesus's historicity.

Eusebius furnishes all the arguments and evidence concerning the "historicity" of Jesus, including citing the little known "Polycarp" and a host of other totally unknown authors, and confirms that "Jesus came in the flesh" -- that Jesus had an historical existence. I personally think that it is quite possible that Eusebius was being handsomely renumerated for lying through his teeth. For example Eusebius blandly asserts "The Eyewitness Hypothesis" that the apostles authored the gospels --- an assertion which is no longer supported by modern analysts.

Kapyong

Gday,

So, you have no evidence that the AUTHORS of the books intended them to be taken historically.

Like I said.



The fact that some people from CENTURIES later BELIEVED they were historical?

So what?

The issue is that we have NO evidence the AUTHORS did so. No-one but you believes your nonsense about Eusebius etc.


K.

mountainman

The fact that some people from CENTURIES later ASSERTED they were historical. We dont know what these people actually believed. We do know what these people actually ASSERTED in MANY BOOKS.

The issue is that we have NO evidence at all about the authors.
They forgot to name themselves and date their fabrications.
The later editor and publisher however are well known identities.

This "nonsense about Eusebius" has been admitted for a long time.
You may just not be aware of it......

"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.


-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.

Hawkins

Theologically, Christianity is exclusively about witnessing. As for actually what happened in history, you need faith no matter which side of fence you are on. History can hardly be proven.

mountainman

Theologically, philosophically, metaphysically and historically Christianity is all about the books of the new testament.

Faith does not enter into it ---- its all about evidence.

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:


1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

---- SOURCE