spamandham

Yes.

Yes.

....and nonetheless, your conclusions don't follow. Have a great day.

Steve Weiss

Your brick analogy doesn't hold water. When one looks at truth claims one should require certain basics like definitions, premises, evidence, etc. When one is presented with a book of some sort, there is no reason to assume that the said text is true. One cannot presume what one must prove. Truthfulness has to be established through a verification process and proceed through the stages of possibility, probability, and certainty. Other requirements such as: who, what when, how etc. must be also satisfied. Bald assertions as to truthfulness while making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims cannot be taken seriously, and ancient texts will never meet these fundamental standards. One need not trouble one's self with nonsense like worldwide floods and virgin births, resurrections and an assortment of miracles. No amount of alleged evidence will validate the impossible.

Steve Weiss

One can occupy one's time doing research out of curiosity and scholarship, but as to taking these ancient works seriously it is a time-waster. The stories, characters and events that they discuss are entirely fictional. No case can be made for nonsense, miracles, and silliness.

mountainman

Let's assume for the moment that you and I are correct in assuming that the books of the canonical NT are simply and commonly fictions. My opinion is that if this is the case then there may be evidence of this fraud outside on these ancient texts, and ascertainable by means of the analysis of other texts and other evidence from the field of ancient history.

Of course they are fiction but when were the stories actually authored?
The case is to be made not for the authenticity of the stories,
but for the fraudulent misrepresentation of history by the publisher.

The possibility exists, and cannot be immediately ruled out by the available evidence, that the Christ Myth may have been imperially sponsored. If this is the case, then it is not a time-waster to try and revisit the evidence with a view in mind to sketch a revisionist history in which the Christ Myth appears for the very first time, for example, at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 CE.

yin_sage

It's clear that you didn't understand it.

There is no reason to assume anything at all about it. For example, one should not declare anything fictional by default. Certainly not an entire class of literature, as you have done.

"Ancient texts" is a pretty inclusive set. I doubt anything meaningful can be said about such a set. But, please, go ahead. It makes no sense, but go ahead.

Unless the aim is to understand something about the beliefs of certain cultural groups of the distant past, beliefs which are otherwise poorly documented.

Well that's a relief.

gurugeorge

Hmm, yeah, well, suffice to say, as with others here, I disagree. I think "Jesus Christ" is wholly mythical, but that's after some amateur investigations of the kind you think are "time wasting". Apart from the historical interest re. who produced the remnants we have and why (texts, archaeology), there's also the general question of what causes religion.

Of course nobody ("who is anybody"?) takes them seriously in their own terms; but we can accept that, and still take ancient works seriously for many, many other reasons, in our own terms (as rational investigators).

(And we are not forced to treat religious people or products with dismissive contempt, in the course of our investigations.)

mountainman

In the course of our investigations, should we not treat pious religious forgers or their product forgeries with a dismissive contempt? What would you suggest instead?

Solo

Thank you very much...

as I said, you may disagree with the premise that Mark`s readers believed in the reality of an imminent cosmic catastrophy and the coming of parousia. :huh:

This premise, together with the two propositions you have agreed to, are my argument for the dating of Mark no later than 90-100 CE (contra Detering, etc.).

Have a great day!

Best,
Jiri

Doug Shaver

Show me a reality-based religion, and I'll modify my claim accordingly.

Anybody who wants to convince me that some particular religion is true will get a better argument from me than "All religions are a crock."

Steve Weiss

I take your point that historical research can shed light on how the fraud was perpetrated and by whom, and there is a need to set the record straight, so the time may not be wasted from that point of view, as I think that I indicated. My point is that internally the texts that are held to be holy doctrine are entirely without substantiation and are obvious fiction. There is little point in trying to figure out "what Jesus actually said" when, in fact, there was no Jesus personage to make any statements. Find the bastards who falsified the record, smoke them out and condemn them and the institutions that they represent, by all means. But we know that the whole body of work is phony from start to finish before we even get started.