Riverwind

Close, but I'm still curious...

What books were part of this "NT Canon"?

What books were part of this "OT Canon"?

Thanks.

mountainman

You are of course completely disregarding the existence of the Historia Augusta
which is certainly very close to "historical fiction", and includes the provision
and lavish use of forged documents. More notably, it is dated to the same
century that the "bible" was first bound and published, and in some cases of
scholarly assessment, to the rule of "Bullneck" himself.

mountainman

We may only presume that the "Canon of Truth" as depicted
by Eusebius in his Historia Eccesiastica was followed in
his editorship of the Constantine Bible.

Later chuch councils are called to decide the later canon,
but AFAIK we do not really know the contents of the
"Constantine Bible", only that it was published at the
same time when the Basilicas went up all over the empire.

spin

The guys that you are trying to respond to cannot make this distinction between ancient literature and modern. They show no knowledge, or interest to know, about ancient literature. They cannot see that the problems they note do not make sufficient conditions for their conclusions.

I didn't bring the strawman "historical fiction" into this. I merely pointed out that it was a strawman. This is what I said:

Maybe not "historical fiction", but then the Satyricon does have real people and places. You know Caesar, Augustus, Virgil. This is not a modern tendency.

I want to hang onto the baby, when you try to throw out the bathwater. Historical figures in texts do not necessarily make historical texts. I agree that such a situation doesn't make "historical fiction", but the phenomenon must be faced and dealt with nevertheless.


spin

spin

Could you make some clear logical point, or should we conclude that you haven't got one?


spin

Chris Weimer

As long as we're clear on this.

There were no children in Steve Weiss' bathtub.

But now that this is cleared up, we can move on to the real issues.

How do you tell the difference between The Golden Ass, Satyricon, and the Jugurthine War?

aa5874

I will list things that I deem to be false as recorded in the NT with respect to Jesus the Christ;
1. The prophecies
2. The virgin birth
3. The genealogies
4. The baptism
5. The temptation
6. The miraculous acts
7. The transfiguration
8. The crucufixion
9. The burial
10. The resurrection
11. The events after resurrection
12. The ascension


All the above events involve miracles, and miracles are unheard of, they are not known to occur. Everything about Jesus the Christ, as recorded in the NT, is fictitious.

J-D

Do I take it, when you say 'I have no conclusion', that you take no view on the correct answer to the question you pose: 'Did Constantine Invent Christianity?' You're not saying that he did and you're not saying that he didn't?

spin

There is more at stake than the views of Steve Weiss.

You sweep away more than just what you are trying to.

You start with what can be supported of the central narrative. The more central material that can be supported by what one knows the more one accepts that the rest has potential of being historical.

(It goes without saying that anything that seems beyond the normal world, because it cannot be supported in any way, obviously has little relevance to such an endeavor.)

The subject though, as it is of primary importance to anything we study here, should be gone into in great depth, by anyone here who is interested in history.


spin

J-D

Firstly, your list does not cover everything recorded about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures. So even if they were all not merely 'deemed' false by you, but actually proven to be false, it would not not follow that everything recorded about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures is false.

I don't know how many times I have already pointed this out to you, and I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to grasp.

Secondly, as you present your list, none of them is in a statement form, so none of them, strictly speaking, can be said to be either true or false. The sentence 'The NT states that the baptism' is not well-formed, and neither is the sentence 'The NT states that Jesus the baptism'. However, it is correct to say 'The NT states that Jesus was baptised'. Similarly, it is correct to say 'The NT states that Jesus performed miraculous acts'.

Now, if you say 'I [aa5874] deem it to be false that Jesus performed miraculous acts', then it so happens that I agree with you. So we needn't bother arguing about that. But if you say 'I [aa5874] deem it to be false that Jesus was baptised' then I don't see why I should accept that the statement is false just because you 'deem' it to be false. As far as I can see, your deeming is just unsubstantiated speculation.

Thirdly, for both these reasons I consider your statement 'Everything about Jesus the Christ, as recorded in the NT, is fictitious' to be unsubstantiated speculation.