spin

Is the information that Jesus was born in Bethlehem also fictitious, despite the fact that it is not miraculous? Is the information that Jesus went around Galilee also fictitious, despite the fact that it is not miraculous? Is the information that Jesus spoke to a lot of people and made disciples also fictitious, despite the fact that it is not miraculous? These more mundane things are recorded in the NT, but are they fictitious? If so, how do you know?

And face it: that something contains miraculous material is not a sufficient criterion to say that something is fictitious, just suspicious. We tend to shelve the things that cannot be handled, like I shelve the fewer miracles in accepted ancient historical texts.


spin

mountainman

I look at the evidence for the existence of christianity in history
across a broad spectrum of sources, that is not restricted to the
"traditional literature". Aside from "conjectures based on the
analysis of handwriting on ancient papyrii and ms", there appears
no firm evidence for the appearance of "the tribe of christians"
prior to the fourth century, when the basilicas went up.

IMO the question cannot be answered with a simple "no".
There you have it.

J-D

In your opinion, can the question be answered with a simple 'yes'?

aa5874

I took into account passages from the NT, Matthew to Revelation, I examined certain passages of the OT, I also read some of the writings of Josephus, Irenaeus, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Porphyry, Origen and other writers of antiquity. I have also read thousands of posts by MJers and HJers on IIDB and have come to my conclusion that Jesus the Christ, as described in the Christian Bible, is fiction, non-historical.

One of the most overlooked and extremely important writing, at least in my view, is Against Heresies by Irenaeus, because this work gives an insight of the development of prevailing concepts of the Christ in the 2nd century.

From Against Heresies, I have come to the realisation that the NT, as we have it today, does not reflect all versions of the Christ or when the versions were actually established. Also, from Irenaeus, it is noted that the non-HJ was a prevalent concept and other Gods were conceptualised to neutralise the God of the Jews, which was considered evil or extremely harsh to mankind.

But the most important observation for me is that no concept of the many versions of the Christ was established to be real, they were only believed to be real. Irenaeus believed one version, Marcion, Valentinus and Balisides all believed differently, none was established to be true. The phantom, the unbegotten and the begotten have no place in history, possible in theology. These versions were brought to earth by miracles and false prophecies.

Now, if I consider Jesus the Christ to be fiction, how can he be born in Bethlehem or be in Galilee when he came to earth miraculously?

spin[/QUOTE]

Chris Weimer

I didn't think so; even you agreed that I was right. But it's immaterial now.

Could you elaborate?

So...how does this answer my question?

I get a vague feeling that not many here are actually interested in history. As a Classicist first and foremost, it's of grave importance to me. But it has immediate bearing on the Historical Jesus quest.

Steve Weiss

Historical fiction may be a modern term but is not a modern form of writing. The bible is no different than other ancient and highly questionable sources. It is, however, passed off as holy writ, beyond question, of divine inspiration, more true than any history book, and these claims do not hold up to even a cursory scrutiny. In addition, the bible, and conformity to official Roman interpretations of it, carried with it severe sanctions for dissent. The bible is not a neutral, innocuous history book, it is a means of indoctrination and enforced obedience to a set of irrational ideas and values. The predominance of the bible retarded Western Civilization of about 1500+ years and continues to do so. The war between fact and faith is one that cannot be avoided or ignored.

spin

Whether you consider Jesus to be fiction or not is irrelevant to the forum. What is relevant is what you can show. You consistently go beyond your data. You are willing to hop butterfly-like from one thing to another without creating a nexus which allows you to say anything definite. Our task is to get at the history to be foundin the gospels or lack thereof, not the views of people who are ultimately irrelevant to that.


spin

Steve Weiss

If the above described methodology were used with the intent to mislead and deceive, then the bible is a fraud and piece of pernicious propaganda. Intent is difficult to evaluate, but it is likely that propaganda was its intent when one considers the motivations of its writers and advocates. The bible formed the basis for millennium long thought control and was the glue that bound empires together.

Steve Weiss

Similar forms for different purposes. In one case the objective is to criticize and in the other to deceive and manipulate. Ancient mythologies could be considered historical fiction, so the art-form is not new at all. The battle for Troy: historical fact, fiction or historical fiction?

Steve Weiss

A work of fiction that alludes to historical figures and places can be classified as historical fiction since it has elements of both.