aa5874

I think that these real names and places were not co-incidental but were placed in the NT to make Jesus the Christ seem real.

spin

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.


spin

Chris Weimer

It's a question of precision. On the standard understandings of the Petronian Question, the Satyricon (which, lo and behold, is implied by the name itself) is a satire, with Nero as the target. A far stretch from our modern "historical fiction".

spin

Umm, point missed? We are not dealing with the straw man "historical fiction". If someone uses it as an analogy, then you take from that what is relevant, ie that a narrative can have historical allusions without its core material being necessarily historical, as can be seen with the Satyricon. The letters between Jesus and Abgar involve the historical figure Abgar. The Paul/Seneca letters also deal with a historical figure. These are a 'far stretch from our modern "historical fiction"'. OK?


spin

J-D

It doesn't. It's your misunderstanding to think that I did. I do not believe that any of the miraculous stories in either the Jewish or the Christian Scriptures are or have been validated. I didn't say that. You are falsely attempting to portray me as an adherent of a position I do not hold. My guess is that you don't understand the position I actually hold and, what's more, that you don't want to.

I made a specific assertion. You challenged it. I substantiated it. Accept it and admit it.I have never seen Forrest Gump and am not interested in doing so. I accept your description of it. So what? I know there are in existence stories in which real people are depicted as doing things which in real life they never did. There are also in existence accounts of real people doing things they really historically did. And there are in existence accounts of fictional people doing things. And there are in existence accounts which are various combinations of these. Knowing that all these different categories are possible isn't sufficient information to tell us into which category a particular instance falls.Again, there are multiple possible explanations of the motives of the authors of the Bible. You have given no reason why we should accept this particular account rather than any other.

J-D

But you have not given any reason why anybody else should agree with this conclusion. So all you have actually presented here is unsubstantiated speculation.

Chris Weimer

No, spin, the point is old and worn out, but can hardly be missed. I understand exactly what you were saying, but I don't think Steve Weiss fully has the concept down.

You are correct that it's possible to have an historical figure in a non-historical narrative. But that's not what Steve Weiss was saying here, was it?

Does that sound anything remotely close to what you were saying? I'm surprised even you would bother to defend someone who takes this stand, as I seem to recall you yourself taking an opposite stance.

aa5874

I forgot to mention some of the reasons, let me give you some.

1. The prophecies about Jesus the Christ are fictitious, for example, Isaiah 7:14 is taken out of context, since the entire book of Isaiah including chapter 7 does not deal with a character refered to Jesus the Christ.

2. The virgin birth of Jesus the Christ is fictitious, real persons are not the sons of ghost.

3. There is no angel named Gabriel and this so-called angel have never spoken.

4. The genealogies of Jesus the Christ are contradictory and one is fictitious.

5.The miraculous acts of Jesus the Christ are all false, including putting devils in 2000 pigs.

6. The burial of the body of Jesus the Christ is a complete mystery, he was buried in a sealed tomb under guard and his disciples have never seen his dead body again.

7. The so-called Saul/Paul could not recall if Jesus the Christ was real.

8. The Paul of Galations is not the Paul in Acts.

I have more reasons to show that the Jesus the Christ is fictitious, for example, chapter 8 of Matthew contains all fictious events from beginning to end.

I have more reasons, but that's some for now.

mountainman

This thread relates to the historicity of Jesus the christ.
This figure is not mentioned whatsoever in the LXX, OT,
Hebrew Bible, Juadaic tradition, Septuaguint, etc, etc, etc
(whatever you want to call it --- call it that).

The purported figure of JC is not mentioned in this literature.
One reason for this is that most people understand the literature
to have been written centuries BCE. This is a good enough
reason for me, as well.

However, the books of the modern bible which have been
handed down to us in the great tradition of literature contain
an addition set of books to those described above (as the OT).

These are the NT books, which do speak of a purported figure
called JC, and in which it is claimed that he lived in the rule of
Augustus.

These NT and OT books were first bound together in one publication
(called now, "The Bible") within a few years of Constantine's
maleovolent and despotic "Supremacy Party" (aka Nicaea).

The writing is on the wall.

spin

I wasn't talking about Steve Weiss. And no, the point is not old and worn out when you are willing to appeal to modern historical fiction. Weiss, like aa5874, has proven he isn't likely to perceive the texts for what they are and say, so at the moment he certainly doesn't "fully ha[ve] the concept down."

You were injecting your agenda along the way and that's where my interest lay.


spin