TedM

That's just nuts aa. "Hey I want to deceive my 'audience' so I'm going to copy word for word Fiction from someone else and then add my own deceptive stuff even though the can be deceived just as well by reading the original source that makes a fictional claim since as people like aa know, all it takes to deceive someone is to make a fictional claim." Do you not see how ridiculous the assumptions are that you use to conclude this? There is NO NEED TO COPY if all that they were trying to do was deceive since ACCORDING TO YOU all that is needed to deceive is to say that Jesus was resurrected.

No, your explanation is not even close, as it is nonsensical. Try again.

aa5874

Your explanation is totally absurd.

Are you so out of touch with reality? The person BEING DECEIVED does NOT know the MATCHED word-for-word resurrection event is Fiction.

It is the authors who repeat the resurrection knowing they would DECEIVE.

You very well know that up to today people BELIEVE the resurrection occurred because it is REPEATED by EVERY SINGLE author of the Jesus stories, even in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles.

Toto

Do you have a single example of a historical reference that feels the need to quote text verbatim (without quotation marks or attribution)? I don't, but there are numerous examples of religious texts that do. Much of the NT can be traced verbatim to the Septuagint.

I don't think that the gospel authors intended to deceive. I think they just wanted to improve the story, like a remake of a movie, or a Shakespeare play updated with contemporary references.

This is all literature. If there is any historical core, that has yet to be demonstrated.

TedM

Your response is totally absurd.

Are you so out of touch with reality? The person BEING DECEIVED does NOT NEED a MATCHED word-for-word resurrection account: He just needs the original.

The authors do not NEED to copy over something that already is successfully deceiving, if deception is their purpose.

You very well know that up to today people BELIEVE the resurrection occurred because they have heard it from people of authority. The creation of multiple synoptic accounts with contradictory information has served to REDUCE the level of belief due to a perceived conflict of authority.

Copying to increase deception is an absurd and twisted concept, as it was unnecessary, and it reflects a highly paranoid view of authority.

TedM

I take it your answer is 'no'. What we are seeing verbatim isn't the Septuagint. It is the account of the sayings and doings of a man in recent Galilee being portrayed as the Messiah, and it appears that what is being copied was written close in time to the copying. Very different.

The desire to 'improve the story' requires that there was a 'story' to improve. We have zero evidence that the authors were telling a 'story' and we have 2 authors portraying their works as true accounts, presumably requiring some research to verify certain traditions as also believed by others to be true.

Toto

You haven't answered my question either.

Just some language from it

You have inserted "recent" into what we can know from the account. And "what is being copied was written close in time to the copying." makes absolutely no sense to me.

Bullshit. We have the story itself - that is evidence.

Except that there is no evidence of research or traditions or that anyone else believed it to be true.

Why do you keep repeating this crap? You have something that looks like an attempt at a logical argument, but it isn't persuasive, and you are not meeting my objections. What's your objective here? To trade charges with aa5874?

TedM

The 'smell test' is that people don't knowingly quote verbatim in large measure if they believe what they are quoting is fictional. You have been unable to provide an example to disprove this smell test.





It is much more recent than the Septuagint. Change last sentence to "what was copied was done so soon after the original was written".


We are talking about what the authors believed to be true. There is zero evidence that the authors did not believe what they were writing was true.




SO, they are liars then? Not just telling a story for religious reasons--actual liars? Is that your claim or do you prefer the interpolation argument?



Great questions. I'm done. Thanks for participating.

maryhelena

And that, Ted, is your problem - the jump from "a man in recent Galilee being portrayed as the Messiah" to the gospel JC story, is a jump you have no way of achieving.

All the could be, all the possibilities that it could be so, don't translate into historical evidence. Far better to settle for a real JC than to frustrate oneself with the futile search/arguments for a historical JC.

Yes, I do go along with you re the gospel story not being a work to deceive - but that does not make it history either. The gospels are dealing with salvation history. ie something happened in history that motivated, that inspired, that gospel JC story. Which means that there is a historical core to the gospel story - but JC is not that historical core. JC is the 'salvation' element, the interpretation, the prophetic interpretation, of recent history. History viewed through a prophetic lens. The interpretation, the 'salvation history, is not history. Image and reality. The gospel JC is the image that reflects a specific historical interpretation. JC is the symbol, the marketing tool - behind which lies historical realities that the gospel writers found to be relevant for their 'salvation' interpretations.

The problem with images and symbols is that they can become tarnished with age. In the case of the JC image, that tarnishing has been the attempt to historize that image. ie making the image out to be real, to be historical. Indeed, that tarnishing probably started very early. Once historical memories fade - the image starts to fuse with the history that it once represented. All that demonstrates is that the medium in which the gospel writers were working - prophetic history - was not so easily appreciated by a gentile audience.

Prophetic history? History viewed through a prophetic lens.

aa5874

Your claim is UTTERLY ERRONEOUSLY. People have been known to DECEIVE others by repeating or writing what they know to be fiction.

Toto

OK, here's an example

PlagiarismHere's another

That's just on the first page of a google search.

Your smell test is defective.