Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 04-16-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, how do you determine who is an historical figure of antiquity?

A whole bunch of ways. What you don't do is arbitrarilly categorize some texts as "fictional", valorize other texts as "history", and then naively accept the results of that tendentious categorization.

Quote:

If we assume you are correct that there weren't any 'historians' in antiquity who were interested in "scholarship" and truth, then it is reasonable to accept that the NT may be fictitious and Jesus was fabricated. Now, I hope you are not naive enough to disagree.

There you go again. You use a category that doesn't exists -- stuff by "historians" -- to categorize the Christian scriptures as non historical, and then have your conclusion.

Here's a concept: Herodotus, Thucydides and Tacitus weren't historians either. So, are you willing to say everything they wrote about were "fictions." If so, speak up man. I suspect you aren't. If not, tell us why not.

J-D · 04-16-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, how do you determine who is an historical figure of antiquity?

I'm not claiming that I have. You are. How do you determine who is a historical figure of antiquity?

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I regard it as a compilation of material from heterogeneous sources which has not been edited into a coherent whole.

I happen to think it is fundamentally fictitious, but the book called Revelation is not particulary coherent.

J-D · 04-16-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I was hoping that you would have told me how you regard the NT.
That would be great.

Well, I've done that now. Why were you hoping I would? What's great about it? What difference does it make?

mountainman · 04-16-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

So now you, after all the things you've said about him, want to use the judgement of Constantine as your standard? I don't think so. I'm certainly not going to.

As an historian we are obliged to consider the possibility
that Constantine the Great invented christianity and
published the Constantine Bible with effect from his
military supremacy party at Nicaea.

Quote:

Christian theology isn't coherent, either.

I carefully attempt to separate out the issues
of theology and the issues of history. I am very
interested in the latter, and not at all interested
in the former. Perhaps this is of assistance in
any future dialog.

J-D · 04-16-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

As an historian we are obliged to consider the possibility
that Constantine the Great invented christianity and
published the Constantine Bible with effect from his
military supremacy party at Nicaea.

I don't know whether I would qualify as a 'historian', but I am prepared to consider the possibility. The way I am considering it is by examining the quality of the arguments you are putting forward for it. So far I see some problems, as mentioned in earlier posts, and so far you haven't dealt with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I carefully attempt to separate out the issues
of theology and the issues of history. I am very
interested in the latter, and not at all interested
in the former. Perhaps this is of assistance in
any future dialog.

It was you, not me, who said:

'Our modern scholarly
opinion of Constantine is that he should be regarded
as "one of the eminent christian theologians of his era".'

Why did you think that remark was relevant?

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Here's a concept: Herodotus, Thucydides and Tacitus weren't historians either. So, are you willing to say everything they wrote about were "fictions." If so, speak up man. I suspect you aren't. If not, tell us why not.

I have been dealing with fictitious nature of the NT, I cannot tell what else is fiction.

aa5874 · 04-16-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Given the subsequent significance attributed to his death by a few, one would think he did something to impress those sufficiently to warrant that consideration. A great deal of the evidence suggests this involved teaching and appearing capable of magical acts. Please do not ignore the word I've placed in italics. You have, in past posts, seemed incapable of making the distinction between being capable of magic and being believed capable of magic.

Your statement cannot be substantiated. It is just speculation. Any one can fabricate a Jesus, using their imagination.

The NT does not support you, the events surrounding Jesus are clearly fictional, however many people believed they were true even today.

Can you explain the 2000 pigs filled with devils that drowned? What kind of magic was that?

J-D · 04-16-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have been dealing with fictitious nature of the NT, I cannot tell what else is fiction.

Why not? Either you have some way of distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction or you don't. If your method only works when applied to the NT, and has no application to anything else, it doesn't sound reliable to me.

J-D · 04-16-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you explain the 2000 pigs filled with devils that drowned?

Can you?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.