Malachi151

LOL, true enough.

Malachi151

Well, consider what people would think about the existence of Socrates, whose existence is already doubted, if every description of the deeds of Socrates was a quote or paraphrase from the works of Homer, and if the words he was recorded to have spoke on his death came from an ancient Greek poem, though they were not attributed as such in the records of Plato.

Now, if every account of Socrates could be traced to literary allusions and quotes and paraphrases from Homer, wouldn't the reasonable conclusion be that Socrates was a heroic invention, constructed from the works of Homer?

It would be.

That is exactly what we find of Jesus, a heroic invention constructed from the Jewish scriptures.

aa5874

And to further augment your position, if it could be shown that even passages taken out of context or mis-interpreted were also attributed to this character, then it would be a clear indication that the figure was a clear invention.

Jesus, according to NT, fulfilled prophecies that are now considered to be mis-interpreted or taken out of context. His crucifixion is a blatant example.

Amaleq13

Please explain your reasoning here since what you describe seems to me to suggest the opposite. How do examples of authors apparently forcing a biblical passage to fit their story suggest that the story is fiction?

Wouldn't we expect the opposite for a story completely based on biblical passages? Why would they make their work harder by writing a story that requires one to mangle a passage that is supposed to have been fulfilled instead of conforming the story to what the passage actually says?

Yes and one you have yet to adequately explain.

aa5874

Well, does the apparently forcing of a biblical passage to fit their story suggest that the story is true?

I don't know what to expect. I don't know who wrote those stories in the NT, but one of the authors claimed that another author may have been involved in the killing of so-called Christians. This author may have had the ability to mangle a passage. They mangled the genealogies of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, and I really didn't expect them to do that.

I probably will never be able to adequately explain the crucifixion, it just does not make much sense to me. The simplest explanation I can find, for now, is that the crucifixion story was written maybe 100 years after the alleged event.

Doug Shaver

Are you under the impression that there is no other way to discredit Christianity?

Amaleq13

That is certainly and obviously a reasonable possibility.

There must be some reason external to Scripture that compelled them to force such a notion upon the text. Given that the claim was clearly contrary to their efforts to obtain converts, this reason must have been quite compelling indeed. Historical fact is certainly a compelling reason.

What other equally compelling reason might result in the same outcome?

You don't know what to expect from a story based entirely on Bible passages? Perhaps a really good fit between the story and the passages from which it was obtained?

I have no idea what you are talking about here and no idea how it is supposed to be relevant.

Davidic lineage was a messianic requirement. It doesn't seem surprising to me that someone would attempt to establish fulfillment of it.

Given how central it is to the issue, I would think this might suggest a more agnostic position than the one you have taken.

I don't see how that is either more simple or more explanatory.

aa5874

What must that reason be? And what historical fact must have been that compelling reason? Could you elaborate? You seem reasonably sure that Jesus was crucified, I am not so sure about that. It seems more like fiction to me.

Amaleq13

As I already said, something from outside the text.

You need to reread my post more closely since I never made this assertion.

Until you can offer a credible explanation as to why would they choose such an inherently problematic means of execution, such a conclusion remains specious.

Solitary Man

1. It wouldn't disprove Christianity.
2. It was raise a furor with Classicists and Jewish scholars. Hell, we would not even be able to trust inscriptions, as clearly there's an inscription of Pontius Pilate.