mountainman

The Gnostics were a little more direct ....

mountainman

What needs to be validated and investigated by ancient historians is the forgery of these ancient texts themseves.
Who dunnit? When? Why? How? etc
Scotland Yard.
Dud cheques.
etc

Doug Shaver

Because whoever compiled the anthology had a reason for including both.

Doug Shaver

No, I don't mean to suggest anything like that. But just because it isn't harmonious doesn't mean one part of it can't shed light on another.

Doug Shaver

Because religion tends to be divorced from reality?

aa5874

But, this is not the case at all. The Gospel writers were ANONYMOUS and did NOT even identify the time they wrote. It is ONLY through deductions and assumptions that a chronology or dating can be estimated.

The NT Canon refers to a character as a Jewish Messiah who was worshiped as a God who REMITTED the sins of the Jews before the Fall of the Temple.

1.No such Jewish Messiah character who was worshiped as a God can be found in non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

2. No Jesus cult disciples can be found in Galilee or Jerusalem before the Fall of the Temple from non-apologetic sources.

3. Non-apologetics sources do NOT mention the REMISSION of Sins through a Messiah called Jesus before the Fall of the Temple.

4. A Jewish Messiah was probably the MOST significant expectation by Jews yet neither Philo nor Josephus mentioned such a Messiah.

5. The Jews ALREADY had a system in place for the REMISSION of Sins which was given through Moses by God, yet it is claimed in the NT that a Messiah called Jesus made that system obsolete but neither Philo or Josephus wrote about such a DRAMATIC change.

The Messiah called Jesus can be reasonably considered to be fictional/mythological.

There is just no external corroborative historical source for a Messiah called Jesus who was worshiped as a God.

David Deas

That's kinda the whole damn point.

Christians believe very strongly in the historical accuracy of their mythology, which was fiction invented by someone. If you honestly disagree with me, which I'm confused about whether or not is the case, but instead believe that mythology is *not* a tool commonly used to create history then you do not understand the first thing about mythology.

The gospels were ancient narratives. Incontestable fact. Point, blank, period.

aa5874

We have the "Twelve Lives of the Caesars" by Suetonius and mythology was NOT used to create the fundamental history of any of the Emperors.

The history of the TWELVE Caesars have been fundamentally corroborated by other non-Roman sources.

The Jesus story, on the other hand, is fundamentally mythological/fictional from conception to ascension and ZERO about the Jesus story has been corroborated external of apologetics.


Your assertion is NOT an incontestable fact. Point, blank, period.

The Gospels were NOT considered ancient narratives when they were thought to have been initially written within DECADES, within a GENERATION, of the supposed Messiah called Jesus.

yin_sage

That's painting with very broad strokes.

And besides, "tending to be divorced from reality" is not the same as "fictional by default". The latter is pointless handwaving.

spamandham

Ancient literature is not a strong point of mine. I really only know enough of it as I've found relevant to this particular hobby. However, Lucian's "True Story" which we've been discussing, is considered by most to be the first work of science fiction.

The genre of alternate history is credited to Livy's Ab Urbe condita. It might be fun to categorize all known genre that were created circa 1 CE +- a few hundred years.