DevilsAdvocate

My point was that it is unrealistic in reality, but the idea was an interesting fiction ... It was not my suggestion.

Maybe intelligent systems will be developed to accomplish such assessments, but right now it still relies on human factors and intelligence... restricted by human pride and blindness as to what can be true, and what is expected to be true.


Fiction models reality... How do we distinguish them in obscurity?...
Many things once held as fiction have been shown to have a basis in fact...
- Read Homer - Troy was once said to be fictional
- Many of Aristotle's explanations are hilarious fiction, others thought to be were based in reality
- Some still say Socrates was Plato's fiction, others not
- Hittites were once thought to be biblical fiction as well... turns out they had a substantial empire
- Sodom and Gomorrah were dismissed until ancient documentation found
- Atoms
- Zero
- Flying machines
- black men were meant to be slaves
... Oh yeah... the world was not round...the sun was not the center of the solar system...these were obvious fictions...

All of these and many others were fictional ideas or stories because of no "proof", or they were beyond ability to perceive reality in the extant paradigm. If nobody dared challenge what was obvious and look at it with open minds ... well... Paradigms are blinding...Challenging paradigms is threatening.

We recognize fiction because we believe it to be fiction in our perception and preference. There is no proof ... only faith no matter your position.



I have read much of what you cite as "perfect models of fiction". They are also good examples of what was considered history at the time.

Most of the writings of "Paul" are more philosophy than history. They are rife with symbolism, allegory and examples of mostly stoic philosophy of the day. Substantially similar to Seneca and Aurelius. They also reflect a clash of Roman culture with a mid-eastern culture with ancient customs and roots from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece ... and a conglomerated perception of their gods. Much is dedicated to transition from a Jewish paradigm to the Christian paradigm that is more stoicism with an incarnate example of the logos that is misunderstood.

As to Acts... the fact is that christianity was documented in one form or another by the second century. It was based then on the existance of a messiah figure. It has been developing and changing ever since.


I have seen assertions, but no rational evidence or testable model as to the reality or fiction of new testament characters to any degree of accuracy. The arguments postulated have been superficial at best ...
-arguing a few implausible examples and extending them to the whole
- assuming the correct assessment of other anti-christian apologists and
- asserting using unsubstantiated opinion and bias.

Show me credible assessible evidence that the authors were not substantially credible on their accounts....no matter their names
- Show me anachronisms in the texts
- Demonstrate an overall incoherency in unified texts
- Show me fictional places that they were supposed to have gone
- Show me an impossible timeline in events
- Show me something substantially inconsistant with the culture and customs of the day
- Show me linguistic problems
- Show me geographic problems
- Weigh all these against what the textx got correct
- At their core, the texts are more about a philosophy and a way of life than anything else ... define that philosophy and disrepute it ... and not by equating it with its heresies

But please, spare me empty platitudes and insubstantiated claims.

spamandham

This doesn't make any sense to me. We do not have any copies of "memoirs of the apostles", and only know about such a work through the same sources that tell us there was a Pauline tradition - the sources you consider so worthless as to contribute nothing whatsoever to historical analysis.

This is what I don't get. If they were inventing fiction whole cloth, then Marcion is a fictional character, and even "memoirs of the apostles" is a fictional work. I don't see how there is any rationality that dismisses the evidence for a Pauline tradition presented by Tertullian, while simultaneously accepting evidence of someone named 'marcion' or a work known as 'memoirs of the apostles'.

Care to explain?

aa5874

But, you still don't recognise your problem, you refuse to accept the evidence that you have now.

At one time the earth was believed to be flat until evidence revealed it was round, but can the earth ever be regarded as square? Yes, when the evidence shows that it is square.

For a long time, Jesus, his disciples and Paul were believed to be real, now the evidence reveals that they are not. And it is as simple as that.

If a man was found guilty based on evidence yesterday, his guilt can be reversed based on new evidence today. It is as simple as that.

So when I say Jesus, his disciples and Paul are frauds, it is because of evidence today, you can overturn my claim if you get evidence, now or tomorrow.

schilling.klaus

Lithargoel is the Logos, exactly like Jesus in the gospels, Osiris in Plutarch's work, Hermes in Poimandres, like Hercules and Mithra and Attis and Dionysos and so on and so on.

Klaus Schilling

Doug Shaver

There are two references to Luke in the Pauline corpus.
That is it. There is not a word about his having written anything. And furthermore, neither of these epistles is considered to be among the authentic works of Paul.

DevilsAdvocate

So when I say Jesus, his disciples and Paul are frauds, it is because of evidence today, you can overturn my claim if you get evidence, now or tomorrow...

Great...
Where is the indisputable evidence? I have seen only conjecture and platitudes here and in the very few references you offer. Please reference or stste your proof and give examples...

And a good story made from one's speculations and historic interpretation with a stated bias is not proof, and can hardly even be considered evidence. Writings extant from the 3rd, 4th , 5th centuries are more credible evidence that 21st century speculation and fiction.

I provided some suggestions for hard evidence to support a "proof"... you can add any verifiable data you like...

Where's the proof?

DevilsAdvocate

So are you saying there is a logos and these are all incarnate manifestations or examples... ?

Or are you saying they are all fictions?

Or are they real examples of the way of the logos as Seneca and Arelius and others would have them...later expanded upon for some philosophical, or political purpose?

Can you clarify?

DevilsAdvocate

They are not un-disputed, but nothing has been proven. The content, philosophy, and organization of Colossians is similar to "accepted" Pauline letters. Some of what he says could be troublesome to some Christian doctrines, but the ones troubled usually just ignore it.

II Timothy likewise. It is a more informal letter...similar structure...some claim different language points away from "Paul" but as I understand the argument it is just a very few terms and understandable in the different context - more of a personal letter as a mentor. Again... studied judgements with concrete arguments and evidences both ways. More than speculation, but nothing proven.

aa5874

And, the author of gLuke called himself "me" only once. That's it. Nothing else.

Luke 1.3, The author of Acts called himself "I" one single time. That's all.

Acts 1.1 I have observed a strange anomaly in the NT. The authors who wrote about the so-called detailed history of Jesus and the apostles are all anonymous and gave no information about themselves, no clues at all. However, the Pauline Epistles, which have virtually nothing on the life of Jesus and the apostles, all give the name "Paul" as the author, and now there are more than one Paul.

These "Pauls" in their epistles never mentioned the discples called Matthew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James son of Aplhaeus, Lebbaeus Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite or even Judas.

In effect, we do not know anything at all about those who knew the supposed Jesus and his disciples, and we still don't know about those "Pauls" who knew nothing about the history of Jesus.

Why would Christians writers conceal their identities, and leave no clues, yet at the same time reveal the names of their fellow Christians in their writings in great detail which may cause them great harm, persecution and even gruesome death?

I don't think a "Christian" would do that.

The NT appears to be a fiction novel.

Amaleq13

Don't forget the uses of "we".