J-D

That's not a historically reliable source.

J-D

It's a piece of intellectual humour.

mountainman

Is it?

Gibbon coined his own version as follows:

They are talking historically about the citizens of the Roman Empire in antiquity.
Contemporaneous with the epoch during which the Jesus literary legend is supposed to have circulated.

J-D

Yes, it is, if I can judge by my experience of intellectual humour. Do you doubt it? Does it seem to you not to be humorous? or not to be intellectual?That looks like another piece of intellectual humour to me. However, because Gibbon says 'were considered' where Seneca said 'is', it is at least possible that Gibbon's statement is literally true, whereas Seneca's statement cannot be literally true.

That doesn't change anything, though. Something can be literally true and still be a piece of intellectual humour.I suppose they are, but I'm not sure what bearing that has on the original question. Although it's hard to be sure without more specification from archibald of just what the original question was supposed to be.

aa5874

Who claimed Acts is historically reliable?

What reliable source show that Christianity started with a man called Jesus?

In the NT, in the MYTH FABLE called Acts of the Apostles it was on the DAY of Pentecost that Peter FIRST preached Christ crucified AFTER HE GOT THE HOLY GHOST and thousands of person were converted. See Acts 2.

In the Myth Fables of the NT Canon, Jesus was UNKNOWN to the Jews as CHRIST, did NOT want the Jews to be SAVED and told Peter and the disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ.

On the day Jesus Christ died in the MYTH FABLES called Gospels, Peter had ALREADY DENIED he ever knew Jesus or was associated with him and his disciples had RAN AWAY since he was arrested.

J-D

I am not sure which definition of 'myth' you have in mind, and I think it makes a difference.

Do you mean 'myth' in the sense of:
a traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; OR
a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc; OR
a commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; OR
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature; OR
any invented story, idea, or concept; OR
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution; OR
a popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal; OR
a fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology; OR
a traditional story accepted as history; OR
a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone;

or what?

archibald

That may have more relevance if we were talking about belief in god. But we're not. We're talking about whether a supposed man likely existed or not.

aa5874

Not every one supposes Jesus was a man.

Once you have already SUPPOSED Jesus was a man then you don't need any explanation for your PRE-SUPPOSITION.

archibald

Ok. I'm going to put my neck out on the block and ask, why is that a very interesting observation, given that it's based on a reading of the word 'scriptures'?

I don't want to turn this thread into a 1 Cor 15 interpolation thread, or discuss other possible reasons for thinking 1 Cor 15 might have been interpolated (whicvh I am fairly open to, at least as a possible partial interpolation). I already started that thread and it's still available. :] Actually, I'm wondering why spin is bringing it in here, in relation to that word.

But, since he has, I would be interested in briefly asking the question, since it might be an example of what analytical methods are in play. I would ask spin directly, but he's not speaking to me.

archibald

J-D,

I take your repeated point about your concerns about narrowing down definitions. I really do. If I hadn't seen countless threads go into a quagmired vortex of uncertainty even with the tightest of definitions, I might be more inclined to take that approach here.

This particular thread is not meant to be a thread where one 'team' sends out their best player aginst the other teams' best player in a one-on-one that nobody can decisively win.

It's trying to be about the match, as viewed from the stands. And perhaps even comparisons with other matches. :]

I'm fully aware of the limitations of that, as you rightly point out, but I think it may have some benefits at the same time. Plus, I think it's an entirely valid approach to ask about methods, ( or strategies, to continue with my sporting analogy) because this is a rationalist forum.

By the way, we will undoubtedly get into particular 'tackles' (I'm using soccer as my analogy incidentally) but I think that is ok (in fact I'm doing it in my post just before this one), if we can keep in mind the framework of the discussion.