ApostateAbe

Lies are not the same as fiction, and the difference is the intended interpretation. Lies are intended to be interpreted as true, and fiction is intended to be interpreted as false. The gospels were intended to be interpreted as true. Does that seem sensible to you?

Toto

I would prefer to reserve the term "fact" for something that can be verified, and that can be taken as true with something like 95% certainty.

What you have here is a data point. All you know is that someone composed a letter which claims to be written to Christians in Philippi. You don't know if this was an actual letter, or a literary composition in the form of an epistle. You don't know if any actually received or read this letter in Philippi. You can't be sure if this apparent letter was not a part of some wishful thinking on the part of an evangelist, or an outright fabrication, with Philippi standing in for some other location.

In this case, you don't know when this purported letter was written or who exactly wrote it. None of Paul's letter have been discovered as letters, or as anything other than as part of a collection, and we know that at least two factions of early Christians disputed their meaning, and probably edited them or subtracted from them.

This letter is generally accepted as authentic, although probably cobbled together from different fragments, but that is not the universal opinion. See The Epistle to the Philippians by F. Baur Baur gives more reasons for seeing this epistle as containing much later material, in its references to Clement.

In short, things are much more complicated than you want to believe.

aa5874

Lies are intended to be interpreted as true.

Does that seem sensible to you?

ApostateAbe

Toto, since I am not formally educated in New Testament scholarship, I really do have to rely largely on expert authorities in New Testament scholarship as a foundation for the facts I accept. If the authorities believe that the Epistle to the Philippians is authentically Pauline for whatever reason, then I likewise accept it as authentically Pauline, and I hope you will make that same assumption for the sake of argument unless you have very good reasons to doubt it. The contrary opinion of a scholar from the 19th century is right next to irrelevant to me. Given that the Epistle to the Philippians was written by Paul, then there were Christians living in Philippi using the method of neutral bias or whatever you want to call it. Is that an acceptable argument? If we, as amateur scholar hobbyists, can not accept the opinions of experts, then we have to start over from where critical scholarship first started, from the 17th century and onward, and that is a process I am not prepared to go through.

ApostateAbe

Yes.

aa5874

So, if lies are intended to be interpreted as true and the gospels were also intended to be interpreted as true, then the gospels may indeed be lies.

Now, look at the preface of De Principiis. The author made statements that were intended to be interpreted as true, but they appear to be lies.


Preface to De Principiis by Origen. Now does it seem sensible that the Jesus story were lies intended to be interpreted as true?

Yes!

See www.newadvent.org

Toto

I am not formally educated in NT scholarship, but I do know how to read and spot bad arguments and underlying religious assumptions. I would accept the expert opinion on Koine Greek translations, but I see no reason to accept the opinions on interpretation of these documents from a group that is largely dominated by religionists.

If you are not prepared to go through that process, at least recognize that others are. And You should qualify your arguments as being at most probably true, or possibly true, rather than indisputable fact.

ApostateAbe

OK, let that be the last word here.