Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your unwarranted certainty about your preferred interpretation is just annoying. There is no reason your preferred interpretation should be accepted over mine. True fiction is NOT even supposed to be .......
They have been - but the evidence is strong - even compelling, I'd argue - that fiction is what they are (Though I do think there is a factual bare bones).
As an analogy, I would cite the Facts about Mrs. Leonowens, employed by Rama IV as an English teacher. There is a factual story there. It went through several redactions, first her own memoirs (two vols I recall) very much reflecting her own opinions, though useful.
Then 'Anna and the King of Siam' pretty much rewriting the whole story as a sort of Siamese "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (1). That was turned into a Film, a Musical and musical film which made this lie about the torture and execution of two Star-crossed lovers.
Finally, the recent redaction which still has that 'Tup Tin' lie made the centre of a beautifully made Hollywood romp even further from the fact than 'The King and I'.
It's a very good illustration of fabrication by writers with an Agenda seriously distorting the story and that is what happened with the Jesus story. If you haven't accepted that i have a least a case for that, you either don't read or remember my posts, or you don't care.
(1) Margaret Landon, 1944. It was that book (I recall from reading both accounts) that invented the 'story of the slave, Tup Tin'.
From 1939 -1948, there was to -and fro of the name, Siam or Thailand, when it became permanently 'Thailand' after 1948.
We have no substantive disagreement, Arq, but fiction is deliberate fiction and not just a cumulative distortion, embellishment, and elaboration of actual events. If you do not see that fundamental distinction you are not trying. You want to lump things that have unverified elements into the same category as deliberate fiction which is particularly inappropriate for the ancient eras involved. Deliberate fiction is a relatively modern development.
Homer would be surprised to hear it who in the 8th Century BC wrote what we believe to be a fictionalised version of the Trojan Wars.
Fiction in terms of fables and stories told with a moral message - regardless of any evidence the story actually happened - has a long history too.
The simple fact is that you can not show us _any_ evidence the events in the Bible actually happened in order to elevate it above fiction. And some of the events claimed in it are events of such magnitude you would expect some evidence of them having occurred. Evidence we simply do not find. Such as graves opening up and dead people walking around. You think someone somewhere outside the Bible might have noticed that as being out of the ordinary. But no, not a mention.
We have no substantive disagreement, Arq, but fiction is deliberate fiction and not just a cumulative distortion, embellishment, and elaboration of actual events. If you do not see that fundamental distinction you are not trying. You want to lump things that have unverified elements into the same category as deliberate fiction which is particularly inappropriate for the ancient eras involved. Deliberate fiction is a relatively modern development.
I am of course aware of the difference just as i can see the difference between "The two Towers" and "Flashman and the Dragon". The question is - you know that one can't be true as there is no place for it in History. But the other, based on the opium wars...could it have a basis in truth?
In fact 'Flashman' is a good analogy becasue (1) you can pick up the clues. In the first Book the writer is trying to make Lord Cardigan a "Good friend" to Flashman, but later on, he gives it up and Flashman hates Cardigan as much as anyone else. Flashman could never have written (in his old age): "He was a good friend to me", and thus you have evidence of Fabrication. Just as David and the Shewbread, the attempted assassination in Nazareth and the altered angelic message at the tomb are all evidence of fabrication. That's what matters and different types of Fiction is a red herring. As I think you know very well.
(1) will I ever be able to type "Because" correctly ever again?
Homer would be surprised to hear it who in the 8th Century BC wrote what we believe to be a fictionalised version of the Trojan Wars.
Fiction in terms of fables and stories told with a moral message - regardless of any evidence the story actually happened - has a long history too.
The simple fact is that you can not show us _any_ evidence the events in the Bible actually happened in order to elevate it above fiction. And some of the events claimed in it are events of such magnitude you would expect some evidence of them having occurred. Evidence we simply do not find. Such as graves opening up and dead people walking around. You think someone somewhere outside the Bible might have noticed that as being out of the ordinary. But no, not a mention.
Apologists have an excuse for that, too. "The great Fire of Rome was a momentous (no pun intended) event, but Philo never mentions it. That's because his attention is elsewhere. It isn't relevant. It's odd that, when we look to Tacitus and Josephus and just where even a passing mention of Jesus should pop up, Josephus turns attention elsewhere and Tacitus is missing (btw, from 4 BC to 6 AD, we get Herod's disputed lunar eclipse but no mobile star, nor indeed a massacre of Children.
We get the Flavian testament and Tacitus mentioning the Christians but one is partly spurious and really on evidence totally spurious and Tacitus (1), while it could be true (as a recorr of what the Christians claimed and which I have no problem with - Pilate executed Jesus - it could easily be spurious.
But that event makes perfect sense as a failed Messiah -effort. Indeed all the clues indicate that was what it was, and even how - the temple bust - up that the writers (in different and contradictory ways) try to cover up and make it look like a spontaneous outburst of Rightous indignation - as though jesus had never seen the temple market before. AND it is the only charge that would stick and is the the only one never mentioned.
So for Mystic to hold this up as some object -lesson display of perfect love is ludicrous.
(1) Suetpuddingus' "disturbances on behalf of Chreshtus" are likely nothing to do with Jesus.
We have no substantive disagreement, Arq, but fiction is deliberate fiction and not just a cumulative distortion, embellishment, and elaboration of actual events. If you do not see that fundamental distinction you are not trying. You want to lump things that have unverified elements into the same category as deliberate fiction which is particularly inappropriate for the ancient eras involved. Deliberate fiction is a relatively modern development.
lmao, he sees the difference.
he willfully filters everything through "I must push my belief that all things religious must be stopped ... no matter what."
just like Fundy theist must filter everything "my religion only"
same thing, same outcome. regular people will lose their freedom and liberty when these guys take power.
lmao, he sees the difference.
he willfully filters everything through "I must push my belief that all things religious must be stopped ... no matter what."
just like Fundy theist must filter everything "my religion only"
same thing, same outcome. regular people will lose their freedom and liberty when these guys take power.
The more I see the deliberate use of "fiction" for any part of a narrative that is less than plausible, I am beginning to credit your assessment of their motives, Arach. Pure fiction for entertainment was NOT very prevalent in the eras we are considering, period. Widespread deliberate fiction is definitely a modern phenomenon whereas embellishment etc. was rather commonplace in ancient stories.
Your persistent nit - picking about definitions in order to find an excuse to ignore my actual argument at least explains why you are taking such a implacable and mindless bigot as Arach as some kind of mentor.
N.b Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance (Merriam -Webster)
(Arq -comment Arach's puzzling detestation of other atheists (1) is because they are "Liberals" to him)
oh, and Projection: : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects
especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety (ibid)
That tells anyone who wants to know all they need to know about the Arachnid.
(1) though I am convinced that he is trying to talk himself into a sorta -theism. As i have said - your third disciple - which is two more than I've got .
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-27-2018 at 10:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.