Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:38 pm
check back and you will see, but it does not matter. Let's not get into the interpretation of Revelation right now.
You may be looking at the wrong definition of fiction. I'm referring to fiction that is something that is invented or untrue.
I know you think these things are untrue so just using an alternative word for that does not advance your argument. What if something is true and made up; is that still fiction?
Give me an example.
You have to realise that this was an era where the majority of folklorish, apocryphal and psuedographical writings were the norm, not the other way around. It was also the reason why there were over 20 original gospels in the NT, they culled it down to 4 as the former had too much folklore to be taken seriously.
It is quite hard to make sense of that first sentence. The majority is what there is most of and the norm is what is usual so to say the majority of something is the norm is tautological. I think you mean something like the majority of writings in that ere were folklorish, apocryphal and psuedographical. This still does not make a great deal of sense. Firstly, what era are you referring to, a short period such as the end of the first century when the NT writings are mostly thought to have been written or a much longer period like the first few Christian centuries. I guess you mean the majority of Christian writings not the majority of writings of any kind. The three categories you have lumped together are very diverse in meaning. By folklorish I am guessing you mean transmitted orally before being written down, and while this may be true of narrative writings it is not true of other types of writing like letters or homilies in any of the eras you may mean, and narative writings form a quite small part of surviving Christian writings. And in the case of narratives oral transmission cannot automatically be taken as an indicator of unreliability. The term apocryphal literally means hidden and derives from St Jerome. When considering the canon of the Old Testament there were certain books he felt should not be included and so were hidden. So, the term comes to mean not included in a canon. Yes, of the course the majority of Christian writings over the first few centuries were not included in the canon, but what a pointless thing to say! Again there is pseudographic material, material written under false names, and quite a lot of it, but generally the further you go back in history the less there is. The more the writings of people associated with Jesus or the apostles was valued the greater the temptation to ascribe later writings to them in the hope they would be accepted. The question of how much pseudographia relates back to that very early period I take to be still open.
I meant that the majority of writings in that era were fictional pieces of fantasy and it was normal to write fantastic, deceptive stories where the authors were lying to promote their cause.
So you used three words that did not mean what you meant to say; it would be interesting to see a break down of types of writing in that era; I would be astonished if most of the writings were narrative in form and intending to deceive.
Try reading Bart Ehrman's "Forged" http://www.bartdehrman.com/forged-writi ... me-of-god/
There is no list of canonical books I am aware of that contains 20 gospels. By 180 Irenaeus was comparing the four gospels to the four winds so the idea of these four books having authority seems to have been well established by then. It is not very long since you were telling us that the original canon was that of Marcion which contains only one gospel. There cannot originally have been only one gospel in the canon and originally have been 20.
There are well over 20 gospels of Jesus Christ. However, the Catholic Church found it necessary to leave certain ones out. The gospel of Mary Magdalene, possibly the most famous Apocrypha for example, depicts her being second to Jesus rather than Peter. It also insinuates that Mary and Jesus were lovers, and forms the basis of alternative interpretations and conspiracies such as in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus asserts that the idea of hell is not for an eternity, rather a time that meets the severity of the punishment. A gospel according to Judas (dating to around the 3rd/4th Century AD) was discovered in the 1970s but has only really been studied since the late 90s. This alters the narrative slightly to portray Judas' actions towards the end of Jesus' story not as a betrayal, but as following the instructions of Jesus himself. Considering that it is canonical Christian belief that it was God's plan to have Jesus brutally murdered, this does make some sick and twisted sense.
Rational Wiki is not a reliable source,
I would say that it is a much more reliable source than the Bible. It's not full of contradictions, forgeries, magical accounts of miracles and outright lies that fills your holy book.
It is not a view you have provided any evidence for though is it?
Read Genesis to start with. It's full of lies designed to deceive the reader. Want some examples?
Only if you can give examples that clearly indicate an intention to deceive.
Sure, I'll give some later.
It's also mainly used deceptively to empower the authors.
Either what you say or: The writers of that beast fable were symbolising something which later writers recognise as the thing they call Satan. Adam and Eve felt the presence of a tempter. There is no need to take the language of being made from the dust literally. The argument from personal incredulity is not valid.
What I say is more parsimonious. See Occam's Razor.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.