How reliable are these stuffs about Jesus?

Nov 2016
400
Munich
#61
What the ancients thought of as fully historical is not necessarily what you think of fully historical. Ancients defined the word differently.
Instead of answering my question, you present again a distraction tactic easy to see through, by lining up empty phrases.

What means "not necessarily"? Maybe, maybe not? That´s an all too vague statement, don´t you think? Why had the Ancients - as you boldly suggest - no idea of a difference between "true" and "false" with regard to past events and persons? Did the Christians not think that, e.g., Adam and Eve were real persons that lived about some thousand years ago? Did Paul not take Adam for a real human when he called Jesus a "Second Adam"? Did Paul not think that Adam was historical when he mentioned him in one breath with Moses?

Romans 5

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

So again my question to you, for the 3rd time (!):

Did the early Christians take the Bible´s content for fully historical or not?

(Aid to understanding: "Historical" means here simply "real")

Please provide precise arguments instead of empty phrases.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
705
Adelaide south Australia
#62
Well, but in what relation stands all that to a book (the Bible) which contains stories about a world creation in 6 days, about a human couple in a Garden Eden being seduced by a snake, about an itinerant preacher who is the son of the world creator and whose blood redeems mankind, and so on and so on? You are seemingly confusing Jewish-Christian religious and Roman political propaganda, or in other words: hallucination and lying, as if there were no difference. Moreover, the central figures reported by Roman historians are undoubtedly historical, while the central figures "reported" in the Bible (e.g. Yahveh/the LORD, some angels, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mary, Peter, Paul) are fantasized resp. historically doubtful. Thus, your excursion to Roman historiography is per se interestering but only little relevant to the question of the accuracy of biblical stories.

No, I most certainly am not making a false comparison. It's a matter of degree. I was only using Roman historians in the context of Biblical fantasies.

But, hey, I think we are simpatico about the reliability of the bible and any other putative revealed truths.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#63
Instead of answering my question, you present again a distraction tactic easy to see through, by lining up empty phrases.

What means "not necessarily"? Maybe, maybe not? That´s an all too vague statement, don´t you think? Why had the Ancients - as you boldly suggest - no idea of a difference between "true" and "false" with regard to past events and persons? Did the Christians not think that, e.g., Adam and Eve were real persons that lived about some thousand years ago?
Which Christians are you referring to? Medieval Christians who often took things allergorically? Modern fundamentalist? Modern Catholics? Modern Presbyterians? They are not all the same.

Some characters were assume to be real, no wuestion, King David and the like. Others possibly more symbolically. We know that somecharacters really existed, like King Ahab, or King Hezekiah, and some events or more just a story, like Jonah swallowing a whale. We can refer to and talk about fictional people as if they are real, we do it all the time. We can refer to Harry Potter even though we know he is just a fictional character.

So the answer it depends.

Did Paul not take Adam for a real human when he called Jesus a "Second Adam"? Did Paul not think that Adam was historical when he mentioned him in one breath with Moses?
Probably, but necessarily. Scientist can and do talk about an Adam and Eve. After all, someone had to be the first human, the human race did not always exist as you seem to believe.


Did the early Christians take the Bible´s content for fully historical or not?


Whuck books of the Bible? King's? Yes. Jonah? Possibly not.

Please provide precise arguments instead of empty phrases.

Please be more specific in which books you are referring to of the Bible. The Bible was weitten over a 2000 year period by many authors. Did the early Christians believe all of Genesis was literal? That if you had Mr. Peabody's Way Back Macine you would see the world created in 6 twenty-four hours days as measured by their water clock? Possibly not. If Moses and Abraham were real as you and I? Yes..
 

Similar History Discussions