Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Fromper]

Not a very good argument Jacob. Not good at all.

But some think it is good. So I feel compelled to address it and will do so when time permits me.

I think it's a perfect argument against the Bible being the inerrant word of God. It was written by humans, who aren't perfect, so their different perspectives play a part in what was written. This is a perfect argument to use against fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Bible is truly perfect and that every word should be taken literally.

But for those Christians who don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, I'll agree that by itself, this isn't a good argument against Christianity. But I'm also still trying to understand exactly what those Christians do believe.

[Jacob(smooth)]

It never was an argument against Christianity, merely against the inerrancy of the bible.

[Bad Writer]

Right. Exactly the conclusion I reached. You've described, better than me, why this passage is such a big deal.

What you are saying is that the bible recorded what the witnesses saw, rather than what was actually there (colour in the eye of the witnesses) . And if that's the case the whole account becomes subject to the credulity of the witnesses!

Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"

But he didn't! That's just my perception. And if I Then claim my account is the inspired word of God and you read it, thinking it's inerrant then you'd believe that on that day Marvo really DID saw a woman in half!

If a purple robe could be mistaken for a red one, an affair could be mistaken for an immaculate conception, or a chat for healing. If we accept that the authors made mistakes, it opens the door to all kinds of unhappy possibilities. Not least the whole thing being essentially made up!

Not a very good argument Jacob. Not good at all.

But some think it is good. So I feel compelled to address it and will do so when time permits me.

Code for: "Shit! What the fuck did I just read?!"

Well done, Jacob.

[discipulus]

I have been contemplating having a discussion on ancient bioi.

Anyone here knowledgeable on that particular genre? I find them quite fascinating.

[*Deidre*]

I'm familiar ^^ but not savvy enough to be able to debate as effectively as I'd probably want.
:-)

[Fromper]

I have been contemplating having a discussion on ancient bioi.

Anyone here knowledgeable on that particular genre? I find them quite fascinating.

So I plugged the word "bioi" into both Wikipedia and dictionary.com, and I still don't know what you're talking about. Probably best to start a new thread, since I doubt it's a direct answer to the stuff in this one.

[*Deidre*]

Adding to my comment above, I don't consider the Gospels to be ancient "biographies." (but some do)

And all such writings dealing with the Gospels, outside of the Bible, I feel that same way.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

[discipulus]

I have been contemplating having a discussion on ancient bioi.

Anyone here knowledgeable on that particular genre? I find them quite fascinating.

So I plugged the word "bioi" into both Wikipedia and dictionary.com, and I still don't know what you're talking about. Probably best to start a new thread, since I doubt it's a direct answer to the stuff in this one.

bioi is the plural of bios which is latin for "life". Thus bioi would be "lives" as in "The Parallel Lives" by Plutarch which were biographies of important persons in the ancient world. Tacitus and Lucian, among others also wrote such biographies...

---

Adding to my comment above, I don't consider the Gospels to be ancient "biographies." (but some do)

And all such writings dealing with the Gospels, outside of the Bible, I feel that same way.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

I consider them to be writings best classified as Graeco-Roman "lives".

We should debate the issue some day.

[*Deidre*]

Yes, that might be fun.
The topic could center around "how does one distinguish between an actual biography and a mere fable?"

I mean, there are ancient bios out there that we all accept without pause, so might be worthy of exploring. Philosophy section?

[discipulus]

Yes, that might be fun.
The topic could center around "how does one distinguish between an actual biography and a mere fable?"

I mean, there are ancient bios out there that we all accept without pause, so might be worthy of exploring. Philosophy section?

Sure.