Hitch is dead

So we can put to rest your claim that "The Bible is evidence for Christianity." And your claim that it is somehow different from The Lord of the Rings.

You can if you like. I don't. Each book in the bible has to be understood within its own genre, culture and time.

So not "obviously" intended as non- fiction.

How do you want to define fiction. Is the parable of the Good Samaritan fiction. I mentioned earlier that the book of Job reads like a play to be performed. In both cases they aren't to be understood as factually true but they are written to project a more basic truth or message.

All parables are fiction. The events are "real" - i.e they have happened in real life - but the story is clearly intended to teach a lesson, not to convey facts. That's what I said. Many parts of the Bible were't even intended to be taken as truth, so it isn't "obvious" that they were.

OK, so then if a parable is fiction then we are agreed that the Bible does contain fiction. Just because the Bibl;e contains metaphors and parables that we are going to label as fiction, (I still don't agree that they are fiction but we do have an agreed upon understanding), then it doesn't mean that we are to consider then that it is all fiction without any of it being historical. The Bible again is a library of books with no doubt hundreds of people having input into the the Bible that we have today.This being the case we have to look at what is written in context of the whole Biblical narrative, the culture at the time, and the results of what is written.With all of that criteria in mind it is clear that the Biblical accounts of the resurrection are intended to be taken as historical.

Well no, it most certainly is not clear that they were historical rather than folk tales. Did the authors believe that what they were writing somewhat kinda sorta nearly probably possibly described what they thought kinda sorta nearly probably possibly did happen? Very likely BUT as the story got retold each author embellished it with details that kinda sorta nearly probably possibly might have happened.That is also true of Saul's conversion and the Great Commission and other parts of the New Testament as well.Are parts of the Bible true? Certainly, but also colored and embellished and polished and edited and revised to fit a narrative that might have had absolutely nothing to do with reality as seen by the original authors.All of the important parts, that Jesus even existed, that Jesus died as described, that the resurrection happened, that the ascension happened are things that Christians accept based on faith and belief and certainly not on facts, evidence or history.We can look at the teachings and ask if they make sense as a way of life; as a morality but those are all things that we can decide and adopt or reject regardless of whether or not anything in the Bible is factual or historical.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

You are GDR are not talking about the same thing.He says "are intended to be taken as historical"You say "... not clear that they were historical..."They may be completely unhistorical but still intended to have been.

I didn't say it was all fiction. You said basically that none of it is - i.e. that it's easily distinguishable from The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

Rowling is a contemporary and Tolkien only died in 1973 and so we from the writers themselves we know that what they wrote was written and intended as fiction even if there was an underlying theme or message.Luke however writes this at the beginning of his Gospel.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

Luke clearly "assumes responsibility for presenting only the historical and factual truth". Obviously then Luke's Gospel has to be considered non-fiction. That does not mean that everything or anything that he writes is accurate. However, even if there are small or gross factual errors it is still a work of non-fiction.I have read a considerable amount on the historical aspects of the Gospel and I have come to the conclusion that what he has written is essentially accurate. I know others like yourself reject that belief however I haven't come to that conclusion without research.

So does Holden Caulfield. When a fictional character makes a claim, that doesn't count as non-fiction.

Whether or not the writer's name is Luke does not detract from the quote. However the Gospel has always been attributed to Luke, Paul's travelling companion, from the beginning including in the writings or Irenaeous.Regardless the statement stands. The writer "assumes responsibility for presenting only the historical and factual truth".

But as I went on to say..."Did the authors believe that what they were writing somewhat kinda sorta nearly probably possibly described what they thought kinda sorta nearly probably possibly did happen? Very likely BUT as the story got retold each author embellished it with details that kinda sorta nearly probably possibly might have happened."The authors may well have believed and wanted to sell their writings as historical but that does not preclude those writings being total fiction.Our President is a great example of just that syndrome.

We're not talking about the author. We're talking about the narrator.Did he even exist? Like Ishmael in Moby Dick, we can not take the word of a fictional character as a given.

Moby Dick was written as fiction. That was the authors intent. Luke, and it probably was Luke the physician who traveled with Paul, who compiled the Gospel from sources such as Mark, Paul, possibly Q, and other eye witnesses. Irenaeus confirms that it was written by Luke fairly early on. He also confirms that John was written by the apostle. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who spent time with John. There are the parts of Acts where Luke uses the term "we" in reference to the story of Paul.So, there is good evidence though not conclusive that Luke wrote that Gospel.I agree that it is something of a narration as it is a something of a biography, that is made very clear at the beginning that it is intended to be historical, regardless of who wrote it.