How much of scripture is fiction?

[polonius]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

[Difflugia]

I see no answer here to my request. Could you perhaps highlight in you answer PROOF pertaining dating the death of Peter.

Eusebius wrote (Hist. eccl. book II, chapter XXV) that both Paul and Peter were executed by Nero. Nero reigned from A.D. 54 to A.D. 68. Church tradition says A.D. 64 for both Paul and Peter, but Nero's death in A.D. 68 is a pretty solid terminus ad quem as long as Eusebius is at least right about Nero ordering their executions.

I'm still waiting for the references I asked for.

[JehovahsWitness]

I see no answer here to my request. Could you perhaps highlight in you answer PROOF pertaining dating the death of Peter.

Eusebius wrote (Hist. eccl. book II, chapter XXV) that both Paul and Peter were executed by Nero. Nero reigned from A.D. 54 to A.D. 68. Church tradition says A.D. 64 for both Paul and Peter, but Nero's death in A.D. 68 is a pretty solid terminus ad quem as long as Eusebius is at least right about Nero ordering their executions.

So we can conclude that there is evidence that both Apostles were dead by about 68. What bearing does this have on the argument that the Aposle Peter could not have written there Epistles that bear his name ie that the letters of Peter could not possibly have been penned within this period (Please spare me theological specualtons based in interpretation of content, I am interested in external verifiable evidence).


Thank you for your patience,


JW

[Difflugia]

What bearing does this have on the argument...

Very little.

Your current argument is that several church fathers accepting the authority of 1 Peter and its own statement of authorship are sufficient to conclude that it was really written by Peter. When I challenged that (with references!), you claimed to know of documented evidence that some collection of people including Paul would never let a pseudonymous letter gain acceptance, but have yet to identify that evidence. Whether you ultimately provide any such documentation, the date of Paul's death affects whether or not he could have had any influence over the acceptance of a letter written in the late first century or early second century.

You then wanted to know why I think Peter died at about the same time as Paul, so apropos of nothing else, I told you.

[brianbbs67]

What bearing does this have on the argument...

Very little.

Your current argument is that several church fathers accepting the authority of 1 Peter and its own statement of authorship are sufficient to conclude that it was really written by Peter. When I challenged that (with references!), you claimed to know of documented evidence that some collection of people including Paul would never let a pseudonymous letter gain acceptance, but have yet to identify that evidence. Whether you ultimately provide any such documentation, the date of Paul's death affects whether or not he could have had any influence over the acceptance of a letter written in the late first century or early second century.

You then wanted to know why I think Peter died at about the same time as Paul, so apropos of nothing else, I told you.

I would have to agree that there is sketchy evidence in the first 2 centuries with many thing contradicting or just too far afield to accept. The Apostles seem to have faded into anonymity by70-95 AD. There is little evidence Peter was killed in Rome. Rumours started in 195 but they were just that. However, something did happen because belief follows to this day. Why is that? Delusion verification, truth, or something else? It is a Phenomenon. If it cant be determined, why do people believe still? There is truth here, somewhere or it wouldn't be discussed today. I am not making an argument from nothing, just find it curious something comes from it.

[onewithhim]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

Why would Catholics discard the fact of Jesus' origin in heaven by his Father's hand---the first thing created by God? (Colossians 1:15) This is clearly spoken in the letter to the Colossians. Then, we are plainly told of Jesus' birth as a human by the power of God's holy spirit, by way of the womb of Mary. His being born twice is not such an odd idea.

The only fiction in the Bible are the parables of Jesus, which are not actual events with actual people, but portray important truths (much as Aesop's Fables have done). For example, the story of "The Rich Man and Lazarus" is not literal, telling of actual people, but is a scenario to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and how they are tormented---not by literal flames but---by the revealing of their lack of acceptance by God of their performance as shepherds of the people. Jesus whisked off the veil of supposed godly piety and unmasked those Pharisees as disapproved by God (which is what their "death" means in that parable).

I would say that the rest of the Bible contains truth that is imperative for us to pay attention to. The theme is always the same, throughout---God's coming Kingdom by Christ.

[polonius]

one within Him posted:

Why would Catholics discard the fact of Jesus' origin in heaven by his Father's hand---the first thing created by God? (Colossians 1:15) This is clearly spoken in the letter to the Colossians. Then, we are plainly told of Jesus' birth as a human by the power of God's holy spirit.

RESPONSE:

If Jesus was created by God, Jesus is a created being and not eternal, hence not divine.

[Difflugia]

The only fiction in the Bible are the parables of Jesus, which are not actual events with actual people, but portray important truths (much as Aesop's Fables have done).

Even by these standards (i.e. unambiguously intentional fiction meant to tell a story with a moral), one has to include the Book of Ruth. Several character names were selected for the part they play in the story. Naomi's sons, Mahlon and Chilion were named something to the effect of "sickness" and "wasting away." "Orpah" means the back of the neck and mirrors a Hebrew idiom ("turning one's neck" to someone is akin to the English "turning one's back"). As I pointed out elsewhere, chapter 3 is a dirty joke. The moral of the story is that Moabite wives aren't as bad as Ezra would have us believe.

Whoever wrote it picked a name out of a list of David's ancestors (1 Chronicles 2) about whom nothing else was written and then wrote a fictional backstory.