Embellishment Theory

[Churchwork]

Embellishment Theory (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Deceptions.htm)

That would be a strange phenomena how the Bible could be all fiction, written over hundreds of years, by different fictional authors adding to the story. I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around that one.

Let's say the New Testament was written over 50 years by one person. Maybe this person was so versed in the Old Testament stories, he fit the New Testament together with it really well, even matching many contemporary persons and archaeological reference points.
How do you disprove this allegation?

Since so many corroborating independent sources of apostles knowing apostles, disciples working with disciples, across different periods of time, and there is no evidence for novel theory, then this theory falls on its face. The burden is on the skeptic to show fictional theory could be true.

Ancient critics tried to refute the resurrection, indicating it was historical.

The award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas says it best I think. "If we look at the New Testament material on Jesus' resurrection, there are indicators that the accounts were meant to be understood as historical rather than mythical [or fictional]. Consider the two sermon summaries of Peter and Paul, recorded in Acts, that contrast King David's buried body with Jesus' resurrected body" (Acts 2.22-32; 13.34-37) (88-89).

They claimed that Jesus' body did not decay in the grave as David's did, but rather was raised by God. It is difficult to imagine how Peter and Paul could have been any clearer if they meant to communicate a literal, physical resurrection. If a mythical [or fictional] genre was being employed, Peter and Paul could have easily said, "David died, was buried, his body decayed, but his spirit ascended to be with God. Jesus likewise...."

On page 294-295, we read, "Also note that Peter's sermon as portrayed in Acts 10:40-41, he claimed that he and others "ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead." Luke seems to be intending to record historical events when in Luke 1.1-3, he writes,
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the world, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have taught."
New Testament critical scholar Bart Ehrman comments,
"There may indeed be fictional elements in the account, as we will see; but judging form the preface to volume one from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and from the main characters themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can be more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Christianity, not a novel. Moreover, all of the ancient Christian authors who refer to the book appear to have understood it in this way." (Bart D. Erhman, [I]The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], 124)
See also A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 188-89. "The work of Luke cannot be evaluated properly if we group it with inferior contemporary literature that treats of heroes, thaumaturges and other popular characters. It is genuine history" (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981], 3:395).

Some scholars have noted that the appearance language in the New Testament is the language of sight (Luke 24.34, Acts 10.40-41, 13.30-31, 1 Cor. 15.5-8). The writers did not use metaphorical language, so they at least thought God had acted literally upon them in the appearances of the risen Jesus.

Although 2 Peter cannot be part of the "minimal facts" argument because many scholars question its authorship by Peter, it still provides early testimony that at least some Christians within one hundred years after Jesus were interpreting events such as Jesus' transfiguration and resurrection as historical events.

In summary I would say, if the intent was to be historical and not mythical or fictional, I am not sure how they could be any more clear. And if they wanted to be mythical or fictional, I can't find any evidence for this proposition from the historical record. Praise the Lord!

On page 295...
We can also note with New Testament scholar Craig Bloomberg, "A careful reading of the patristic evidence suggests that indeed the vast majority of early Christians did believe that the type of information the Gospel writers communicated was historical fact, even as they recognized the more superficial parallels with the mythology of other worlds."

[columbus]

Embellishment Theory (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Deceptions.htm)

That would be a strange phenomena how the Bible could be all fiction, written over hundreds of years, by different fictional authors adding to the story. I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around that one.


Hello Churchwork.

This seems like a simple concept to me. Most ancient literature was fiction. They simply didn't have modern standards of journalism, so they didn't expect literature to be either literally true or else labelled fiction, the way we modern people do. And, of course, the Bible isn't one work of literature it a library of different works all bound together. Some of them were legends, some historical, and some theological treatises. All of the authors had agendas. It is possible that at least some of them were trying to accurately convey events they had evidence happened. But it is more likely that none of them did. This explains the various contradictions. From simple and clear disagreements about Jesus' ancestry to the enormously diverging images of god presented, it is obvious that the various authors were writing from their own human perspective.

A large group of fallible humans invented the Bible as they went along, so they made mistakes. They weren't lying, they were just writing what they wanted written and they weren't capable of describing reality because they didn't know much about it. They described an earth that is flat and about 6,000 years old. They described a god who varied enormously. This description of god varies from the physical being in Genesis to the invisible god of Moses to the ineffable god of the New Testament. God has continued to progress toward non-existence since the Council of Nicea(another group of fallible humans) ossified an image of god in a canon. But even then, Martin Luther came along and upset the RCC applecart, which was the official "Christianity" for about a thousand years. Nowadays, we have Christians like Spong taking God yet a bit further from the ancient god described in Genesis.


In summary I would say, if the intent was to be historical and not mythical or fictional, I am not sure how they could be any more clear. And if they wanted to be mythical or fictional, I can't find any evidence for this proposition from the historical record. Praise the Lord!
The evidence that they didn't really distinguish between historical and mythical is very easy to find. But you have to want to see the truth or you won't.

The first book of the Bible, Genesis, starts with two different and mutually exclusive creation stories. I believe that is a statement from the redactors of Genesis, "Don't take this too seriously as literal truth". The authors of the Bible themselves did not believe in It as literal truth.

Tom

[Churchwork]

This seems like a simple concept to me. Most ancient literature was fiction. They simply didn't have modern standards of journalism, so they didn't expect literature to be either literally true or else labelled fiction, the way we modern people do. And, of course, the Bible isn't one work of literature it a library of different works all bound together. Some of them were legends, some historical, and some theological treatises. All of the authors had agendas. It is possible that at least some of them were trying to accurately convey events they had evidence happened. But it is more likely that none of them did. This explains the various contradictions. From simple and clear disagreements about Jesus' ancestry to the enormously diverging images of god presented, it is obvious that the various authors were writing from their own human perspective.
Clearly the Bible is the historical genre of a biography and autobiography. There is no disagreement about the lineage of Jesus, you've just somehow deluded yourself. Trying to back up what you say. Try to address the opening post.


A large group of fallible humans invented the Bible as they went along, so they made mistakes. They weren't lying, they were just writing what they wanted written and they weren't capable of describing reality because they didn't know much about it. They described an earth that is flat and about 6,000 years old. They described a god who varied enormously. This description of god varies from the physical being in Genesis to the invisible god of Moses to the ineffable god of the New Testament. God has continued to progress toward non-existence since the Council of Nicea(another group of fallible humans) ossified an image of god in a canon. But even then, Martin Luther came along and upset the RCC applecart, which was the official "Christianity" for about a thousand years. Nowadays, we have Christians like Spong taking God yet a bit further from the ancient god described in Genesis.The Bible describes an earth that is round, for one ship fairer looked across the ocean to see it had curvature. And the 6000 years wasn't the creation of the earth but referred to when the first God-conscious man came into being. God has the ability to enter His creation to make himself physically seen, but it is the Father that we usually can never see because the Father agreed with the Son and the Spirit the Son enters His creation. It's true no one can look upon the Father. However there was that one time in the Bible the three men came to Abram who were the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so it seems there is an exception even to this rule. God is flexible with His design. This should not be hard to accept since it is God's prerogative to enter His creation after all He created it. God was treated as non-existent? Where? Spong and Luther were probably not saved because they were Calvinists. In other words, they refused to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated, to have a genuine faith and repentance. Instead pridefully they declared they were irresistibly selected and billions were preteritioned. What love is that? The Roman Church initially was alright, but soon became corrupted. It was never the official Church. Revelation 2 describes this Thyatira church period which is still with us today and Revelation 17 describes this woman who rides the beast. She makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (Rev. 14.8). So you can see the Bible is way ahead of you. The official Church the Bible calls a "little flock" (Luke 12.32). One here, a few there, a couple over there. That's the truth. The Roman Church is like a mustard seed that grows into a great tree (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/satanstrinity.htm) not of its kind, and birds like demons land on her branches.

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" (Matt. 13.31-32). It became unnatural.


The evidence that they didn't really distinguish between historical and mythical is very easy to find. But you have to want to see the truth or you won't.

The first book of the Bible, Genesis, starts with two different and mutually exclusive creation stories. I believe that is a statement from the redactors of Genesis, "Don't take this too seriously as literal truth". The authors of the Bible themselves did not believe in It as literal truth.What's important here is that you couldn't show any mythical. It's clearly the historical genre of biography. It all speaks personally of their real experiences, setting up the churches, writing letters to each other and so forth, building the Church, the body of Christ. You don't have to want to see this to be true, just give into the evidence. There is not two different creation stories, you're just misreading. Genesis 2 gives the details of Genesis 1 just like Rev. 12 to 19 give the details of the major points of Rev. 11 to 17. All the Bible writers believed in the literal interpretation. Genesis 1.1 was the perfect creation. It doesn't say how long it took only that it did take. The six days are the restoration of creation. The six days sum up the vast period of restoration likely that goes all the way back to 65 million years when the dinosaurs were destroyed.

You've admitted there are many truths written, many archaeological associations. I have heard there are as many as 25,000 archaeological finds related to the Bible. There are so many problems with your embellishments theory. The original disciples claimed to have spent those three years with Jesus from the beginning that these were their real experiences of the original disciples. If this was an embellishment Jesus would have been added in later or the resurrection eyewitness accounts would have been added later. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus. James claimed to have seen Jesus. In short, the evidence from the disciples contradicts the embellishment theory. What's even better, we could grant you all kinds of legend and embellishments and it would not infringe on the Minimal Facts Approach, the data most skeptics concede which lead inextricably to the resurrection of Jesus. There is just no evidence to support a non-historical genre and there it stands. You would have to throw out all of history if you take your approach which is highly belligerent and obnoxious. So since no historian takes your approach you can be considered of no account. Besides, you need evidence if you want to be a critic. Basically there are no scholars or historians on the Bible who hold your belief, so you are on your own all by yourself.

Please be kind and address the points made in the opening post. This is how to be personal, is you address what the other person says.