Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Not at all. I was hoping to hear more of your take on what happened.

---

Other than what I said, there was not much more to say. You explained it well and in detail. I don't know what more I could have said.

Quote:

---

Bad example. Nobody ever claimed that story was true. Deliberate fiction is a different matter and doesn't really apply here.

---

I'm glad to hear you say that. But in your post 187 you wrote, "But as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature." You are now saying the opposite - that deliberate fiction is a different matter so we CAN rule out fiction.

The position you were defending was that miracles occur in ancient literature, and you gave the Sumerian example of a fictional epic poem. Now you say it "doesn't really apply". It's ok to change your mind, but please say that.

The Little Red Riding story was to indicate the untrue nature of your original claim about miracles - that "as historians we can't rule anything out".

Quote:

---

Zeno was playing logic games that may or may not have any actual basis in the real world of physics, so it doesn't apply here, either.

---

Again, that is the opposite of what you originally claimed. Physics is part of nature about which you wrote we don't know everything, allowing a paradox like Zeno's to be possibly valid. Now you say it doesn't apply.

Re Jesus and Hell:

Quote:

---

The first three chapters of Romans ....

---

I wasn't referring to Romans. I was referring to what Jesus is reported to have said re hell.

Re the Rabbi believing Jesus rose from the dead

Quote:

---

It didn't. He said he could acknowledge it, but the conversation ended there because he didn't care. And since he was the professor and I was the student, and we were in a class session at the time,* I didn't push it.

---

The man, a Rabbi and highly educated professor, believed Jesus rose from the dead but he didn't care. You are offering this as an example of why the Jewish elders did not proclaim the resurrection was false because they also believed it was true - it actually happened.

I can't understand how a rabbi could believe in the most phenomenally remarkable event in all of human history and not care about it. Nor that the Jewish elders believed it and that their silence proves the resurrection actually happened. It's all too "fantastical".

Quote:

---

Other than what I said, there was not much more to say. You explained it well and in detail. I don't know what more I could have said.

---

Your thoughts on what you suspect might have happened?

Quote:

---

The position you were defending was that miracles occur in ancient literature, and you gave the Sumerian example of a fictional epic poem. Now you say it "doesn't really apply". It's ok to change your mind, but please say that.

---

I said we don't know if the Sumerian poem is fictional or not. That's part of the conundrum when dealing with ancient literature. Again I also refer you to the Ugaritic story of King KRT, we don't know if it's a true story or not. Ditto for a lot of ancient literature.

Quote:

---

Again, that is the opposite of what you originally claimed. Physics is part of nature about which you wrote we don't know everything, allowing a paradox like Zeno's to be possibly valid. Now you say it doesn't apply.

---

Obviously there are limits to any such thing. We don't know everything about nature, but we can observe that the arrow did in fact hit the target. So it still doesn't apply.

Quote:

---

I wasn't referring to Romans. I was referring to what Jesus is reported to have said re hell.

---

Part of the purpose of letters such as Romans was to help explain such things.

Quote:

---

I can't understand how a rabbi could believe in the most phenomenally remarkable event in all of human history and not care about it. Nor that the Jewish elders believed it and that their silence proves the resurrection actually happened. It's all too "fantastical".

---

I don't pretend to understand either, but he said it to my face and he was dead serious. That's all I can tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Your thoughts on what you suspect might have happened?

---

I put on my librarian hat and found this:

"When a bone is broken, the body produces fibrous tissue, called a bone callus, to protect the injured area. That's the bump you see. Then, bone cells begin to grow, reuniting and healing the bone segments that broke apart. Once the bone has mended, the bone callus is usually reabsorbed into the bone. The more extensive or severe the fracture, the more bone callus is produced during the healing process, and reabsorption can take more time. In some cases, the bump may never go away completely.
In your situation, as the bone matures, the callus likely will be remodeled gradually over time, decreasing the size of the bump and reducing its prominence. But you may always have a subtle bulge in the region of the fracture."
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/d...0broke%20apart.

Was there pain all those years, especially if you pressed on it? Did it ever get smaller?

Quote:

---

Was there pain all those years, especially if you pressed on it? Did it ever get smaller?

---

When I pressed on it, when I used it, a friend once got me a job with a fencing company setting posts for chain-link fence, but my hand couldn't deal with operating the auger hole digger. I had to quit after one day.

Guitar had been my first love, and I couldn't play for more than about 10 minutes without pain. And then there were the two fingers that liked each other a little too much and acted like conjoined twins.

It never got any smaller. It stayed the same the whole time, that's why it was such a handy fidget rock, and why I was so shocked when I couldn't fidget with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Your thoughts on what you suspect might have happened?

I said we don't know if the Sumerian poem is fictional or not. That's part of the conundrum when dealing with ancient literature. Again I also refer you to the Ugaritic story of King KRT, we don't know if it's a true story or not. Ditto for a lot of ancient literature.

Obviously there are limits to any such thing. We don't know everything about nature, but we can observe that the arrow did in fact hit the target. So it still doesn't apply.

Part of the purpose of letters such as Romans was to help explain such things.

I don't pretend to understand either, but he said it to my face and he was dead serious. That's all I can tell you.

---

I'm sorry, DW, but you're going around and around each time you post. First you write one thing, then you write another thing when I challenge what you wrote, then you post the first thing again.

You're back to the Ugaritic story saying gods and goddesses may be true after discarding the red riding hood story as fiction. Are speaking wolves more fictional than speaking gods and goddesses? "I'm saying we can't know if those things happened, but as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature." Both speaking wolves and speaking goddesses are fictional, yet you allow for the goddesses but not the wolves.

As for some other comments of yours above;

I've already expressed my thoughts on your miracle story. I don't know why you're asking again.

The issue re Jesus and hell was what he is claimed to have said, not an explanation in Romans of how people are judged based on the information they have. Your reply had nothing to do with the question of what Jesus is reported to have said by Mattthew.

You said you can't understand what the Rabbi said, but you claim he said it and "that's all I can tell you".

No, DW, you told us an enormous amount more by offering it as an example of how the Jewish elders may have thought and that it was therefore evidence that they knew of the resurrection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

The only book I tend to have serious doubts about regarding authorship is Revelation, but that's mainly because that book gives me a pain where I never had a window.

---

I forgot to comment on this first time around. (Took me three times to figure out that window thing).

The author laid a curse on anyone who would change anything in Revelation.

During the debate on whether to include the book, the curse in Revelation 22:18–20 was not taken too literally. Eusebius quoted Dionysius of Alexandria (Ecclesiastical History 3

Afterward he [DIONYSIUS] speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John. "Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity.

Somehow the book passed muster anyway to the everlasting delight of the fundies and evangelicals.

If this was the goal of Cerinthus in supposedly writing the book, it would seem he failed dramatically. "And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace."

Quote:

---

You're back to the Ugaritic story saying gods and goddesses may be true after discarding the red riding hood story as fiction. Are speaking wolves more fictional than speaking gods and goddesses?.

---

Yes. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Yes. .

---

Fiction is fiction. It doesn't have levels. You can't have more fictional or less fictional. It's like being a little pregnant. You're either pregnant or not pregnant. Gotta be one or the other.

How about speaking snakes?

The general approach of Athos on this board is to attempt (frequently feebly) to belittle the positions of others while avoiding stating his own beliefs.

Quote:

---

Fiction is fiction. It doesn't have levels. You can't have more fictional or less fictional. It's like being a little pregnant. You're either pregnant or not pregnant. Gotta be one or the other.

How about speaking snakes?

---

A. You haven't established that deities are fictional, you're assuming it. And you're mistaken about fiction, as any historical novel proves.
B. I'm not going to get into that. Assuming we take the story literally I think we all know what's really going on there, so that's a dodge.
C. I don't like to talk about it, but I know for a fact that God speaks.

Yes, yes, and really yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

A. You haven't established that deities are fictional, you're assuming it.

---

The fact that deities are fictional in your example is self-evident. If you want to call it an assumption, that's ok with me.

Quote:

---

And you're mistaken about fiction, as any historical novel proves.

---

You missed my point. The fictional part of an historical novel is all fictional - fiction can't be both factually true and untrue at the same time. Historical novels have historically factual aspects - that's why they're called historical. This is pretty basic stuff, DW.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to get into that. Assuming we take the story literally I think we all know what's really going on there, so that's a dodge.

---

Not going to get into what? What story literally? The Sumerian one? What do "we all know what's really going on there"? What is the "dodge?" As you can see, I don't know what you're talking about here. Please explain in enough detail for me to understand and reply. Thank you.

Quote:

---

I don't like to talk about it, but I know for a fact that God speaks.

---

It's ok not to talk about something you don't want to. In your comment you say that you know for a fact God speaks, do you mean literally as in words and in English or another language?

Quote:

---

The fact that deities are fictional in your example is self-evident. If you want to call it an assumption, that's ok with me.

---

You didn't limit it to my examples. You said "deities" in general and assumed any deities are fictional.

Quote:

---

You missed my point. The fictional part of an historical novel is all fictional - fiction can't be both factually true and untrue at the same time. Historical novels have historically factual aspects - that's why they're called historical. This is pretty basic stuff, DW.

---

Are you sure any parts are fictional? How do you know? Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements. Once again, you're assuming. An author might describe a particularly colorful sunset in a historical novel to set the stage for something. Did the sunset happen? We don't know. It doesn't matter because that's not what is being written about. You're both assuming, and splitting hairs.

Quote:

---

Not going to get into what? What story literally? The Sumerian one? What do "we all know what's really going on there"? What is the "dodge?" As you can see, I don't know what you're talking about here. Please explain in enough detail for me to understand and reply. Thank you.

---

Oh come on. You mentioned talking snakes as if it's not obvious what your reference was. As Pilate said, what I have written, I have written.

Quote:

---

It's ok not to talk about something you don't want to. In your comment you say that you know for a fact God speaks, do you mean literally as in words and in English or another language?

---

As in English, in my ear, plain as your voice or any other. Happened once, exactly one sentence. Scared the liver out of me. That's as far as I'll go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Are you sure any parts are fictional? How do you know? Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements. Once again, you're assuming. An author might describe a particularly colorful sunset in a historical novel to set the stage for something. Did the sunset happen? We don't know. It doesn't matter because that's not what is being written about. You're both assuming, and splitting hairs.

---

I have to butt in. I was a librarian for over 25 years, shelving library materials, taking inventory of them, and for fourteen years cataloging them. (Btw, sunsets are not considered historical. And historical novels ALWAYS include fictional elements.)

The main characteristics of a historical fiction are an authentic historical setting and/or authentic historical characters. The fiction can be the story itself and most of the characters.

A good example of historical fiction:
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
"Imagine a Dan Brown novel — an action-packed race to solve a serial murder mystery that can only be unraveled by decoding ancient manuscripts and artistic clues. The Name of the Rose is all that, but it’s set in a prestigious monastery in 14th-century Italy. A young monk by the name of William arrives at this monastery right as the killings begin, and he is asked to take on the task of uncovering the truth behind them. As William dives deeper into the clues embedded in the texts and the architecture of the grounds, the other monks become embroiled in a battle of accusations.

Drawing from his well of knowledge on semiotics and ancient literature, Umberto Eco crafted a complex and enticing novel that’s difficult to put down. Though it’s his debut novel, The Name of the Rose is one of the best-selling books ever published."
https://reedsy.com/discovery/blog/be...orical-fiction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

You didn't limit it to my examples. You said "deities" in general and assumed any deities are fictional.

---

I SPECIFICALLY said "in your example"!

Quote:

---

Are you sure any parts are fictional? How do you know? Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements. Once again, you're assuming. An author might describe a particularly colorful sunset in a historical novel to set the stage for something. Did the sunset happen?

---

See WG's reply above for the answer to this comment of yours.

Quote:

---

Oh come on. You mentioned talking snakes as if it's not obvious what your reference was. As Pilate said, what I have written, I have written.

---

If it's Genesis you are referencing, I still don't know what your comment means. If you would explain it, I would be more than happy to reply to you. I'm also lost with your Pilate quote.

Quote:

---

As in English, in my ear, plain as your voice or any other. Happened once, exactly one sentence. Scared the liver out of me. That's as far as I'll go.

---

If you do not want to go any further with your claim, I have no problem with that. Previously, when you asked me to say more re your claim of a miracle (#199), I assume you will not do the same thing again with this claim of God speaking to you.

Starwars is a great deal more fictional than The Red Badge of Courage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Starwars is a great deal more fictional than The Red Badge of Courage.

---

How so?

Is either historical fiction?

Yes, and that's the point. Starwars has very little we can genuinely relate to. TRBC, on the other hand, is a realistic portrayal of a soldier's life in the Civil War and is certainly historical fiction. All Quiet on the Western Front also falls in that category.

Thus, you have now given a good example (actually, TWO examples) of my definition in post #215.