How do Christians tell fact from fancy?

[Paul of Tarsus]

In what ways do the Christians here distinguish fact from fiction? If you read or hear a story, in what ways do you tell what's true in the story and what may be false?

Everybody, and not just Christians, is welcome to answer these questions and engage in the discussion, of course.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I don't know what was said before or after it. You didn't post that, and you didn't ask about it. Bringing it in now is changing what we are talking about.

Again, you are adding context, this time to what I wrote. I never said they were his disciples, I said that we can't assume that they had no idea who Jesus was, or that they had never seen Jesus before. Maybe they heard about the new prophet in town, or they saw him walking around looking for a sandal salesman. Point being, one cannot assume that Jesus "first appeared to these men", and there is no implication of this in the text you posted.

You challenged my saying that the passage in Matthew 4 was Jesus' first meeting with those four men. The context, like I pointed out, is good evidence that I'm right, and that's why I cited it. Yes, I agree that there are some "maybes," but when assessing history, mere possibility isn't enough. We need to determine what probably happened, and in this example Jesus probably met these disciples for the first time.

If the Bible isn't known for its accuracy, then how did you fail to see such a glaring problem in the story of Jesus calling his apostles?

It's the same reason why I don't see inaccuracy with the cow jumping over the moon and the dish running away with the spoon. It's a story. The vast majority of the Bible was written by people unknown years after these events supposedly happened. These working class disciples all came from the same area, yet one wrote their gospel in Aramaic, others wrote in Hebrew, and the rest in Coptic Greek? There's no reason to think this is a literal claim in the first place.

So the story of Jesus recruiting the first four apostles is meant to be taken figuratively. Is that what you're saying? If so, then I'm wondering what's symbolic in this story.

...it is entirely plausible that 4 dudes who had nothing else going for them and heard about a new prophet in town decide to follow him when he wandered by and asked them to tag along. So all I see is a claim that could happen in real life, put in a work of fiction about Jesus.

Again, saying that it's possible that four men just dropped their work to walk off with some guy doesn't demonstrate that the story is historical. Is it probable that they did walk off with Jesus that way? Obviously not.

The cement mason story isn't a fair comparison? It's the same exact thing. Too bad the guy who owned the truck driving company wasn't named Jesus, then it would have been an exact match (and maybe that was his name for all I know).

There are some problems with your story that are as obvious as the problems with the story of Jesus recruiting the first four apostles. First, how do I know either story is true? You just posted a story, and since I don't know who you are, I can't be sure it ever happened. I don't put much faith in stories written by anonymous authors.

Second, the stories are different, contrary to what you say. In your story the mason was given an apparently good reason to leave his work. In Matthew's story, Jesus just told them to go with him to make them "fishers of men," which is hardly a good reason to leave their livelihoods behind if they even knew what he was talking about!

Third, you again make the mistake of claiming that a mere possibility is good enough to establish historicity. It's possible that Biden might leave his office to go drive that truck with the cement mason, but it's not probable, and it's not likely historical. So even if your cement mason really did drop his work to go off with some guy claiming to have a driving job for him, it only proves that it's possible that people can walk off a job when somebody tells them to. It's still unlikely to happen, and the story of Jesus calling the apostles is also unlikely to have happened.

Ever read about the children's crusades in the 1200s? People don't just blindly follow people eh?

I've read about it. So you're saying that the apostles were like impressionable young children walking off in zombie fashion with a stranger who told them to follow him. I believe the crusades were quests to free the Holy Land, and the crusaders saw that as their goal. What goal did Jesus give to Simon, Andrew, James, and John that was anything as compelling as the goal to free the Holy Land?

Anyway, have you read the Pied Piper of Hamelin? The Pied Piper called the children much like Jesus called the apostles. If the former story is fiction then why believe the latter?

[1213]

...This fish story was made up to scare people into obeying the Jewish religious leaders. Fiction is very handy in religion. Why bother with a real God when you can make one up that people will believe in?

But, if it is not believable, why would anyone be scared? Also, if the goal is to scare people, there would be easier ways for that. It is simply not reasonable to invent such story to scare people. Also, what exactly would in that story make people fear and what?

[Paul of Tarsus]

...This fish story was made up to scare people into obeying the Jewish religious leaders. Fiction is very handy in religion. Why bother with a real God when you can make one up that people will believe in?

But, if it is not believable, why would anyone be scared? Also, if the goal is to scare people, there would be easier ways for that. It is simply not reasonable to invent such story to scare people. Also, what exactly would in that story make people fear and what?

But the story is believable and scary for some people. You believe it, and it scares you.

[Difflugia]

But, if it is not believable, why would anyone be scared?

Maybe that's one of their methods of market segmentation and people scared by fish stories are more affected by hard-sell tactics.

[Kenisaw]

I don't know what was said before or after it. You didn't post that, and you didn't ask about it. Bringing it in now is changing what we are talking about.

Again, you are adding context, this time to what I wrote. I never said they were his disciples, I said that we can't assume that they had no idea who Jesus was, or that they had never seen Jesus before. Maybe they heard about the new prophet in town, or they saw him walking around looking for a sandal salesman. Point being, one cannot assume that Jesus "first appeared to these men", and there is no implication of this in the text you posted.

You challenged my saying that the passage in Matthew 4 was Jesus' first meeting with those four men. The context, like I pointed out, is good evidence that I'm right, and that's why I cited it. Yes, I agree that there are some "maybes," but when assessing history, mere possibility isn't enough. We need to determine what probably happened, and in this example Jesus probably met these disciples for the first time.

What probably happened is that some writer made the whole thing up. The likelihood that a fisherman wrote it in a formal synagogue Greek is bordering on impossible. Most scholars think it was written between 80 and 90 AD by an unknown Jewish man, and it obviously borrows from Mark as well as another source. My skepticism is that it ever happened in the first place.

If the Bible isn't known for its accuracy, then how did you fail to see such a glaring problem in the story of Jesus calling his apostles?

It's the same reason why I don't see inaccuracy with the cow jumping over the moon and the dish running away with the spoon. It's a story. The vast majority of the Bible was written by people unknown years after these events supposedly happened. These working class disciples all came from the same area, yet one wrote their gospel in Aramaic, others wrote in Hebrew, and the rest in Coptic Greek? There's no reason to think this is a literal claim in the first place.

So the story of Jesus recruiting the first four apostles is meant to be taken figuratively. Is that what you're saying? If so, then I'm wondering what's symbolic in this story.

Like I mentioned previously, my guess is that it is supposed to convey Jesus' ability to get others to listen to what he says and follow his lead. It's an example of leadership. It's not an eyewitness account, and nothing like it actually happened.

...it is entirely plausible that 4 dudes who had nothing else going for them and heard about a new prophet in town decide to follow him when he wandered by and asked them to tag along. So all I see is a claim that could happen in real life, put in a work of fiction about Jesus.

Again, saying that it's possible that four men just dropped their work to walk off with some guy doesn't demonstrate that the story is historical. Is it probable that they did walk off with Jesus that way? Obviously not.

Since the story can't be authenticated and was written years later by someone with an education better than a fisherman, the probability of them walking off is moot.

The cement mason story isn't a fair comparison? It's the same exact thing. Too bad the guy who owned the truck driving company wasn't named Jesus, then it would have been an exact match (and maybe that was his name for all I know).

There are some problems with your story that are as obvious as the problems with the story of Jesus recruiting the first four apostles. First, how do I know either story is true? You just posted a story, and since I don't know who you are, I can't be sure it ever happened. I don't put much faith in stories written by anonymous authors.

Completely agree.

Second, the stories are different, contrary to what you say. In your story the mason was given an apparently good reason to leave his work. In Matthew's story, Jesus just told them to go with him to make them "fishers of men," which is hardly a good reason to leave their livelihoods behind if they even knew what he was talking about!

I don't know the lingo back in the day, I don't know what the fisherman did and didn't know before this supposed interaction took place, and I don't know if they did or didn't know who he was. Your willingness to assume these things is fine for you. I can't go along with it.

Third, you again make the mistake of claiming that a mere possibility is good enough to establish historicity. It's possible that Biden might leave his office to go drive that truck with the cement mason, but it's not probable, and it's not likely historical. So even if your cement mason really did drop his work to go off with some guy claiming to have a driving job for him, it only proves that it's possible that people can walk off a job when somebody tells them to. It's still unlikely to happen, and the story of Jesus calling the apostles is also unlikely to have happened.

No, I'm simply pointing out that it can, and does, happen. People do decide to change their entire life in a single moment.

Ever read about the children's crusades in the 1200s? People don't just blindly follow people eh?

I've read about it. So you're saying that the apostles were like impressionable young children walking off in zombie fashion with a stranger who told them to follow him. I believe the crusades were quests to free the Holy Land, and the crusaders saw that as their goal. What goal did Jesus give to Simon, Andrew, James, and John that was anything as compelling as the goal to free the Holy Land?

I'm saying that people sometimes blindly follow people.

Perhaps I need to ask for clarification from you to understand where you are coming from. Do you take the story in Matthew to be a literal, verbatim account of what happened?

Anyway, have you read the Pied Piper of Hamelin? The Pied Piper called the children much like Jesus called the apostles. If the former story is fiction then why believe the latter?

Levels of evidence. There's more for the children's crusades than there is for the Pied Piper. Since one of the children's crusades started in Germany, some scholars think that is where the Pied Piper story comes from. The idea of a religious person convincing people that they are called to lead is not a new one either, whereas someone getting all the kids in a town to leave by playing a flute is pretty far fetched.

[1213]

...You believe it, and it scares you.

Why do you make false claims like that? I have no reason to be scared, and I believe what the Bible tells.

[Paul of Tarsus]

...You believe it, and it scares you.

Why do you make false claims like that? I have no reason to be scared, and I believe what the Bible tells.

You are confirming that you believe it, just like I said you do. And please forgive me if I got you wrong about being scared. If you're not scared, though, I can't see how you can believe Bible mandates like Matthew 10:28 which states very clearly:

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So if you're not scared, then you are disobeying Christ who as we see commanded fear of God. Your disobedience is sin, and that sin can result in the fate Christ mentions. You like to go on about sinful people whom God will destroy, but if you're not more careful, you may be one of them.

[1213]

...

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So if you're not scared, then you are disobeying Christ who as we see commanded fear of God. Your disobedience is sin, and that sin can result in the fate Christ mentions. You like to go on about sinful people whom God will destroy, but if you're not more careful, you may be one of them.

He says “rather fear him”. It is not a commandment to fear, especially when we notice these:

Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, give I to you. Don't let your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful.
John 14:27

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love.
1 John 4:18