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]

...
Assuming you believe the story of Jonah in the fish's belly to be true, what evidence do you have that a man can survive for three days in a fish's gut?

I believe the story, because I think Bible is trustworthy and it would not have that story, if it would not have happened, because there simply would be no reason to add it without it really being true. But, I don’t know enough about the “fish” to explain how it was possible.

Then you have no evidence but believe the story anyway. You really think that there would be no reason to add this "fish story" if it wasn't true?

[Kenisaw]

What works well for me is to read/listen to a story with my full attention (so as not to miss anything) and then examine the story with a skeptical eye. If something seems amiss, I research it to see what I can learn about it. This is often a time consuming process, but well worth it given the amount of nonsense that is put out by the legacy media and purported experts on all manner of topics.

Good. Can you apply that type of scrutiny to Matthew 4:

18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon, who was called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 And He *said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of people.” 20 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. 21 Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John, in the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets; and He called them. 22 Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.

Does anything about this story seem unlikely to be true?

Nope.

Honestly? You just got done posting how you scrutinize stories with a skeptical eye looking for whatever may seem to be amiss. You should have noticed that when Jesus first appeared to these men, they literally dropped their work and followed him away. How likely is it that four men will drop their work and follow a stranger off to who knows where? That looks pretty amiss to me.

This is why so many people fail to be real skeptics. Let's remember here, we are going off of just the Bible passage you posted.

Where does it say that he "first appeared to these men"? It doesn't. You assume they never saw him before, and/or didn't know who he was. You have no information one way or the other to validate your assertion. That clouds everything else in your decision making from that point on. Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions. You added context to it that wasn't there.

The source of the information is also suspect. The Bible isn't known for it's accuracy and honesty in reporting matters. In my opinion asking what is amiss in a Bible passage is like asking what is amiss in a Grimm's fairy tale - fairy tale parables are not claims of fact and should not be treated as such.

But even if we go with your statement that it is unlikely that people would stop what they are doing and follow a stranger. People walk into the HQ of Scientology in Los Angeles every week and end up signing their life away and going to work at one of their communes. Hitler got all kinds of people to do all sorts of things. I've even seen a cement mason leave a concrete pour right in the middle of it because some guy came up and said he could make more an hour driving for his company.

Do I find it unlikely that someone could convince other people to do something that they weren't even thinking about when the day started? No, I don't.

[brunumb]

...
Assuming you believe the story of Jonah in the fish's belly to be true, what evidence do you have that a man can survive for three days in a fish's gut?

I believe the story, because I think Bible is trustworthy and it would not have that story, if it would not have happened, because there simply would be no reason to add it without it really being true. But, I don’t know enough about the “fish” to explain how it was possible.

Perhaps one should try looking at it from the other side. The Bible is untrustworthy because it contains impossible absurdities like this story.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Where does it say that he "first appeared to these men"? It doesn't. You assume they never saw him before, and/or didn't know who he was. You have no information one way or the other to validate your assertion. That clouds everything else in your decision making from that point on. Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions. You added context to it that wasn't there.

Actually, you are ignoring the context. That Jesus met these men for the first time is strongly implied by the context. For example, it states that Jesus "saw two brothers." It doesn't say he saw two of his disciples! Besides, if the four men had already been his followers, then why did he need to tell them to follow him? In the four verses immediately before the passage in Matthew 4 we are told that Jesus had just started his ministry. He then needed to recruit his first apostles.

The source of the information is also suspect. The Bible isn't known for it's accuracy and honesty in reporting matters. In my opinion asking what is amiss in a Bible passage is like asking what is amiss in a Grimm's fairy tale - fairy tale parables are not claims of fact and should not be treated as such.

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?

But even if we go with your statement that it is unlikely that people would stop what they are doing and follow a stranger. People walk into the HQ of Scientology in Los Angeles every week and end up signing their life away and going to work at one of their communes. Hitler got all kinds of people to do all sorts of things. I've even seen a cement mason leave a concrete pour right in the middle of it because some guy came up and said he could make more an hour driving for his company.

None of these examples are fair comparisons to Matthew 4. L. Ron Hubbard doesn't recruit people by walking up to them at their jobs telling them to follow him, and they walk out of their classrooms to the delight of the kids.

Do I find it unlikely that someone could convince other people to do something that they weren't even thinking about when the day started? No, I don't.

Well now you've been corrected.

[Kenisaw]

Where does it say that he "first appeared to these men"? It doesn't. You assume they never saw him before, and/or didn't know who he was. You have no information one way or the other to validate your assertion. That clouds everything else in your decision making from that point on. Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions. You added context to it that wasn't there.

Actually, you are ignoring the context. That Jesus met these men for the first time is strongly implied by the context. For example, it states that Jesus "saw two brothers." It doesn't say he saw two of his disciples! Besides, if the four men had already been his followers, then why did he need to tell them to follow him? In the four verses immediately before the passage in Matthew 4 we are told that Jesus had just started his ministry. He then needed to recruit his first apostles.

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.

The source of the information is also suspect. The Bible isn't known for it's accuracy and honesty in reporting matters. In my opinion asking what is amiss in a Bible passage is like asking what is amiss in a Grimm's fairy tale - fairy tale parables are not claims of fact and should not be treated as such.

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.

Maybe we are talking past each other here. I do NOT take the Bible literally. If you do, then the passage you posted would need to be examined as a fact based claim. I don't see it as a fact based claim, I see it as a made up tale meant to show that Jesus was a leader or could inspire men or some other goobly gook. There's nothing to research, there's nothing to verify, and there's no empirical data to analyze. On the flip side, 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.

But even if we go with your statement that it is unlikely that people would stop what they are doing and follow a stranger. People walk into the HQ of Scientology in Los Angeles every week and end up signing their life away and going to work at one of their communes. Hitler got all kinds of people to do all sorts of things. I've even seen a cement mason leave a concrete pour right in the middle of it because some guy came up and said he could make more an hour driving for his company.

None of these examples are fair comparisons to Matthew 4. L. Ron Hubbard doesn't recruit people by walking up to them at their jobs telling them to follow him, and they walk out of their classrooms to the delight of the kids.

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).

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

Do I find it unlikely that someone could convince other people to do something that they weren't even thinking about when the day started? No, I don't.

Well now you've been corrected.

[JoeyKnothead]

Where does it say that he "first appeared to these men"? It doesn't. You assume they never saw him before, and/or didn't know who he was. You have no information one way or the other to validate your assertion. That clouds everything else in your decision making from that point on. Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions. You added context to it that wasn't there.

Actually, you are ignoring the context. That Jesus met these men for the first time is strongly implied by the context. For example, it states that Jesus "saw two brothers." It doesn't say he saw two of his disciples! Besides, if the four men had already been his followers, then why did he need to tell them to follow him? In the four verses immediately before the passage in Matthew 4 we are told that Jesus had just started his ministry. He then needed to recruit his first apostles.

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.

The source of the information is also suspect. The Bible isn't known for it's accuracy and honesty in reporting matters. In my opinion asking what is amiss in a Bible passage is like asking what is amiss in a Grimm's fairy tale - fairy tale parables are not claims of fact and should not be treated as such.

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.

Maybe we are talking past each other here. I do NOT take the Bible literally. If you do, then the passage you posted would need to be examined as a fact based claim. I don't see it as a fact based claim, I see it as a made up tale meant to show that Jesus was a leader or could inspire men or some other goobly gook. There's nothing to research, there's nothing to verify, and there's no empirical data to analyze. On the flip side, 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.

But even if we go with your statement that it is unlikely that people would stop what they are doing and follow a stranger. People walk into the HQ of Scientology in Los Angeles every week and end up signing their life away and going to work at one of their communes. Hitler got all kinds of people to do all sorts of things. I've even seen a cement mason leave a concrete pour right in the middle of it because some guy came up and said he could make more an hour driving for his company.

None of these examples are fair comparisons to Matthew 4. L. Ron Hubbard doesn't recruit people by walking up to them at their jobs telling them to follow him, and they walk out of their classrooms to the delight of the kids.

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).

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

Do I find it unlikely that someone could convince other people to do something that they weren't even thinking about when the day started? No, I don't.

Well now you've been corrected.

If the zombie pocalypse ever comes it to be, I'm gonna eat me your brain first.

[1213]

...The Bible is untrustworthy because it contains impossible absurdities like this story.

If you can tell it is impossible, please tell, what was the “fish”?

[1213]

...You really think that there would be no reason to add this "fish story" if it wasn't true?

Yes. If you think it is fictional, please tell, why it is in the Bible?

[Paul of Tarsus]

...You really think that there would be no reason to add this "fish story" if it wasn't true?

Yes. If you think it is fictional, please tell, why it is in the Bible?

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?

[Difflugia]

If you can tell it is impossible, please tell, what was the “fish”?

It's a fictional allegory for the Assyrian Dagon based on an incorrect etymology that associated Dagon with the Hebrew or Canaanite word for "fish," dag. Like the allusions to Tehom in Genesis 1:2, Leviathan in Psalm 74, and the Nechash Nechoshet in Numbers 21, the reference to the Dag in Jonah 1:17ff is to establish God's supremacy over a neighboring deity.

Yes. If you think it is fictional, please tell, why it is in the Bible?

If you think the Cheshire Cat is fictional, please tell, why is it in Through the Looking Glass?