gnosis92

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13, from New International Version translation)

xunzian

Is believing that a building fell down and killed 18 people that crazy? While I don't think Jesus was divine in any way, shape, or form . . . what is so amazing about a building falling? Seriously!

There are a lot of absurd things in the Bible (walking on water, feeding a crapton of people with a single fish and loaf of bread, healing leapers, ect). Given all those things, the idea that a building fell down is . . . really minute.

Toto

Archeologists have discovered what some think is the ruins of the Tower of Siloam:

http://www.askelm.com/temple/t031205.htm

But I don't see this as evidence for or against a mythical Christ. The words were spoken or put in his mouth by a writer to make a point, and there was undoubtedly some disaster that could have been used to make that point.

spamandham

Most mythicists agree that Herod and Pilate were real people. Mythicism does not imply that everything mentioned in the gospels is fictional, but merely, that the story itself was intended as a mythical/mystical message rather than a historical document. That does not preclude the inclusion of real people and real events. The mythicist position would merely be that the intertwining of Jesus with these real people and real events, never actually happened.

Chili

Exactly. Real people and real events are needed to hang the story on for which there are no conventional words because it is not a conventional event.

gnosis92

One can be a historicist and believe that a historical story incorporates mythological imagery and metaphors.

How to distinguish between the two?

spamandham

I wish I knew!

But I will say, I really don't think the idea of simply removing the absurd and seeing what's left over, to then be declared historical, really makes any sense, or can be justified by applying the technique to other highly legendary figures.

How many real aspects of a historical Santa could you extract from "The Night Before Christmas" using such an approach? Not any, I think.

Chili

It easy. All is metaphor unless otherwise noted such as in Jn.6:55 "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." If this was not true protestants would not deserve to be called heretics.
Santa has nothing to do with Christmas but is a foreshadow of Epiphany.

Chris Weimer

That's not exactly what happens.

That's quite a strawman.

spamandham

If only it were that easy.