Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-21-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOpenMind
At long last. Thank you for the open minded attitude. The openness to some historicity behind the NT accounts doesn't signify a subscription to any supernatural beliefs, and is a brave stance IMO.

How can you call it "brave?" It is very conventional. Many people would be willing to grant some kernal of historicity behind the NT accounts; the problem is discovering what it is.

For most of the "Jesus questers" of the last 4 centuries or so, there has been an assumption that there is some kernal of historicity in the gospels, and that it could be recovered somehow so we could know the real Jesus of history. Some have naively assumed that they could take the gospels and remove all of the supernatural aspects, and that what was left would reflect real history. Others tried to refine the search, removing improbable or theological aspects that appeared to be later additions.

But the result of all of this quest has been like peeling layers off the onion and finding nothing in the center. As Robert Price put it, if there was a Jesus of history, there is no more. All of his distinguishing characteristics have been lost.

If you think you have a method for recovering the historical basis of a myth, please let us know. Start a new thread.

I meant brave on IIDB, where there seems to be a fascination with stating that Bible is all rubbish. ONes say it's all true, others say it's bunk.

Quote:

Many people would be willing to grant some kernal of historicity behind the NT accounts; the problem is discovering what it is.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. That's what I'm giving my commendation to!

Quote:

If you think you have a method for recovering the historical basis of a myth, please let us know. Start a new thread.

There we go again. Labelling it a "myth". It's like the French scientists telling Pasteur "Ok, when you've finished with your baloney, we'll...". Mighty good way to start an objective inquiry. Not the right foot, I think.

Amaleq13 · 02-21-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOpenMind

There we go again. Labelling it a "myth".

I think you need to read the definition of the word.

From Dictionary.com:

1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

Recognizing that the Gospels are Christian myths does not deny that they may contain reliable history.

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-21-2006, 06:02 PM

Ok, then we've finished our inquiry. End of story. I wish top notch scientists had your methods, all the fuss in academia would be over. Dictionary, whaddayaknow -Roma locuta, causa finita! Easy as that.

Amaleq13 · 02-21-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOpenMind

Ok, then we've finished our inquiry. End of story. I wish top notch scientists had your methods, all the fuss in academia would be over. Dictionary, whaddayaknow -Roma locuta, causa finita! Easy as that.

Recognizing that the Gospels are Christian myths and that they may contain reliable history in no way suggests that any inquiry is finished.

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-22-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOpenMind
Ok, then we've finished our inquiry. End of story. I wish top notch scientists had your methods, all the fuss in academia would be over. Dictionary, whaddayaknow -Roma locuta, causa finita! Easy as that.

Recognizing that the Gospels are Christian myths and that they may contain reliable history in no way suggests that any inquiry is finished.

Right on. Good thing no one here has stated such a thing as "... may contain reliable history in no way suggests that any inquiry is finished"! On the other hand, calling them "myths" is surely not the best way to start.

Just imagine:

"Ok, Amaleq, now that you've exposed your atheist mythology* to us and I'm not saying that your fib doesn't contain aaany truth in it (and saying that makes me feel so open and objective!), now let's consider... "

---
* (I read that kind of horse shave all the time on Christian fora: "atheist dogma", "atheist mythology", etc.). I don't mind if you disagree with me, but heck, there's no way humanity will be able to reach any level of concord or understanding with such rhetoric. It's always "I will not stop bashing you until you stop bashing me".

Toto · 02-22-2006, 11:53 AM

Open - you are wandering off the topic of this thread, and I think that you are unfamiliar with the workings of this forum. We try to avoid "bashing," we try to have satisfying discussions in spite of the fact that we don't expect to reach any level of concord, given our different world views.

Most of the people who talk about Christian myths have a very high regard for mythology as an area of study. A myth is not a fib. But someone who insists of the literal truth of a myth can turn it into a fib.

Amaleq13 · 02-22-2006, 12:18 PM

I can only assume you either didn't read or didn't understand the dictionary definition of "myth".

A traditional, typically ancient story...

Aren't the Gospels the traditional Christian story?

...dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes...

Isn't Jesus both a supernatural being and hero in the story?

...that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society...

Doesn't the Gospel story express the worldview and ideals of Christianity?

That you define a myth as a lie is not my problem.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-22-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOpenMind

Right on. Good thing no one here has stated such a thing as "... may contain reliable history in no way suggests that any inquiry is finished"! On the other hand, calling them "myths" is surely not the best way to start.

The term "mythology" designates a literary genre not an evaluation of historicity. Essentially, a "myth" is a sacred story. Whether or not the story is historically true has nothing to do with whether it's a myth.

jakejonesiv · 02-22-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The term "mythology" designates a literary genre not an evaluation of historicity. Essentially, a "myth" is a sacred story. Whether or not the story is historically true has nothing to do with whether it's a myth.

A characteristic of a myth is that it invokes the supernautural to explain something important in the society it occurs in. At some point, most myths were believed to be "true" by the people using the myth.

We should distinguish myth from allegory. An allegory is created to illustate some higher point, and is not believed by the creator to be literally true.

The difference? Jesus in the Paulinics is a myth. In GMark, Jesus is an allegory.

Jake

No Robots · 02-22-2006, 01:36 PM

The Gospels are, in my view, biographical documents with mythologizing elements.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2006, 06:02 PM	#3
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	Ok, then we've finished our inquiry. End of story. I wish top notch scientists had your methods, all the fuss in academia would be over. Dictionary, whaddayaknow -Roma locuta, causa finita! Easy as that.

02-22-2006, 11:53 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Open - you are wandering off the topic of this thread, and I think that you are unfamiliar with the workings of this forum. We try to avoid "bashing," we try to have satisfying discussions in spite of the fact that we don't expect to reach any level of concord, given our different world views. Most of the people who talk about Christian myths have a very high regard for mythology as an area of study. A myth is not a fib. But someone who insists of the literal truth of a myth can turn it into a fib.

02-22-2006, 12:18 PM	#7
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I can only assume you either didn't read or didn't understand the dictionary definition of "myth". A traditional, typically ancient story... Aren't the Gospels the traditional Christian story? ...dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes... Isn't Jesus both a supernatural being and hero in the story? ...that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society... Doesn't the Gospel story express the worldview and ideals of Christianity? That you define a myth as a lie is not my problem.

02-22-2006, 01:36 PM	#10
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	The Gospels are, in my view, biographical documents with mythologizing elements.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.