SLD

I've never read the mythicists position in that light. The mythicists position is that Jesus was not a real historical figure - Paul could very well have believed in Jesus's reality and it not be so. I don't know whether the gospels were based on an historical character or not, but I think it's pretty clear from Paul's letter that he really believed what he was writing about Jesus - even if he was adapting it from the other mystery cults.

SLD

aikido7

I can describe the contours of myth, but cannot point to it directly. It is more important to believe in the possibility of a solution than to find a specific one ("Be careful what you ask for," etc.)

Science as inquiry, science as rationalistic reduction, science as savior of the world--all of these are mythological views. Myth does not refer to a story that is not true or a refer to a story about gods and goddesses. It is an ordering process that turns the world's chaos into order, randomness into pattern. It helps to reconcile the frustrations produced by cosmic disorder into some higher unity. It creates worlds--quite literally as we can see in Genesis 1 and 2.

I will try again with your question, which is a good one. A clash of myths might be able to be resolved with a more inclusive myth. I am guessing that next level of order must highlight the conflict of the opposing features of the first level. It would not necessarily lead to reconciliation, but would show that reconciliation is possible.

aikido7

Your first question is quarterbacking from a distance of 2,000 years and is a great one. I think there are many reasons. Who knows? left a baffled church behind. Perhaps the codex form of manuscript transmission helped, too. It seems to be peculiar to the Christians and was easier to pass around than the bulky scrolls. Of course, Paul is Christianity, for he translated it into a myth easily picked up on by Greco-Roman culture. In so doing, he put the quash on Jesus himself and directed it onward and upward to the meaning of "the Christ." A lot was lost and the church became a bureaucratic salvation machine. The enigmatic parables of the Nazarene gave way to the Resurrection.

Christians have taught that it was a real event but even the gospels themselves show very different mythological "takes" on Mark's original gospel--a superb example of mythology in its own right. Resurrection can mean everything from bodily resuscitation to Jesus in one's heart--today or 2000 years ago on the road to Emmaus.

If Spong says it's not metaphoric, he still has to do it in metaphor if he's any kind of a storyteller at all....

One more point: Jesus was Jewish and so was his audience--thus there were a lot of readily available spiritual and cultural categories around ready to be seeded (by his critics as well as by his followers). But I do think there is a sense throughout the gospels where Jesus continually frustrates expectations. He doesn't answer directly and although preached the Kingdom of God, used parable and metaphor instead of explicit language. He left a stumbling church behind which could not help following in the footsteps of his baffled disciples.

mike_decock

You've expanded the definition of myth to mean "worldview". The "worldview" is the collection of "myths", but a "myth" refers to a specific story.

1) Worldviews often die with the passing of generations.
2) Worldviews are inevitably revised throughout the generations as science and technology force changes.

I think reconciliation is more likely as diversity becomes greater. As the worldview becomes more unique to the individual rather than to the culture, it becomes a clash of individuals rather than culture. This means no single myth could dominate the worldview of others. This also means that changes in worldview can occur more quickly as they are less forcefully maintained.

-Mike...