The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is bathwater, therefore there is no baby.

I think there are some fine babies in the Bible but that its bathwater isn't worth sloshing through in search of those babies.

Just my personal view.

 

[Storm]

I think there are some fine babies in the Bible but that its bathwater isn't worth sloshing through in search of those babies.

Just my personal view.

I couldn't disagree more, but it's your choice.

Would you say the same is true of most other religions?

"If you thump the Bible hard enough, you knock all the good stuff right out."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, for one thing, that wasn't original to Him, which strikes me as making it more likely He actually said it.

For another, I do think we can get the basic idea of what He taught, which I find positive. If you don't, that's cool.

Lastly, I have no issue against using it as a debate tactic against someone doing the same thing. I've been known to whip out the speck in the eye metaphor myself.

It sounds like we're in pretty close synch, Storm.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Where? If you're referring to Matthew 10:21, no.

Hi, Jay. Beats me. Someone (Waitasec?) posted it here within the past day or so.

 

[Storm]

It sounds like we're in pretty close synch, Storm.

Aw. I was hoping for a lively debate. :sad4:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think there are some fine babies in the Bible but that its bathwater isn't worth sloshing through in search of those babies.

Just my personal view.

I understand.

Do you have a taste for anything else that mixes myth with historicities?

Such as:

Music
Movies
Art
Literature
Poetry
Theatre
Greek Tragedy
Epic

Just because something is *now* inherently religious doesn't render the mixture of myth and historicity useless.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I couldn't disagree more, but it's your choice.

Would you say the same is true of most other religions?

I would say the same of all other scriptures. I find the concept of scriptures to be an unhealthy one.

"If you thump the Bible hard enough, you knock all the good stuff right out."

For me, the Bible is simply another book. I accept what's good in it and reject what's bad... just as I do with all other human words.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Aw. I was hoping for a lively debate. :sad4:

I heard that your mama wears combat boots. True?

 

[fallingblood]

[FONT=&quot]The passage in Luke 4 records Jesus in the synagogue on the Sabbath day reading from Isaiah. Clearly Jesus intent was to show Himself as the Savior of Israel and this is what Luke intended his readers to understand. The gospel was for the Jews first, then the Gentiles. The words Jesus read from Isaiah were prophetic and He read only the portion that was being fulfilled at that time by Him at His first advent. The remainder of the prophecy concerning God’s vindication on behalf of Zion (Israel) will take place when He returns again to the earth at Jerusalem.[/FONT]

Except it would not have been possible to read that passage, as there is no passage that states that. It is a combination and editing of three verses.

 

[Storm]

I heard that your mama wears combat boots. True?

LOL. Nothing you could say about my psycho ***** of a mother is going to provoke anything more intense than "you don't know the half of it." Nice try, though.

To totally ferret off, I've never understood that insult. What's wrong with combat boots?

 

[Storm]

I would say the same of all other scriptures. I find the concept of scriptures to be an unhealthy one.

Even when taken as the metaphors they are?

For me, the Bible is simply another book. I accept what's good in it and reject what's bad... just as I do with all other human words.

Fair enough.

 

[fallingblood]

Whether good or not, it seems to me that you've done little to debunk it. One can note that Luke's 'report' is little more than hearsay, but to suggest that Luke's possible failure to accurately quote what was read/said somehow falsifies the report is just silly.

If the passage is in question, then it gives little credibility to the idea that Jesus can read. From what can be seen in this passage from Luke, it is unlikely that it was actually something that occurred, but instead, was something created by Luke, or someone who shared Luke's theology.

Since we see this passage only in one Gospel, it also raises questions to its credibility. Since it is not mentioned anywhere else, since the way it is reported is highly unlikely, and since the verses are edited to fit Lukan theology, there is little reason to believe that it was a historical account of Jesus.

It isn't just one thing that falsifies the account, it is a combination of things that disqualify this verse as being authentic.

By the way, Schniedewind (How the Bible Became Book) suggests that the level of literacy in early Israel was likely much greater than previously thought, driven, in part, by the introduction of vowel letters in Hebrew.

I find that unlikely though. Scholars, in the past, have wanted to believe that literacy in Israel was higher. However, as more research has been done on the subject, the conclusion continues to be that literacy was exceptionally low in the area.

As for vowel letters in Hebrew, I don't think that would change much as the common language was Aramaic. Hebrew, at the time, was a limited language.

 

[fallingblood]

For me, the Bible is simply another book. I accept what's good in it and reject what's bad... just as I do with all other human words.

The problem is that the Bible simply is not just another book. I'm not saying it's scripture, or divine, or anything like that. But it is more than just simply a book.

It is a book that has greatly influenced Western culture. It is intimately tied into much of Western history, literature, ideas, etc. One may not accept all of the ideas in it; however, to deny its importance simply should not be done.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I understand.

Do you have a taste for anything else that mixes myth with historicities?

Such as:

Music
Movies
Art
Literature
Poetry
Theatre
Greek Tragedy
Epic

Just because something is *now* inherently religious doesn't render the mixture of myth and historicity useless.

But can't we discern the myth from the fact in the above?

Is it not a little harder to do that with biblical stories?

Adam and Eve comes to mind. Biblically speaking everyone viewed them as real people. The NT writers as well as Christians view what Adam and Eve did as a real act thus all are born sinners but some people view the stories as a metaphor.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But can't we discern the myth from the fact in the above?

Is it not a little harder to do that with biblical stories?

Adam and Eve comes to mind. Biblically speaking everyone viewed them as real people. The NT writers as well as Christians view what Adam and Eve did as a real act thus all are born sinners but some people view the stories as a metaphor.

That really depends on the subject.

It has been very difficult to solve the mysteries of the Mona Lisa, for example, and that wasn't created 2000 years ago.

The Bible's challenges come primarily with its age - we are so far seperated from the time period in which it is written that it is difficult to immediately know what is *intended* history and what is myth. Once one knows a bit of history (including rhetoric, philosophy, and custom), the Bible lends itself more readily to interpretation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That really depends on the subject.

It has been very difficult to solve the mysteries of the Mona Lisa, for example, and that wasn't created 2000 years ago.

The Bible's challenges come primarily with its age - we are so far seperated from the time period in which it is written that it is difficult to immediately know what is *intended* history and what is myth. Once one knows a bit of history (including rhetoric, philosophy, and custom), the Bible lends itself more readily to interpretation.

Thanks because this goes to what Oberon was saying in other threads concerning other figures in history, even more recent history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks because this goes to what Oberon was saying in other threads concerning other figures in history, even more recent history.

Yes. It's not just "figures" in history, but art - music - literature and so on.

We live in a world that mixes myth and history - it's like the air we breathe - and then the conflict between the two comes into sharp relief when we look at something as foreign and strange as the Bible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I understand.

Do you have a taste for anything else that mixes myth with historicities?

Such as:

Music
Movies
Art
Literature
Poetry
Theatre
Greek Tragedy
Epic

Just because something is *now* inherently religious doesn't render the mixture of myth and historicity useless.

I have a hard time getting my head entirely around your point, so I'll wing it.

The Bible seems different in kind from your other examples. People use it to root their entire beings. They use it to explain why we're here and what we're to do. The others aren't like that. They are entertainment.

Every once in awhile I'll encounter some guy who thinks that Star Wars explains All That Is, but he's a rare bird.

For myself, I learn more about God from poets and scientists than from 'scriptures.'

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To totally ferret off, I've never understood that insult. What's wrong with combat boots?

I think it's mostly a matter of poor style decisions. You know... camo boots with a pink pants suit?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The problem is that the Bible simply is not just another book. I'm not saying it's scripture, or divine, or anything like that. But it is more than just simply a book.

It is a book that has greatly influenced Western culture. It is intimately tied into much of Western history, literature, ideas, etc. One may not accept all of the ideas in it; however, to deny its importance simply should not be done.

I think that studying the Bible as one might study Greek and Roman mythology is just fine.