bbyrd009
“I don’t know anything. Ever…” DGently
hmm. Not in love with a “fictional” designation, tbh; mythology is how vital wisdom was translated to the next generation, until pretty recently? Of course “myth” means “lie” now, rightI noticed here that some points involve taking some of the Bible to be literal while other parts are non-literal. I think this point about "myths" in the Bible applies here:
From https://discourse.biologos.org/t/ri...ed-in-peer-review-for-the-first-time/37430/12What, in your opinion, was the worst way (or top 5 bad ways) in which Carrier handles evidence? I think the opposite is the case. I think most historical Jesus scholars (such as Bart Ehrman) would agree that much of what is attributed to Jesus is fictional. Bart Ehrman, a historicist, doesn’t think the Jesus really raised the dead or performed truly supernatural feats. The only question is in how much of Jesus’ story is fictional. Mythicists say “ALL of it” is fiction, where as secular historicists say that “MUCH of it” is made up, while evangelical Christians say… NONE of it is fictional.
So, once you learn what “Lazarus” reps—“Eleazar” in Greek—and find the mountain thrown into the sea (caesaria phillipi), i would say that it just becomes easier to understand? And being agnostic, you would be open to any new information, right? So by all means take whatever literally until seeking brings new info, and then consider that, imo.
I generally accept a literal interp easily enough, unless it involves Magical Thinking or an allegorical one provides more usefulness; but i mean really the central points, love your neighbor, forgive and you will be forgiven, pretty straightforward right. And imo for any thornier ones, we have other passages to act as Witnesses to whether we are on the right track or not
Also, the Wise Men at the Manger, Paul (of Tarsus), the Ethiopian Eunuch, and some others are usually understood to be evidence of their community’s approval of the text, which i guess would kind of infer mythology, since you wouldnt need approval for accurate journalism. There’s a pretty good arg on this on Stack Exchange…or at least a few cogent comments, it does devolve into an argument
Beliefs are also usually involved, right? Those guys…Carrier and Ehrman, they have beliefs? So iow you have to interrogate how their beliefs might be clouding their interpretations, since those in any camp would natch be forwarding the interps of those in that camp, and after long enough seeking among them, you begin to ask why they are, say, so strident about a certain position, or so against another position, and you come to the realization that what we label “beliefs” are really usually held as Absolute Truths, right, that cannot be assailed or even questioned, lest (God forbid) ___________ then happens; what do they put in the blank?
Bc it doesnt have to be what you would put in the blank, see, and fwiw i usually note some emotional existential position about the future or the past, which tbh i now take as like a warning sign, or at least a caution; is the Gospel really irrelevant if there is no immortality? Surely not, but many believers would echo that position
Which ird mean to get into here, but IDing Eve is important; she starts out as a Historical Figure that all humans derived from literally, and its only later that a comment on Kundalini is perceived, and the concept of male and female natures becomes involved, perhaps, which see any discussion of yin/yang is pretty much verboten for a believer, even if her desire will be for her man is acknowledged.
So, a good place to land on this discussion, imo; were Adam and Eve “real?” As in literal? Its the beginning of our Bible, and your position there is kinda gonna inform the rest of your reading, right? And you will be herded into taking a position by those in whatever camp, right, similar to the link you posted, when i suggest that not taking a position can also be a position
The simple act of observing can often alleviate or define the actual problem iow, assuming that there even is one
Which might seem like a cop out or something? But why do ppl seek to make the Bible “real?” Why does Jesus have to be literal to be meaningful to so many? After children are little, they enter a very literal stage, right; we even perceive jokes based upon their literal hearing, and understanding an allegory, which prolly seems pretty easy to you, is something that you nonetheless had to learn, and for some ppl it can be quite a struggle.
Youre fam with the thing where an adult was not able to understand a map, maybe? I kind of forget the story now, but the gist is that some adult who had never seen a map before just was not able to grasp the concept, which would surely strike us as pretty strange
Last edited: