How can you be half and half?

[ebia]

So the author's attention and detail to time makes all the difference? That's it??? The big differentiator?

Perhaps without realising it you did two things.
Firstly, aspects of the story itself gave you clues - in this case time, place, who's involved.
Secondly there are signatures of a genre: "a long time ago, in a land far away..."
Almost certainly your brain recognised that as characteristic of a fairy tale. It could do that because it's familiar with that genre; it's heard lots of fairy tales before.

I'm going to compare the gospels to genesis 1 for simplicity.


The Gospels deal in details relatively close to their authors: they were written between about 35 (mark) to 60 years (john) after the events they describe, in place familiar to at least some of their audience and quite likely involving some people their audiences knew personally. The details match up as they should.

Genesis 1 is set in the dim and distant past in a place alien to audience. Lots of the details are mythic in scope

With genre, we look at what greek genres the gospels are most close to - and we find they are genres that are heavily factual.

We look to what genres Genesis 1 is like, and we find a close match in the Babylonian creation myth. What do creation myths do? They tell people their identity and place in the world. They tell them whether the world is a good place or a bad place. Genesis 1 is a straight refutation of the Babylonians myth: it tells of a God who brings order from chaos, who creates the world as a temple (ie somewhere for himself to dwell). Of a God who sets humanity to be the pinnacle of that creation, to represent him to creation and sum up creation back to him. And we not that it's rhythmic: this is a text to be chanted in liturgy.

 

[humbleServant77]

Nothing is wrong. I want a faith with no evidence or backbone to be shredded to pieces. If it can be replaced by something more substantial and convincing then I'll happily join back in.

Well I simultaneously can't tell exactly what you're saying, and I also get the basic gist of it. That you use the words "join back in," tells me that there's something wrong. The overall tenor of your threads, not just this one, tells me your Faith has been in a crisis. I want you to observe how Ebia and I are not contradicting one another AT ALL, and I tell you plainly I think that's pretty amazing, considering we're also telling you completely different things. I think that does add up to demonstrating there can be a rational Faith, not based on being someone else's puppet, that has plenty of "backbone," and also room for individuality. The allowance to breathe, and be human.

All based on the mind-boggling fact of God's Love for us. Don't forget that part! It's WAY more important than our own understanding. As far as understanding goes, one plants the other waters, but it is God that gives the increase.

Here's something for you to sink your teeth into:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6B2qTdacBY&list=WL&index=1

This is a wonderful College Prof doing his thing, which is to show you how Gen 1 was designed to be heard - and its anything but history. The people it was first written for (or perhaps before writing, but still) weren't at all concerned with history. Take some time to acquaint yourself with their concerns, and what they heard via the same words that have left you scratching your head.

 

[alexiscurious]

Perhaps without realising it you did two things.
Firstly, aspects of the story itself gave you clues - in this case time, place, who's involved.
Secondly there are signatures of a genre: "a long time ago, in a land far away..."
Almost certainly your brain recognised that as characteristic of a fairy tale. It could do that because it's familiar with that genre; it's heard lots of fairy tales before.

I'm going to compare the gospels to genesis 1 for simplicity.


The Gospels deal in details relatively close to their authors: they were written between about 35 (mark) to 60 years (john) after the events they describe, in place familiar to at least some of their audience and quite likely involving some people their audiences knew personally. The details match up as they should.

Hmm...the details match up as they should? Lots of people seem to disagree with this and say that they give different versions of the same story.

Genesis 1 is set in the dim and distant past in a place alien to audience. Lots of the details are mythic in scope

With genre, we look at what greek genres the gospels are most close to - and we find they are genres that are heavily factual.

We look to what genres Genesis 1 is like, and we find a close match in the Babylonian creation myth. What do creation myths do? They tell people their identity and place in the world. They tell them whether the world is a good place or a bad place. Genesis 1 is a straight refutation of the Babylonians myth: it tells of a God who brings order from chaos, who creates the world as a temple (ie somewhere for himself to dwell). Of a God who sets humanity to be the pinnacle of that creation, to represent him to creation and sum up creation back to him. And we not that it's rhythmic: this is a text to be chanted in liturgy.

Since were pulling out myths that resemble biblical stories I went ahead and pulled this out of a textbook written by Stephen L Harris about Dionysus of Thebes:

Although Jesus is a historical figure and Dionysus purely mythical, Dionysus's story contains events and themes-such as his divine parentage, violent death, decent into the Underworld, and subsequent resurrection to immortal life in heaven, where he sits near his father's throne-that the Christian church ultimately made part of Jesus' story.

So can I dismiss the story as factual now?

 

[ebia]

Hmm...the details match up as they should? Lots of people seem to disagree with this and say that they give different versions of the same story.

I mean the places, names, etc, all fit the real context of the place and time.

Independent tellings of an event should have some discrepancies. No two eyewitnesses perceive the thing in the same way. If the resurrection stories (say) had any less discrepancies we would know that there had been collaboration along the way; that we were not looking at independent accounts of the same event.

Since were pulling out myths that resemble biblical stories I went ahead and pulled this out of a textbook written by Stephen L Harris about Dionysus of Thebes:

Although Jesus is a historical figure and Dionysus purely mythical, Dionysus's story contains events and themes-such as his divine parentage, violent death, decent into the Underworld, and subsequent resurrection to immortal life in heaven, where he sits near his father's throne-that the Christian church ultimately made part of Jesus' story.

So can I dismiss the story as factual now?

No. At least not that simply. We are talking about genre, not a couple of cherry picked and manipulated supposed similarities in a story.

 

[ebia]

From that well known fundamentalist Christian source, Wikipedia:

Theories regarding such parallels were popular in the 19th century but were later on mostly rejected by contemporary scholarship. A few modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, Robert M. Price, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ;[60][61] though, Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.[62]

A few scholars of comparative mythology identify both Dionysus and Jesus with the dying-and-returning god mythological archetype.[12] However, this identification is often seen as superficial as most such deities had a cyclical nature, as they died and were reborn each year, representing the cycle of nature, while the resurrection of Christ was a single event placed in a specific historical and geographical context. On the other hand, Dionysus life-death-rebirth cycle was strongly tied to the grape harvest. Moreover it has been noted that the details of Dionysus death and rebirth are starkly different both in content and symbolism from Jesus, with Dionysus being (in the most common myth) torn to pieces and eaten by the titans and "eventually restored to a new life" from the heart that was left over.[63][64] Other elements, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, also have parallels.[65] Powell, in particular, argues precursors to the Catholic notion of transubstantiation can be found in Dionysian religion.[65] However such claims are strongly disputed as the rituals of Dionysus did not involve the transformation of the substance of bread and wine in the god himself. Rather the myth stated that Dionysus became the wine of libation, which was not drunk or consumed in any way, hence having a very different symbolism.

 

[humbleServant77]

Hmm...the details match up as they should? Lots of people seem to disagree with this and say that they give different versions of the same story.

It is the differences between the Gospels that is important, moreso than the harmony.

Although Jesus is a historical figure and Dionysus purely mythical, Dionysus's story contains events and themes-such as his divine parentage, violent death, decent into the Underworld, and subsequent resurrection to immortal life in heaven, where he sits near his father's throne-that the Christian church ultimately made part of Jesus' story.

So can I dismiss the story as factual now?

There are other religious tales that have similar things ion common, and some other details as well. Is it sensible to conclude that means they are all fake? Compare it to Noah's flood. We see some version of the story in pretty much every civilization, worldwide. Most of those have some very peculiar elements of the story in common. Do we conclude this makes them all phony? What sense does that make? Doesn't it rather tell us (at the very least) that the same God was giving people the same basic ideas? And maybe some of these details from antiquity were factual?

Whereas with Christ Himself, it fits much more closely with simply preparing people for what was to come, just as God gave Prophecy of it all in advance. I think you should see the same info coming from different sources as reinforcing the basic message.

 

[lesliedellow]

*sigh*

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of the old testament authors wrote about events where it was there intention that they be taken historically. Now my question is directed towards Christians who deny that the creation, flood, exile from Egypt, etc are non-historical (when they are obviously intended to be).

The question no one really answered but is the main point of this entire thread:

How can you still be a Christian if you know that the Bible has contents that are intended to be read as historical but are not actually historically accurate at all?

I don't for one minute supppose that the writer of Genesis 1 was primarily interested in history, and still less the science which wouldn't even have been part of his mental universe. He was writing with theological intent, which is why the narrative is fulkl of the word "God".

So the question I have to ask myself is do I take his belief that God was creator of the universe seriously? And the answer to that is yes I do.

My impression of fundamentalists who become atheists is that they might change their beliefs, but they don't change their mindset - everything still has to be literally true.