Jesus raised from the dead, ascended into heaven. Fact? or Myth?

[BobRyan]

Do you consider the virgin birth, incarnation of God the Son, the resurrection and ascension of Christ to be "fact" or nothing more than myth?

Some have argued for myth.

I am one who believes in the historicity of Bible history, Bible miracles, Bible events recorded in scripture.

NOTE: (Some argue that we may not include the 7 day creation week on GT when talking about acceptance of the Bible so please don't bring that up on this thread so it can remain...)

By contrast I don't mind saying that purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, apostolic succession for the papacy - are all myths just as others would argue we should treat the Bible.

(Of course I do have one exception to that - and it is the apostolic succession of Judas in Acts 1 - that is historic fact.)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

They have? I'm pretty sure disbelief in that means you aren't Christian. I don't know what, but you sure aren't Christian.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Nicene Creed includes information about the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection and since we all subscribe to it doesn't it follow that all members of CF who profess faith in Jesus Christ believe these things?

 

[MKJ]

Your definition of myth seems a little dodgy to me, which is likely to confuse the question.

Even if apostolic succession were totally misguided, it wouldn't really be a myth. It would just be untrue.

For one thing, a myth needs to be part of a story or narrative, and I wouldn't say that is a great description of some of the things you have listed here.

And people who study mythology will tell you that it isn't necessarily the case that a myth is completely made up or untrue at all. The fact that we know about, say, the City of Troy from a mythical account doesn't mean the place does not or did not exist.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Do you consider the virgin birth, incarnation of God the Son, the resurrection and ascension of Christ to be "fact" or nothing more than myth?

Some have argued for myth.

I am one who believes in the historicity of Bible history, Bible miracles, Bible events recorded in scripture.

NOTE: (Some argue that we may not include the 7 day creation week on GT when talking about acceptance of the Bible so please don't bring that up on this thread so it can remain...)

By contrast I don't mind saying that purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, apostolic succession for the papacy - are all myths just as others would argue we should treat the Bible.

(Of course I do have one exception to that - and it is the apostolic succession of Judas in Acts 1 - that is historic fact.)

in Christ,

Bob

The historically resurrection of Jesus Christ and his ascension into heaven are facts, but that doesn't mean they aren't also myths. You're perpetuating the misuse of that term. A myth is a founding narrative outside the ordinary that is significant to a people or a culture in such a way that it cannot be fully communicated in bare historical terms, and the term does not imply either the falsity or factuality of its content.

The resurrection is a myth that is grounded in historical fact. It is the founding and constitutive event of the (re)new(ed) people of God, and its significance that it descriptions of the event cannot end at the bare historical facts. It cannot be merely that Jesus was raised from the dead, because that begs the question of significance: Jesus was raised from the dead for us and for our salvation. That's a myth, a true myth, and a true myth grounded in historical fact.

 

[Kristos]

I don't think you can treat the Bible as one entity - it's a collection of writings spanning thousands of years from different sources, with different purposes. Just because someone says I don't take the 7 days creation to be chronologically literal, doesn't mean that they treat other writings in the same way - especially the more recent writings of the New Testament. But even there I think it's important to remember the purposes of the writer and the context. The four gospels do not agree. With a strict literal approach that would mean that one of them is wrong and therefore shouldn't be included. Nobody says that though, so to some degree, acceptance of the NT canon implies an acceptance of things that don't always agree.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you consider the virgin birth, incarnation of God the Son, the resurrection and ascension of Christ to be "fact" or nothing more than myth?

Some have argued for myth.

I am one who believes in the historicity of Bible history, Bible miracles, Bible events recorded in scripture.

NOTE: (Some argue that we may not include the 7 day creation week on GT when talking about acceptance of the Bible so please don't bring that up on this thread so it can remain...)

By contrast I don't mind saying that purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, apostolic succession for the papacy - are all myths just as others would argue we should treat the Bible.

(Of course I do have one exception to that - and it is the apostolic succession of Judas in Acts 1 - that is historic fact.)

in Christ,

Bob

The writings about Jesus are fact, and if you had a complete Bible, you'd know that the doctrines of the Church are fact. In fact, you've already demonstrated apostolic succession, so where's the beef there? Purgatory is found in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere. And just as some people invoke Jesus, saying "What would Jesus do?" We ponder that question in regard to Mary. If Jesus is God, and he is, what would he do for his own mother? The Fathers of the Church tell us, and we have documents to prove them.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I don't think you can treat the Bible as one entity - it's a collection of writings spanning thousands of years from different source, with different purposes. Just because someone says I don't take the 7 days creation to be chronologically literal, doesn't mean that they treat other writings in the same way - especially the more recent writings of the New Testament. But even there I think it's important to remember the purposes of the writer and the context. The four gospels do not agree. With a strict literal approach that would mean that one of them is wrong and therefore shouldn't be included. No body says that though, so to some degree, acceptance of the NT canon implies an acceptance of things that don't always agree.

I've always pondered how the super literal bible interpreters reconciled the 4 gospels.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What is there to say of the mysteries anyway...
the mystery of Christ and the church can be known by anyone
who wants to dilegently seek them out,
yet even at that knowledge is not the same
as that which is revealed.
Revealation is a concept beyond the thought.
The greater mysteries of God we may never know
and then only to those to whom God reveals them.
They would be more in the mystical realm than in myths.

The first part of the mystery in this age is the church

Eph 5:32
This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church.

That's the first half of the mystery,
but the second half is Christ's death and ascention.

Matthew 16:21
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem
and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes
and be killed and on the third day be raised.

The parables are a perfect example of the mysteries
because disciples must have spiritual eyes and ears to see and hear.
The prophetic scriptures have made known the mysteries
that have been kept hidden since the world began and
is now delivered to the nations.
Even that which wasn't known that the prophets spoke of
is now revealed by the Holy Spirit
in order to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God
who created all things through Jesus Christ;
God's wisdom was predestined before the beginning of the ages
for our glory.
His leading into that glory may be the final mystery unravelled.
It may well be that God has willed to make known
what are the riches of the glory of this mystery,
Christ in you, the hope of glory,

 

[James Is Back]

Never mind!

 

[BobRyan]

The Nicene Creed includes information about the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection and since we all subscribe to it doesn't it follow that all members of CF who profess faith in Jesus Christ believe these things?

you should know - there is discussion on the origins forum no a thread you are on - where someone has claimed these are all myth.

In fact I was wondering if you also regard them as myth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I've always pondered how the super literal bible interpreters reconciled the 4 gospels.

I've always wondered why the Greek and Hebrew professors of all world-class universities consider the mythical "super literal" disparity cast upon Bible scholars for admitting what the Bible says - to be nonsense.

This includes scholars who do not believe in the historicity of the resurrection, incarnation, ascension of Christ, 7 day creation week etc.

They freely admit to what the Bible says while some people here attack it. I think you will join me in finding that to be odd.

Bart Ehrman for example of Chapel Hill loves to admit to the NT text statements all the while denying their historicity.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The writings about Jesus are fact, and if you had a complete Bible, you'd know that the doctrines of the Church are fact. In fact, you've already demonstrated apostolic succession, so where's the beef there?

Since you are referring to the one case in the Bible that we find apostolic succession - Acts 1...

I am not too disturbed by those who claim that Judas has a line of apostolic succession - as it turns out.

Purgatory is found in 1 Corinthians

Just not in real life.

And just as some people invoke Jesus, saying "What would Jesus do?" We ponder that question in regard to Mary. If Jesus is God, and he is, what would he do for his own mother? The Fathers of the Church tell us, and we have documents to prove them.

No NT first century documents (unless you are talking about the genra of "documents" like the "Donation of Constantine".

in any case you seem to admit that in that case they merely imagine to themselves... and make stuff up.

My question to is this - do you regard it all as nothing more than "myth"??

(I am looking to count those who will say "I do not regard it as nothing more than myth" or "as myth at all")

interesting that in some cases - that response is missing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Do you consider the virgin birth, incarnation of God the Son, the resurrection and ascension of Christ to be "fact" or nothing more than myth?

Some have argued for myth.

I am one who believes in the historicity of Bible history, Bible miracles, Bible events recorded in scripture.

NOTE: (Some argue that we may not include the 7 day creation week on GT when talking about acceptance of the Bible so please don't bring that up on this thread so it can remain...)

By contrast I don't mind saying that purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, apostolic succession for the papacy - are all myths just as others would argue we should treat the Bible.

(Of course I do have one exception to that - and it is the apostolic succession of Judas in Acts 1 - that is historic fact.)

The Nicene Creed includes information about the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection and since we all subscribe to it doesn't it follow that all members of CF who profess faith in Jesus Christ believe these things?

You have stated elsewhere that you hold a number of Bible passages to be myth.

In your response above - it appears that you do not consider the Bible history presented in the cases listed - to also be myth, and possibly do not consider the examples included from non-Bible sources to be myth either.

How do you know when to declare the Bible a myth and when not to??

popular vote??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[topcare]

I regard the SDA as a myth, yet you believe in it.

 

[BobRyan]

I regard the SDA as a myth, yet you believe in it.

Did you already comment on the details in the OP ??

 

[BobRyan]

Your definition of myth seems a little dodgy to me, which is likely to confuse the question.

Even if apostolic succession were totally misguided, it wouldn't really be a myth. It would just be untrue.

I didn't define myth -- I merely asked if you considered the list of Bible events given in the OP to be myth.

For one thing, a myth needs to be part of a story or narrative, and I wouldn't say that is a great description of some of the things you have listed here.

Turns out - the Gospels are written much like Acts in narrative form. Are you saying that you consider all of it myth because it is being written as an account of actual events?

And people who study mythology will tell you that it isn't necessarily the case that a myth is completely made up or untrue at all.

So then you consider the OP list to examples of "myth but true myth"???

The fact that we know about, say, the City of Troy from a mythical account doesn't mean the place does not or did not exist.

I see so finding a reference to king Herod or Pilate would make the Gospel accounts myth - but in a good way in your thinking?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

A little bit negative don't you think

Is it? if you don't believe in Christian beliefs, you aren't Christian. no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that too harsh to say?

 

[James Is Back]

Do the SDA's believe in the Nicene Creed?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Is it? if you don't believe in Christian beliefs, you aren't Christian. no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that too harsh to say?

Yes, actually, and against forum rules.